Geologic History of North America Gets Overturned: New Data Disproves the Old

We see that the Evolution Faithful are NOW seeking to CHANGE THE DEFINITION of SPECIATION,as your "Talk Origins" link proves.

YOur "Iguana link" PROVES NOTHING. Did you even read it?


Evolutionary biologists would love to know what happens next: will the colonizing iguanas die out, will they survive and change only slightly, or will they become reproductively isolated from other Iguana iguana and become a new species? We could be watching the first steps of an allopatric speciation event, but in such a short time we can’t be sure.


What you call "PROOF" ^^^^^ Der...


am using the definition of "evolution" as defined by GENETICISTS.

Is BERKLEY "Creationists"?

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evoscales_01




It is the ACCEPTED DEFINITION,and ONE, does not lead to the OTHER, except in YOUR IMAGINATION, which is just ONE REASON why evolution remains an UNPROVEN THEORY.

IN 60,000,000 generations of fruit flies, over about 70 years, I really have no need whatsoever to lis the MYRIAD stimuli these insects have had visited upon them.

Are you incapable of accessing data on your own? That would explain your complete FAILURE to provide a SHRED of PROOF of MACRO EVOLUTION.

Start a thread about it; this one is about GEOLOGY.

 

It COMPLETELY CHANGES the way "plate tectonics work", insofar as North America:



For decades, geologists have thought that the mountain chains running from Alaska to Mexico were created from fragments of land scraped off a huge eastward-moving crustal plate, called the Farallon, that converged with North America and sunk below it over the past 200 million years or so. But a study published today in Nature1 suggests a different scenario. Arcs of islands, like those in today's western Pacific, may have piled atop one another, sinking and forming buried slabs. Then, as North America moved westward, it scraped off the tops of these slabs, raising mountains in the process.

Read the article(s) before posting, as though you know what they say...

 

Macroevolution IS speciation. Speciation has been observed. Macroevolution has been observed.

Stop clinging to your fake creationist crap.

 

BUllcrap. A German Shephard and a Collie are not EXAMPLES of MACRO EVOLUTION; they are both DOGS, but are DIFFERENT "SPECIES".

Macro evolution holds that a creature leads to another, entirely different type of creature, which is NONSENSE.

ONce again, where are all the SKELETAL RECORDS of all the creatures with the BEGINNINGS of WINGS?

We should be falling all over them..and before you FURTHER EMBARASS yourself, there is NO GENETIC LINK, between BATS (rodentia) and BIRDS...

 

Slight quibble about your OP: you generally want to lead off with your strongest link. I almost skimmed over the post when I read Yahoo, that is until I saw you citing Nature.com. Just start with them, that's a real peer-reviewed journal's website, and maybe follow up with something a little more for the lowest common denominator.

Slight quibble about the rest of the posts you made in this thread: you have no idea what evolution is, how speciation works, what is defined as macroevolution, and should shut up before you make more of a fool of yourself. Go read a (*)(*)(*)(*)ing science book.

 

German Shepherds and Collies are NOT different species. Seriously educate yourself. Start by reading the link I gave to talkorigins. It explains what a species is.

Stop using the dumbass croco-duck argument that creationists use. Its a total strawman.

 

Stop trying to REDEFINE what the word "SPECIES" is. Just as a WOLF and COYOTE are different SPECIES.

SCREW "talk origins" , your galringly NON-SCIENTIFIC Evolutionist Religious Text; I'll go with the ZOOLOGICAL definition of SPECIES, thank you.


Species

Definition

noun, singular or plural: species

(taxonomy)

(1) The lowest taxonomic rank, and the most basic unit or category of biological classification.

(2) An individual belonging to a group of organisms (or the entire group itself) having common characteristics and (usually) are capable of mating with one another to produce fertile offspring. Failing that (for example the Liger) It has to be ecologically and recognisably the same

No creature has EVER had offspring of a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT CREATURE. Sorry,and trying to "change the definitions" doesn't change THAT FACT.

Read your "Talk Origins" Religious Text. After all the "blah-blah this", and "blah blah that", what does it ACTUALLY CITE?

CHANGES WITHIN A SPECIES. SINGLE CELL ORGANISMS, at that.



Now, GET BACK ON TOPIC,or start an EVOLUTION THREAD, where you will be EQUALLY debunked.

 

The most COMPLETE LINK on the thread topic: ( A lot more DETAIL than the Yahoo, or Livescience links).


How the West was built


Seismic images suggest a different origin for North America's great mountain ranges



http://www.nature.com/news/how-the-west-was-built-1.12724

 

You are seriously ignorant of evolution if you think that's what the theory says has happened.

 

Grokmaster is indeed deluded. The beauty of true science is that as further evidence comes in that disproves a previous working theory, the theory gets discarded for a new one. Not immediately, and not without a lot of complaint from some of the scientists invested in the previous theory, but the change does get made eventually.

The evidence against evolution is non-existent. The word "evolution" means gradual change and adaption: it doesn't say that a creature has offspring of a completely different creature. The mechanism clearly described in evolutionary books and papers is one of gradual changes over many generations prompted by finding changes that better fit the habitat the creature lives in (survival of the fittest). You thus end up with a quite different creature after dozens of generations of incremental change.

 

A wolf is known as Canis lupus...

A coyote is known as Canis latrans...

However, both a German shepherd and a collie are known as Canis lupus familiaris...

Same species...

In fact, the only one out of the above listed that is actually a different species is the coyote...

 

I really don't see how this turns plate tectonics upside down. I see it as an interesting hypothesis and a possible refinement. But this story is not a whole new theory. The geology of Earth is understood pretty well, not to say there will not be some interesting discoveries that come. But I don't think we are going to see anything truly radical such new forms of volcanism as we do in the rest of the solar system.

 

So Grok....how old do YOU think the Earth is?

 

IN a nutshell, it IS what it says. The Religion of Evolution claims that ground bound creatures, somehow GREW WINGS , via their offspring, because they wanted food from higher than they could climb, essentially.
A GENETIC IMPOSSIBILITY.

If you have clearer description (you don't), let's see it.

- - - Updated - - -

Don't know...neither do you.

- - - Updated - - -

No one said it was a "whole new story". It is a COMPLETE REDO of the formation of North America.

PLease continue arguing against what was never said.

 

Neat stuff Grok. I always wondered about those islands sitting off the coast of Southern California. They're just too big and "out there" to be some random anomoly. The old archepelago explains it nicely.

 

No this is what you don't want to accept.

This is just another developement in the theory of plate techtonics- the theory proposed by these two scientists would change a specific understanding of one part of how plate techtonics affected North America but it doesn't change the fundamental theory of plate techtonics.

By the way- all of this is more similar to the theory of evolution than you may appreciate.

 

Instead of dredged up ground crust, the Rockies are displaced islands...bizarre.

 

They are different BREEDS of the same SPECIES, jeeeeez and you are try to talk Science here, wow..................

 

I appreciate it fine. It is THEORY based on new information. It is NOT "scientific fact"; NOR IS EVOLUTION.

Deal with it.

I don't know how many geologists you know; I know one, highly accomplished one, VERY well,and am famiiliar with more than a few of his colleagues, and this is a VERY BIG DEAL to them, your attempted dismissal notwithstanding.

 

So Grok, you have NO theories whatsoever on how and when the Earth formed or how and when life developed on this planet?

None whatsoever?

 

Fantastic- you are starting to grasp the beauty of evolution. That is one of the fundamental truths of evolution.

Humans have watched(and been involved) with the evolution of two species that I can think of- dogs and corn- and thats just off the top of my head.

Both species, with active human assistance, evolved within the last 50,000 years.

Evolution is as an observable fact as plate techtonics- actually more so- since evolution is observable geologically much like plate techtonics, taxonomically through modern species and fossils and genetically.

There is very much we don't know about evolution yet- but Darwin was close enough in the 19th century that he was able to predict, based upon the taxonomically similarity of chimpanzees and gorillas to humans, that the species that humans descended from would come from Africa- and modern science shows that to be true.

 

ALl canines are not the same species.
They cannot ALL BREED ,and have FERTILE OFFSPRING, despite their similar APPEARANCES.

Evolution is a THEORY, not proven fact. Sorry.

 

Adaptations and variations within a spieces group are NOT "evolution". Evolutionists have just renamed them so, to pretend they have PROVEN that one creature can develop offsrping of a completely different creature,which is a GENETIC IMPOSSIBILITY.

Please explain how WINGED CREATURES EVOLVED,and how those halfway through, failed to leave a SINGLE , SKELETAL record?

Where are they?

Get back on topic. You are WRONG in your attempts to "redefine" the magnitude of Sigloch and Milahlynuk's discovery, as well..

 

Grokmaster is just playing word games. Evolution will only ever be called a theory because we have no way of proving the universality of events. What pushs evolution on Earth could be completely different in other parts of the universe. Gravity gets to have a law because if our understanding is correct. No matter where you are in the universe mass will always act exactly the same when subject to interaction from other mass.

 

Actually plate techtonics and evolution are both accepted valid explanations of phenomenon

A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step—known as a theory—in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon.

http://www.livescience.com/21491-what-is-a-scientific-theory-definition-of-theory.html

As used in science, however, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena

Theories are foundations for furthering scientific knowledge and for putting the information gathered to practical use. Scientists use theories to develop inventions or find a cure for a disease.

For example- germ theory is based upon evolutionary theory- and used to find cures for diseases.