How is that to explain? Darwin thought Finks with different mouth shapes are different species????

I guess you mean “finches”?

They were different species because they were biologically isolated. 

They had different diets and, therefore, different beaks

yes finches. Finks is the german Name, i am from Germany

 

2 minutes ago, Strange said:

I guess you mean “finches”?

 

7 minutes ago, Maestro99 said:

yes finches. Finks is the german Name, i am from Germany

The Germans I know acknowledge evolution as fact. And the theory of evolution describes the process. You sound as though you've only studied it a little and decided it was wrong for some reason. That's not a well-reasoned learning strategy.

20 minutes ago, Maestro99 said:

How is that to explain?

Very poorly thought, IMO.

Did the differently-beaked finches interbreed? (Darwin's-time criterion for speciation).

Quote

The finches of Darwin were all the same species, but Darwin thought they would be interlinked different species

 

28 minutes ago, Maestro99 said:

Darwin thought Finks with different mouth shapes are different species????

Darwin's finches (also known as the Galápagos finches) are a group of about 26 species of passerine birds*.

Darwin thought the finches were different species and and they are different species, so Darwin was correct? Sorry if I misunderstand the question or issue here.

 

*) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin's_finches

 

15 minutes ago, joigus said:

Very poorly thought, IMO.

The Argument from Incredulity is especially dangerous, imo. Those who use it THINK they've asked a question, and usually expect an answer, but all they've done is stop the discussion (and thus their learning) with a non-supportive statement that can't have any meaningful replies. 

37 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

The Argument from Incredulity is especially dangerous, imo. Those who use it THINK they've asked a question, and usually expect an answer, but all they've done is stop the discussion (and thus their learning) with a non-supportive statement that can't have any meaningful replies. 

Exactly. It's a non-starter. I couldn't agree more. +1

Bad arguments give you a chance to highlight interesting issues, common misconceptions... Maybe we all discover here that Darwin missed a subtle point, or perhaps that some of us are missing a matter of subtle detail, some loophole, some interesting aside. If not the case, we all refresh the well-known facts, arguments, etc., and our understanding gets refreshed/reinforced, better understood.

I think one subtle point that is often overlooked, and can be important, is that "species" is an arbitrary distinction invented by humans for ease of categorising and cataloguing organisms. It doesn't't really correspond to anything specific in nature. For example, Darwin's finches are biologically isolated (hence regarded as different species) mainly by geographical separation. In many cases, they could interbreed if brought together.

So, even though "inability to breed" is commonly thought of as the definition of species, it is only part of it. A number of different factors are used to help draw the (arbitrary) line between populations. (This obviously relates to the chicken-and-egg discussion in another thread.)

27 minutes ago, Strange said:

So, even though "inability to breed" is commonly thought of as the definition of species, it is only part of it. A number of different factors are used to help draw the (arbitrary) line between populations. (This obviously relates to the chicken-and-egg discussion in another thread.)

Very good point, as always. +1

More modern criteria of speciation are slowly diluting into fuzzy categories.

If plants, fungi, protists, bacteria etc, could talk, they would give us a memorable speech about interbreeding. Wouldn't they?

Edited August 14, 20205 yr by joigus

I'm starting to think I didn't understand the point that the OP was trying to make.

21 minutes ago, joigus said:

I'm starting to think I didn't understand the point that the OP was trying to make.

I doubt the OP understands it either!

I hear that Darwin's eureka moment was the taste of the turtle's from different Island's.

23 hours ago, Phi for All said:

The Germans I know acknowledge evolution as fact. And the theory of evolution describes the process. You sound as though you've only studied it a little and decided it was wrong for some reason. That's not a well-reasoned learning strategy.

 I asked a Question. So Darwin thought that finches with different mouth shapes are a different species?

Are the many different races of dogs different species according to Darwin?

The truth is there is no such Thing as Evolution. It was never witnessed ever in the nature.

Edited August 15, 20205 yr by Maestro99

Darwin's finches (also known as the Galápagos finches) are a group of different species. It is unclear to me what your question is. 

 

19 minutes ago, Maestro99 said:

The truth is there is no such Thing as Evolution. It was never witnessed ever in the nature.

Can you provide a reliable reference so we may compare that claim to what mainstream science says?

14 minutes ago, Maestro99 said:

 I asked a Question. So Darwin thought that finches with different mouth shapes are a different species?

You made a statement of incredulity, and incorrectly put a question mark after it.

17 minutes ago, Maestro99 said:

 Are the many different races of dogs different species according to Darwin?

There is a difference between breeds of dogs and species of birds, and studying it might help you overcome this gap in your learning process.

21 minutes ago, Maestro99 said:

The truth is there is no such Thing as Evolution. It was never witnessed ever in the nature.

You may not trust the Theory of Evolution to describe the process we observe on a daily basis, but evolution itself is a fact. Nothing you say changes that. We observe it in nature every day. Don't you have some of your parent's traits?

 

Just now, Ghideon said:

Darwin's finches (also known as the Galápagos finches) are a group of different species. It is unclear to me what your question is. 

 

Can you provide a reliable reference so we may compare that claim to what mainstream science says?

they are not different species and you know it very well. they are the same species. called finches. They are only different races. Like dog races which are all the same species called DOG

1 minute ago, Phi for All said:

You made a statement of incredulity, and incorrectly put a question mark after it.

There is a difference between breeds of dogs and species of birds, and studying it might help you overcome this gap in your learning process.

You may not trust the Theory of Evolution to describe the process we observe on a daily basis, but evolution itself is a fact. Nothing you say changes that. We observe it in nature every day. Don't you have some of your parent's traits?

 

No you are mistaken. It is an Illusion to construct species Evolution from some proven different races of the same species. Microevolution is not Makroevolution like you Claim.

There’s no species called “dog.”

18 minutes ago, Maestro99 said:

Are the many different races of dogs different species according to Darwin?

Selective breeding changes the rules of the game. Even at molecular / tissue formation level. Have you ever wondered why black and white spotted animals are very common in selectively-bred species and not at all in the wild? How does the fur of these animals know their immediate ancestors have bred selectively? I can give you references if you're interested. "Selective breeding gives wild variation" is a known pattern that's in the process of being understood.

19 minutes ago, Maestro99 said:

The truth is there is no such Thing as Evolution. It was never witnessed ever in the nature.

It's been witnessed. But the evolution clock is so slow that you have to look very hard. I can give you references if you're interested.

You don't understand evolution, but now I understand that you don't understand evolution.

Just now, iNow said:

There’s no species called “dog.”

called CANIS FAMILIARIS

Exactly, and that’s not what you said

2 minutes ago, joigus said:

Selective breeding changes the rules of the game. Even at molecular / tissue formation level. Have you ever wondered why black and white spotted animals are very common in selectively-bred species and not at all in the wild? How does the fur of these animals know their immediate ancestors have bred selectively? I can give you references if you're interested. "Selective breeding gives wild variation" is a known pattern that's in the process of being understood.

It's been witnessed. But the evolution clock is so slow that you have to look very hard. I can give you references if you're interested.

You don't understand evolution, but now I understand that you don't understand evolution.

There is Nothing to understand. What you call as Evolution is just Microevolution and not Makroevolution which is needed to explain Species Transformation into another species.

Just now, Maestro99 said:

There is Nothing to understand.

This really says it all about your "approach".

Wow. He’s playing all the classics. Makes me feel young again. Will you do stairway to heaven next?

He must have watched a couple of documentaries about intelligent design.