Evolution of new species of finch observed

[Grace of God]

wiki says England is only 20 miles long..lol


I'll add "evaluate and check information found" to the list.   

It wasn't an excuse - if it was you wouldn't have an answer. You asked a question that you obviously hadn't thought about, let alone tried to find the answer for yourself and then ignored the relevant information when it was supplied to you.

It doesn't take much knowledge and imagination to realise that male and female didn't have to suddenly appear at the same time.

by evaluate you mean, you chose to believe it's chosen version...

oh i've thought about it and a random mutation that produces a male or female in the same place and the same time seems like a long shot...

[SteveH]

by evaluate you mean, you chose to believe it's chosen version...

oh i've thought about it and a random mutation that produces a male or female in the same place and the same time seems like a long shot...

Read my earlier post.

[Stranger]

oh i've thought about it and a random mutation that produces a male or female in the same place and the same time seems like a long shot...

I absolutely agree. What part of them not having to suddenly appear at the same time are you finding difficult to grasp?

[Stranger]

I'll add "evaluate and check information found" to the list.   
...

by evaluate you mean, you chose to believe it's chosen version...

QED

[Grace of God]

I absolutely agree. What part of them not having to suddenly appear at the same time are you finding difficult to grasp?

I guess it's the part that why a mutation or anything else cause males and females to occur, at the same time in the same place..

you know the bit you dance around yet have not actually answered, in your own words..

[Stranger]

I guess it's the part that why a mutation or anything else cause males and females to occur, at the same time in the same place..

It's extremely unlikely that they did - as I've said several times now. What's the problem? Why keep on asking the same question after it's been pointed out that its whole premise is flawed?

I'm happy to help if you genuinely don't understand why what you're asking about didn't need to happen - but it looks to me as if you aren't even bothering to read the answers you're getting anyway...

[SusanDoris]

well said ...

It seems to go unnoticed that every creature seems to have parameters set in to their changes ...

I think you definitely need to read 'The Ancestor's Tale' by Richard Dawkkins,  where he sets out in straightforward terms how species evolve.

As I understand it, when a new species is identified, it is so declared becausee it cannot interbreed with the ancestor species, but I might have got that slightly wrong.

ETA I have now read through the rest of the thread. The profound ignorance evident in your posts, GofG, is desperately sad.

[Grace of God]

It's extremely unlikely that they did - as I've said several times now. What's the problem? Why keep on asking the same question after it's been pointed out that its whole premise is flawed?

I'm happy to help if you genuinely don't understand why what you're asking about didn't need to happen - but it looks to me as if you aren't even bothering to read the answers you're getting anyway...

so at some time we never had male and female of a species, so what would have caused the two to occur?? either separately or together ..

[Grace of God]

I think you definitely need to read 'The Ancestor's Tale' by Richard Dawkkins,  where he sets out in straightforward terms how species evolve.

As I understand it, when a new species is identified, it is so declared becausee it cannot interbreed with the ancestor species, but I might have got that slightly wrong.

ETA I have now read through the rest of the thread. The profound ignorance evident in your posts, GofG, is desperately sad.

lol i assume you are so profoundly ignorant of God existing that you seem so desperately sad to believers... then again I assume it does not work both ways...

[Anchorman]

Please don't tell me you're a YEC......

[SusanDoris]

lol i assume you are so profoundly ignorant of God existing that you seem so desperately sad to believers... then again I assume it does not work both ways...

It is very simple, you know, just present one verifiable fact, one objective observation of this god you believe exists, and all atheists wil accept it.

[Grace of God]

It is very simple, you know, just present one verifiable fact, one objective observation of this god you believe exists, and all atheists wil accept it.

there are facts perhaps you are just so stupid you do not see and understand them...

[SusanDoris]

there are facts perhaps you are just so stupid you do not see and understand them...

That's assertion. Produce some of these facts you believe are available.

[Stranger]

so at some time we never had male and female of a species, so what would have caused the two to occur?? either separately or together ..

Have you actually read anything that has been said about this? I don't known why your talking about "a species" as if it has to happen for each one. Most species with male and female would have evolved from species that already had the distinction.

As I said before, sexual reproduction came first in very simple, single-celled organisms (probably before the LECA - the ancestor of all plants, animals, and fungi - see previous link) - specialisation into male and female can develop later and doesn't need to happen all at once. There are hermaphrodites, organisms that use both sexual and asexual reproduction (see Steve's post), those that can change sex during their lifetime, and so on.

It really doesn't take much imagination to see any number of possible scenarios - and the changes need not be all that significant for simpler organisms.

[Stranger]

there are facts perhaps you are just so stupid you do not see and understand them...

Perhaps you don't actually have any facts and are just evading the question...   

[Grace of God]

Perhaps you don't actually have any facts and are just evading the question...   

another one who is to stupid to understand, are you related to the other poster by any chance??

[Stranger]

another one who is to [sic] stupid to understand, are you related to the other poster by any chance??

Further evasion noted.

[Grace of God]

That's assertion. Produce some of these facts you believe are available.

you wouldn't understand, you lack the intelligence required..

[Nearly Sane]

you wouldn't understand, you lack the intelligence required..

And this just looks like further evasion.

[Maeght]

you wouldn't understand, you lack the intelligence required..

Do you remember your first post on here GoG? If not, this is what you said.

'Hi , I'm a bible believing Christian and i'm looking forward to some very interesting debate, hope we can debate and get along.. '

What happened?

[Grace of God]

Have you actually read anything that has been said about this? I don't known why your talking about "a species" as if it has to happen for each one. Most species with male and female would have evolved from species that already had the distinction.

As I said before, sexual reproduction came first in very simple, single-celled organisms (probably before the LECA - the ancestor of all plants, animals, and fungi - see previous link) - specialisation into male and female can develop later and doesn't need to happen all at once. There are hermaphrodites, organisms that use both sexual and asexual reproduction (see Steve's post), those that can change sex during their lifetime, and so on.

It really doesn't take much imagination to see any number of possible scenarios - and the changes need not be all that significant for simpler organisms.

but isn't sexual reproduction less effective in many ways so why would it be a helpful evolutionary device, it wastes resources assuming it produces half and half male and female only half can further produce as opposed to asexual reproduction, so assuming that asexual would produce at probably twice the rate so asexual reproduction would be far more prolific. when you consider that the species that use sexual reproduction only perpetuate half of their successful genotype to transition from asexual reproduction to sexual reproduction is to gamble with 50% of there successful genotype, Given that the whole purpose of natural selection is the preservation of those organisms which pass on their successful genes, this strikes at the heart of evolutionary rationale.

[Stranger]

but isn't sexual reproduction less effective in many ways so why would it be a helpful evolutionary device, it wastes resources assuming it produces half and half male and female only half can further produce as opposed to asexual reproduction, so assuming that asexual would produce at probably twice the rate so asexual reproduction would be far more prolific. when you consider that the species that use sexual reproduction only perpetuate half of their successful genotype to transition from asexual reproduction to sexual reproduction is to gamble with 50% of there successful genotype, Given that the whole purpose of natural selection is the preservation of those organisms which pass on their successful genes, this strikes at the heart of evolutionary rationale.

And off we go in a totally different direction...

When a creationist who was previously asking really daft questions suddenly posts a few sentences that seem to make some sense, it's always instructive to search for one of said sentences in quotes: like this.

I have no confidence that you understand what you've cut and pasted but much has been written on the possible advantages of sexual reproduction which are not difficult to find if you're interested.

[Grace of God]

And off we go in a totally different direction...

When a creationist who was previously asking really daft questions suddenly posts a few sentences that seem to make some sense, it's always instructive to search for one of said sentences in quotes: like this.

I have no confidence that you understand what you've cut and pasted but much has been written on the possible advantages of sexual reproduction which are not difficult to find if you're interested.

if you have no answer just say so...

[Nearly Sane]

if you have no answer just say so...

Are you claiming that you wrote the original words, or just agreeing you cut and pasted them?if so, have alook at the rules and edit your post accordingly.

[Grace of God]

Are you claiming that you wrote the original words, or just agreeing you cut and pasted them?if so, have alook at the rules and edit your post accordingly.

those are my own words....