Richard Dawkins Gets "Expelled" by Ben Stein!

by Perry 365 Replies latest watchtower scandals

• 

  AuldSoul

  hamilcarr: You may want to consider this article on observed instances of speciation.

  Excerpted from your source:

  2.0 Species Definitions
  A discussion of speciation requires a definition of what constitutes a species. This is a topic of considerable debate within the biological community. Three recent reviews in the Journal of Phycology give some idea of the scope of the debate (Castenholz 1992, Manhart and McCourt 1992, Wood and Leatham 1992). There are a variety of different species concept currently in use by biologists. These include folk, biological, morphological, genetic, paleontological, evolutionary, phylogenetic and biosystematic definitions. In the interest of brevity, I'll only discuss four of these -- folk, biological, morphological and phylogenetic. A good review of species definitions is given in Stuessy 1990.
  
  2.1 The Folk Concept of Species
  
  Naturalists around the world have found that the individual plants and animals they see can be mentally grouped into a number of taxa, in which the individuals are basically alike. In societies that are close to nature, each taxon is given a name. These sorts of folk taxonomies have two features in common. One aspect is the idea of reproductive compatability and continuity within a species. Dogs beget dogs, they never beget cats! This has a firm grounding in folk knowledge. The second notion is that there is a discontinuity of variation between species. In other words, you can tell species apart by looking at them (Cronquist 1988).
  
  2.2 The Biological Species Concept
  Over the last few decades the theoretically preeminent species definition has been the biological species concept (BSC). This concept defines a species as a reproductive community.

  Between these two, I recommend neither.

  The author of your source uses BSC, which, conveniently for your intents on this thread, allow for non-reproductive "species" (in which concept, mules are a species rather than a hybrid of two genetically similar species) and for "species" for which there is and has ever been only ONE known example to have ever existed.

  I would obviously be receptive to an example of speciation via the Folk Species Concept, but I think that an unreasonably severe standard to meet and one I am sure you will readily agree you could not produce an example of.

  The Phenetic Species Concept would not be an unreasonably severe standard to meet if speciation is observably occurring to that degree.

  On the whole, I wonder if you even read the piece you linked. It throroughly confirms what I stated regarding self-limiting boundaries on viability. Without viability there may as well be no speciation recognized even using the BSC, because it could not propogate and therefore could not maintain existence as a species. A remarkable observation in your link is that without BOUNDARIES to prevent interbreeding sterilization results to speciated samples. How such naturally occurring boundaries be possible in sufficient quantity to account for what we all see around us every day, when it comes to variation of species?

  Respectfully,
  AuldSoul
• 

  BurnTheShips

  Finches

  But I've heard of different "species" of finch crossbreed and have viable young.

  Burn
• 

  BurnTheShips

  Perhaps some "instances" of macroevolution are merely examples of taxonomic sleight of hand.

  I really would like to see a concrete example of speciation in the lab. Separate two strains of fruit fly for a time, apply different selective pressures on each, and see if they qualify at the end of the process as different "species". Presumably directed human selection would be able to do what nature does at a much faster rate, and fruit flies have a quick generational turnover.

  Burn
• 

  inrainbows

  AuldSoul

  I apologize for my obtusity. I couldn't find where that site addressed anything except arguments I (for one) never put forward.

  Perhaps you could show how that site you linked to "covers" my response.

  As I give that link BEFORE I direct comments specifically at you, you are not being obtude, you are being something else entirely. I am providing commentary about that film, not about your comments on that film.

  I didn't really enjoy having the well poisoned, so to speak,

  No need to be so defensive; it isn't all about your argument you know

  but have now been exposed to some of its contents in such a way that I cannot fairly deny whether its contents are partially informing some of my viewpoints.

  Eh? So, you are objecting (ignoring your mistake in thinking I was talking about your comments) to me providing a commentary on a duplicitious hack job because now you've been exposed to it you can't deny that it's position is partially influencing yours.

  Wrong is wrong. Sort it out man.

  That's like someone supporting viewpoints put forth in The Protocols of the Elders of Zion objecting to someone showing it is a forgery because they "have now been exposed to some of its contents in such a way that I cannot fairly deny whether its contents are partially informing some of my viewpoints."

  A horse cross-bred with an ass produces a mule. A mule cross-bred with a mule produces what? I never argued, if you examine my statement carefully, that mules are always infertile. I said, in essence, that mules are not a viable species in their own right. I daresay you would not disagree with what I said, would you?

  You actually said;

  I believe that is why horses and asses can be bred to make a mule, but a male and female mule can't breed to make another mule.

  I didn't say you specifically exluded any possibility of a mule breeding, I just corrected the absolute nature of your above quoted statement by noting in passing that trans-species corssbreds are sometime fertile. I did not claim mules were a species.

  I showed the error in your thinking (mixing of two seperate gene pools being compared to mixing of same gene pool).

  You have avoided address this major, gaping error in your argument.

  I have also already provided an example (a very elementary one; not knowing about ring species when commenting on evolution is like not knowing the off-side rule when commenting on football) that shows extraspecial evolution takes place.

  Instead of being so defensive I suggest you do the research suggested and come back to the discussion.

  You obviously take care to inform yourself about how to defend opinions you have. Now whether you are willing to look at the flaws in the arguments you put forward when they are pointed out to you is another question. Like I say above 'Obvious[ly] Creationists et. al. avoid looking at them.'

  If it is established, prove it.

  Don't you think it a trifle arrogant to assume that the vast majority of scientists are satisfied by the proof of speciation by evolution because they're sloppy and don;t look for real proof. Maybe the problem is that you don't know enough?

  As there may be something wrong with your ability to look for contrary arguments to your own opinion, here's a starter pack;

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species

  Wow, Wikipedia, that took a loooooong time.

  http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/irwin.html
  http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/05/2/l_052_05.html
  http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VA1BioSpeciesConcept.shtml

  Ah, Google; took me a whole degree to learn to Google.

  I am sorry for the sarcasm Auld. You may well take umbrage and use that as an excuse not to respond.

  But you had already demonstrated a lack of willingness to inform yourself adequately to discuss this subject with competence by making such implicitly brash assumptions about the competence of the scientific community. You really only have yourself to blame. So temper my sarcasm with your arrogance, call it a draw, and do some research.

  Someone in a pub making a hilariously misinformed statement whilst commenting on football would get laughed at, especially if they implied the commentators and referees got it wrong.

  As in pub, so online.

  That should be simple enough.

  Yes, thus my reaction to you not knowing.

  Back to the subject of known design . . . with the advent of Object Oriented Programming, Artificial Intelligence, and Self-Modifying Code or Adaptive Code, comparisons which previously could not be effectively made between genetic code and known design can now be easily made. The great likelihood is that the more refined our known designs become in this vein of endeavor, the more closely similar examples of known design will become when compared with the sleek functionality of DNA, RNA, and mRNA.

  I believe the wide variety of life that cannot mate but which shares a similar base set of code now has a very close parallel in known design

  It is also predicted by evolutionary theory. Did you know that?
• 

  hamilcarr

  I would obviously be receptive to an example of speciation via the Folk Species Concept, but I think that an unreasonably severe standard to meet and one I am sure you will readily agree you could not produce an example of.

  Folk Concepts don't equal science. I'm sorry I can't help you, you've created a self-immune theory on speciation.

  On the whole, I wonder if you even read the piece you linked.

  No, I never do that.
• 

  AuldSoul

  Auldsoul, all you have to do is do a google search for 'examples of speciation'. Finches, Cichlid fish, insects, there's plenty there.

  I did. Finches remained finches. Fruit flies remained fruit flies. Each of many different beetles remained the sort of beetle it began as. The cichlid fish did not become largemouth bass or rainbow trout or sharks, they staunchly and stubbornly remained cichlid fish. As with Darwin's "amazing" work on Galapagos, there is nothing to observe or note except variation within species. Taxonomically, none of these examples became anything other than what they were to begin with beyond social variations within the species.

  One might well use similar taxonomomical methods to speciate Negroid, Caucasoid, and Mongoloid. Surely there is cause for speciation if one examines the social habits of each group during, let's say, the 400s to 800s AD. BSC is an example of science employing extreme bias in defining its terms so that it can be deemed correct.

  There's "plenty there" alright, plenty of talk and plenty of eagerness to bolster Darwinist theory by whatever imaginative stretches may be employed to the task. There is nothing of any weight whatsoever when it comes to showing that one thing evolved FROM another thing significantly different in form and function, not using mere behavior or decoration to speciate.

  Respectfully,
  AuldSoul
• 

  serotonin_wraith

  Work's been carried out on fruit flies, Burn. Check near the bottom: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VC1fEvidenceSpeciation.shtml

  Auldsoul,

  I did. Finches remained finches. Fruit flies remained fruit flies. Each of many different beetles remained the sort of beetle it began as. The cichlid fish did not become largemouth bass or rainbow trout or sharks, they staunchly and stubbornly remained cichlid fish. As with Darwin's "amazing" work on Galapagos, there is nothing to observe or note except variation within species. Taxonomically, none of these examples became anything other than what they were to begin with beyond social variations within the species.

  You are painfully unaware of how slow the process is. These examples show the start of speciation. If a bird can develop different beak sizes over a short amount of time, just imagine what changes you'd see if you came back in a million years. We see those kind of changes in the fossil record.

  Like I asked hooberus, if a species is capable of change, what's to stop it changing over and over until you have something that looks completely different? Look back at a photo of you as a baby. How did you change so much? Slow, gradual changes, one after the other, over time. I know you're still human, and I'm not saying animals evolve as they grow. The changes happen over subsequent generations.
• 

  hamilcarr

  There is nothing of any weight whatsoever when it comes to showing that one thing evolved FROM another thing significantly different in form and function, not using mere behavior or decoration to speciate.

  The clue to a better understanding of diachronic macro-change (speciation) is a study of synchronicvariation, i.e. using the present to explain the past. You may criticize this methodology, but imo it's the only thing we have. I'm not a biologist, and I kwow that the comparison may seem far-fetched, but as far as historical and variational linguistics is concerned, it works quite well.
• 

  BurnTheShips

  As there may be something wrong with your ability to look for contrary arguments to your own opinion, here's a starter pack;

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species

  Thanks for the link. I noticed the only example given is that of Larus seagulls. Supposedly the ring ends cannot interbreed, the wiki page says:

  However, the Lesser Black-backed Gulls and Herring Gull are sufficiently different that they do not normally interbreed

  Which leads me to think that they have interbred under non-normal circumstances, which would mean that they are not an example of macroevolution.

  The next link:

  http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/irwin.html

  From the link, the regarding the ring-ends:

  When they met again in southern California, the two expanding fronts were so different that they rarely interbred, and were therefore different species

  I did a bit of looking around, it seems they do interbreed, so the ring ends touch, and this is not a clear example of macroevolution:

  http://www.digitalnaturalist.com/darkcyn/darkcyn.html

  Ensatina Eschscholtzii and Ensatina klauberi are the two most genetically diverged populations however:

  Here is an Ensatina Eschscholtzii / Ensatina klauberi hybrid in Dark Canyon California.

  

  The ring ends touch, these populations of salamanders can and do interbreed. Can they be called different species?

  Burn
• 

  BurnTheShips

  http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VC1fEvidenceSpeciation.shtml

  Thanks Sero, read the part on fruit flies. Interesting, but it is still not clear cut. A preference for variety was expressed by the flies, but there is no concrete evidence of outright reproductive incompatibility.

  Perhaps they should have added more variables and extended the experiment for a few thousand more generations.

  Why hasn't that been done yet? Presumably the process could be speeded up a thousandfold in a lab.

  Burn