Is evolution true?

Not until you define it as a falsifiable concept.

HA! Good one.

Actually bacteria can be used to demonstrate evolution because they can exchange genetic information with each other…

hammiverse.com/lectures/18/3.html

In order for a new species of bacteria to arrive, it has to not be able to exchange genetic information at all with another species.

So, humunculus, you were wrong to state that we can’t prove evolution through bacteria. It would be international news if we ever saw it!!!

So, this is the crux.
Compare a positive to a negative.
If one tiny doubt can be manufactured in the case for a science, all of that science falls.
If no incontrovertible proof is found against the claim for a deity, all of religion stands.

Try this instead:
On on side,
pile all of the evidence that supports evolution.
Next to it, pile all of the proofs that any specific observation in evolutionary biology is untrue or incorrect.

Then, on the on the other side,
pile all the evidence that supports the factuality of Abrahamic religions.
Next to that, pile all the specific proofs that negate individual claims within those religions.

Before wading in to evaluate the quality of each datum, it might be useful to compare the individual piles for size and weight.
You know, just to be fair.

Where did you get this obsession? What made you think it defines or limits the concept of evolution?

I didn’t say that. Evolution is demonstrated in bacterial cultures, routinely, every day. It’s not international news (!!!)
What they won’t demonstrate is your idee fixe about speciation.
I said you can’t get them to mate.
Ingesting fragments of chromosome from other bacterial strains in the same culture medium can also be construed as modifying the species, and thus evolving.
What they will not do, for you or anyone else, is reproduce sexually to recombine their DNA.

You’re being dense.

Evolution (not growth, not adaptation) is SOLELY defined by speciation. “Origin of SPECIES”. Remember???

A bear cannot fuck a lion and produce offspring!!!

That means they are a different SPECIES!!

In order for bacteria to speciate, new bacterium have to only be able to exchange DNA with each other, and no other bacterium on earth.

Like I said, talking to you and Peter is literally like talking to a 5 year old who’s never studied evolution!

E: Evolution (not growth, not adaptation) is SOLELY defined by speciation. “Origin of SPECIES”. Remember???
A bear cannot fuck a lion and produce offspring!!!
That means they are a different SPECIES!!

K: evolution is partly speciation, partly other stuff… that is what you don’t get…
speciation is part of evolution but not the whole thing… Natural selection has
a role and genetics plays a role… randomness has a role… that is what people
don’t get about evolution… its random nature… and you can show me where
exactly in “origin of species” does it say speciation is the ONLY aspect of evolution…
I have read the “Origin of Species” and I don’t recall it saying exactly that… so
point out the exact chapter in the book where it says “speciation is the only aspect of
evolution” and I will recant every word I said…

Kropotkin

Peter, the book itself is called “origin of species”

It’s not called, “the reason children don’t look exactly the same as their parents, parents they could reproduce with”

If you really think, like humunculus, that any change through generations is “origin of species”, you are defining species as adaptation …

Does it ever occur to you that Darwin himself jumped to conclusions ?

K: yes, the “Origins of Species” is how do we get different species? by such things
as speciation and natural selection and genetics, (although in his time, Darwin
had no idea about genetics and the introduction of genetics greatly helped
Darwin’s theory by putting into place the mechanism of how in mating we
differ from our parents… which is why we have children who don’t look
exactly like their parents…that is part of evolution) now note Darwin didn’t
address the actual ORIGINS of the species, be it god or some other mechanism…
but he did address the reason why we have man and lions and tigers and bears, oh my…
Darwin didn’t jump to any conclusions, in fact if you read about how the book of
the “origins of species” came about, you will see that he worked on the theory itself
for over 20 years until pushed into publishing his book by Wallace
who was going to publish his book which said pretty much
what Darwin was going to say…his voyage to the Galapagos islands
was around 1830 and he didn’t publish his book until 1859…

you are fixated on only one aspect of evolution and missing the whole
other side of why evolution is so successful in understanding how
we have the species we have… natural selection and genetics
and speciation are all part of evolution… learn ALL the aspects of
evolution and you will find all your answers…

Kropotkin

Natural selection - I don’t disagree with

Speciation, which is really the whole point of Darwin’s book - has never been observed

lol

K: oh, for the love of god… I give up…you are too stupid to learn…
I have already given you an example of speciation and Darwin’s book isn’t
all about speciation and you would know that if you had read it and
speciation has been observed because you don’t understand what
speciation is, that is why you don’t think it has been observed…
Jesus on a stick… I am done… I can’t deal with your special brand of stupidity…

Kropotkin

Peter, you don’t know the difference between adaptation and speciation.

Not my mistake

According to different science sites that I just read, evolution is the process and speciation is the end results. (That is the simplified version of what I read.)

That’s because, unlike what Peter and humunculus is saying, Darwinism is fundamentally a theory of speciation. As in: different species

It’s not foundationally a theory of adaptation

Really, what Darwinism is is the collection of observable adaptations theorized to cause speciation through random mutation.

Darwinism actually presupposes that there was a first “ancestor” it’s own “Big Bang”

The “ancestor” (common ancestor) could be hydrogen.

The problem with this God type necessary inference of Darwinism is that, while adaptation through decent through modification has been observed and is easy to observe, speciation never has been observed.

Maybe a little oversimplified. How can there be an “end result” to an ongoing process?

Taxonomy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxonomic_rank is simply a way of classifying biological entities as we observe them in the present.
If a specimen is mistakenly classified as one species, because its outward characteristics resemble those of a closely related genus in its family, but on closer examination, its genetic code reveals it to belong to another branch of the same family, it gets reclassified. No big deal. The whole system of ranking is for the purpose of keeping tidy books. It doesn’t in any way affect the process of random mutation, natural selection, adaptation and survival.

Speciation is a concept some creationists have got the wrong end of and keep trying to milk, even though it’s a male.

I keep asking you: According to whom?

Yes, I do, even though that title was chosen a century and half ago. There were some chapters inside.

And that was all a hundred years before the electron microscope.
Have you really not read anything since? If you won’t read anything more recently, at least you could do Darwin the courtesy of getting past the title.

So, you just cannot get it through your head that bacteria don’t fuck?
What will you make of Saccharomyces pastorianus vs Agaricus bisporus, which also don’t fuck, and are nevertheless very different species? And then there’s potatoes, which do both!

Dude at some point you have to call a Poodle a Poodle. The average brain does not give a crap that 109 years from now Poodles will be something else. Sure we all know there is no end but, there must be categories.

Bacteria does not procreate but, they can combine then split into a new. Bacteria also adapts.
By combining one takes over another and the result is adaptations which creates new. Now I do not have the scientific jargon correct but, it is close.