How else are scientists supposed to figure out how nature does it. The scientists mimic nature in order to study it.These examples, it seems to me, all involve human (intelligent) intervention of some kind and cannot be considered speciation by random mutation and natural selection.
Of course. However, the possibility of these specimens being introduced by chance from the outside is null, because these plants were grown in environments tailored to isolate the plants already inside. So at the very least, a species evolved which happened to already exist.If a thing is new to the mind of man does not also mean that it is new to nature.
Yes. The rub is how to design an experiment to produce evidence supporting a hypothesis that claims no design in nature. A movement to precisely define “species” is, I think, a necessary step.How else are scientists supposed to figure out how nature does it. The scientists mimic nature in order to study it.
Yes. Defining “species” as the collection of organisms whose reproductive components can be combined to produce offspring would be, I think, a good start.Studying the genes can be one way, ability to breed with its own but not a parent is another.
Perhaps the probability of occurring in nature is low but never null. I do not follow the idea that “a species evolved which happened to already exist”. If a thing already exists then it does not evolve later.Of course. However, the possibility of these specimens being introduced by chance from the outside is null, because these plants were grown in environments tailored to isolate the plants already inside. So at the very least, a species evolved which happened to already exist.
Perhaps I missed those. Which examples were neither caused by man nor just discovered by man?Some of the examples provided by @Pattylt were not caused by man.
Both of these happened naturally and were then discovered and studied. If a new species suddenly appears in an area where they never were before what else could have caused it except natural evolution?Hemp nettle was a new species of plant created by the hybridization, in natural form, of Galeopsis pubescens and Galeopsis speciosa.
In 1905 de Vries found that some of his evening primroses, Oenothera lamarckiana, had developed a variant number of chromosomes that was not able to be bred with the original plant. The new species was then named Oenothera gigas.
These two are examples of men having observed the plants before and after speciation events.The tragopogon miscellus was a macroevolution of Tragopogon dubius and Tragopogon protensis.
Do you recall the oft given asexual crawdad example claiming a newly discovered species in Germany with a sketchy provenance from a shop in Florida? The evolution scientists agreed absent an exhaustive search of the Florida everglades, that claim must remain in suspense.Both of these happened naturally and were then discovered and studied. If a new species suddenly appears in an area where they never were before what else could have caused it except natural evolution?
Yes because crawdads have locomotion. Flowers don’t. Even windborn pollen can only blow so far and I’m sure the native populations of flowers are known for quite a large area.The evolution scientists agreed absent an exhaustive search of the Florida everglades, that claim must remain in suspense
Can you cite the relevant text in the study that makes the claim of speciation? In the past, another poster used data dumps giving links to various studies that did not in fact support his claim. Now when I ask for the relevant text, the poster simply does not reply.These two are examples of men having observed the plants before and after speciation events.
Can you cite the relevant text in the study that makes the claim of speciation? In the past, another poster used data dumps giving links to various studies that did not in fact support his claim. Now when I ask for the relevant text, the poster simply does not reply.Even windborn pollen can only blow so far and I’m sure the native populations of flowers are known for quite a large area.
Without spending hours, I did a quick search and I think this is what you are requesting…tragopogon miscellus was a macroevolution of Tragopogon dubius and Tragopogon protensis.
Surely only a Darwinist would not find it curious that, if H. sapiens have existed for 400, 000 years, they invented rafts, writing, metallurgy and the wheel only in the last 10, 000 years.If I remember aright, @Buzzard3 is not a YEC. Just thinks humanity cannot have spent many thousands of years not discovering America, not inventing writing, etc.
It took human beings 400,000 years to invent a simple raft and the wheel and writing - Darwinist folklore is a riot … so funny!For the last time, metallurgy, the wheel, and writing did not and could not exist until societies were formed, which could not exist until agriculture, which could not exist for most of human history because the environment simply didn’t allow it.
Yep, there you go again. Ho ho ho. Thank goodness you don’t bamboozle us folklorists with anything like reason or facts.It took human beings 400,000 years to invent a simple raft and the wheel and writing - Darwinist folklore is a riot … so funny!