by Perry 365 Replies latest watchtower scandals
"length and cadence of song and coloration of plumage"
In that case a Maltese and a Irish Wolfhound would not be the same species.
Do you mean this hasn't already been done? Why ever not?
I've never heard of it done. We've been molding existing genetic material for thousands of years and have not introduced speciation, with the possible exception of Zea Mays, which may simply be an incredibly clever hybridizationand selection of certain mesoamerican wild grasses.
AuldSoul
Your idea of respect diverges quite a lot from mine. Divergent evolution prehaps? What use is mouthing respect if those you mouth it at don't feel it?
As I have conceded the points about ring species, your lack of conceding you made a non-comparable comparison is really illustrative.
You refuse to define ("set goal posts") a speciation event yourself, and thus predictably avoid ever having to accept one ever happened.
Instead you ask me to show an example of what I mentioned (evolutionary divergence over time resulting in infertiltity). You are asking for a proof that is not obtainable in observable time scales. I assume in saying this that by "empirical" you mean 'observable by the senses', and are excluding the many examples of similar species that cannot interbreed any persual of Talk Origins/a Univerisity library/Google can give you.
In effect you DO want to have an okapi give birth to a giraffe in your lap.
I predicted that you would either refuse to set goal-posts or set unreasonable standards. I never dreamed I would get both predictions right.
We mustn't miss out you ignoring the holes in the hypotheses competing with modern evolutionary theory. This is typical behaviour of the ID/creationist group, as previously commented. I am however, no prophet (there's no money in it, ho ho), I've just seen it all before.
Have you looked at the ERV information refered to by Gallileo yet?
Can you explain how dolphins with atavistic rear limbs fit ID/Creationism? This alone is a proof of macroevolution as it is consistent with evolutionary theory and inexplicable by ID/Creationism.
Any comment about the stunning "Marsupial 'world'", "Lemur 'world'" and "Bird 'world'" evolutionary examples that ID/Creationism cannot explain?
Rather than trying to satisfy your increasingly unreasonable standards of proof;
What EMPIRICAL proof do you have that an ass bred to hyracotherium or to megahippus would be an infertile breeding?
(pats pockets looking for time machine)
... I think it's time you shored up the holes in your own hypothesis.
ERV. Dolphin atavism. Australia/Madagasgar/New Zealand; explain.
You don't have to, of course, but you seem to want to be taken seriously. So, step up...
BurnTheShips: . . . with the possible exception of Zea Mays, which may simply be an incredibly clever hybridization and selection of certain mesoamerican wild grasses.
Well, if we are going to be talking 'mays', it may be a fairly recent evidence of direct assistance from a source of intelligence superior to the humans who used it.
I thought atheist evolutionists were for random events, given enough time of course.
Darwin’s theory of natural selection threw light on the perplexing question of why some traits thrive at the expense of others. With what has come to be called the neo-Darwinian paradigm, the basic idea of random variation and natural selection has been vastly extended by knowledge of the underlying genetic mechanisms, and mathematical formalization by population biologists. However, it is becoming increasingly evident that neo-Darwinism, powerful though it is, cannot account for all, or perhaps even most, biological change.[8]The concept of natural selection offers little in the way of explanation for biological forms and phenotypes arise in the first place. (Natural selection may be a powerful tool for describing biological change, but it can tell you little about the fitness of the offspring you would have with one healthy mate as opposed to another.) Moreover, non-Darwinian processes—such as autopoiesis,[9] emergence,[10]symbiosis,[11] punctuated equilibrium,[12] and epigenetic mechanisms[13]—play a vital role. Moreover, the generation of variation is not completely random; convergent pressures are already at work prior to the physical realization of organisms. First, mating is often assortative —mates are chosen on the basis of traits they possess or lack, rather than at random, in not just humans[14] but other species as well including plants[15]—and relatives are avoided as mates. Second, since Cairns’[16] initial report, there is increasing evidence of directed mutation , where the frequency of beneficial mutations is much higher than chance, particularly in environments to which an organism is not well adapted. Furthermore, the concept of fitness, a cornerstone of the neo-Darwinian enterprise, is problematic.[17] In sum, there is more going on in evolution than random variation and natural selection.
I can assure you that it's written by a non-theist evolutionist ....
Don't confuse evolutionist with darwinist.
This alone is a proof of macroevolution as it is consistent with evolutionary theory and inexplicable by ID/Creationism.It may be "proof", but many people were flat-earthers until the picture in Galileo's avatar was beamed back to Earth. There is proof, and there is proof. We need proof.
Burn
I actually wasn't posting this for your benefit, as you are quite clearly an idiot
Awwww, Galileo is so cute when he throws a tantrum.
Burn
The level of proof you require is so high that if applied to the hypotheses of Creationism or ID, it makes them unprovable. Thus proponents of such hypotheses requiring a level of proof they cannot provide for their own beliefs are engaging in intellectual dishonesty. A great big fat double standard.
Not that they'll admit it.
People living in glass paradigms shouldn't throw stones.
But go on, for a laugh, explain away a dolphins with atavistic rear limb/fins. To me the only rational explanation is evolutionary theory, and that it validates macroevolution.
What's your take on it? Other than disappearing from the converastion or avoiding answering it or intellectual dishonesty? Not that you'd do any of that.
What I find enormously funny is that those partaking in such empty posturing are doing so out of a wish to insist in some 'greater power/god/designer'. And that if they had enough faith, then their belief in such an entity doing things using natural selection would be quite possible.
Science gets the stick from believers who don't have enough faith to believe their entity of choice can make the Universe just by blowing on the dice the right way.
Isn't that ironic?
What use is mouthing respect if those you mouth it at don't feel it?
I 'mouthed' respect to you the last time I felt it on this thread, which was just before I read your baselessly ridiculing response to this post.
I haven't done so since and doubt seriously whether I will ever again on this subject, in future.
In effect you DO want to have an okapi give birth to a giraffe in your lap.
What I want is something we can empirically prove and reproduce which can no longer mate with either its ancestor or empirically known common descendant to produce offspring. To my knowledge (and possibly due to the rarity of okapi) no one has ever attempted to cross-breed an okapi and a giraffe. I have emailed to ask a noted zoologist whether this has been attempted and will be happy to share any reply I receive.
However inane your insistence that my standard is unreasonable, until that is accomplished you haven't got a proven case. I would recommend selecting something with a much faster life cycle and much larger populations to accomplish the feat. Your cute 'okapi' comment is not a very practical expectation at all, on either count, especially considering the low fertility rates among okapi due to widely divergent haploid variations.
Can you explain how dolphins with atavistic rear limbs fit ID/Creationism?
Variation allowed for within the coding itself.
Can you explain why evolutionists insist that intentionally engineered adaptability to environmental stressors within a given range would be a poor design model? It seems you want everything designed to be specific to a specific set of circumstances or to serve a specific function, when we have ample evidence of known design that does not fit that model at all.
—AuldSoul
The level of proof you require is so high that if applied to the hypotheses of Creationism or ID, it makes them unprovable.
I know this was directed to BTS, but as I require the same proof I will also respond.
I might not be able to prove to you specifically who intelligently designed life, but humans can consistently reproduce intelligently designed life that is speciated, can't we, inrainbows?
Glow-in-the-dark tobacco plants come to mind, somehow. And the things we have done with various grasses? Oh my. Oddly, we don't have to actually start from scratch. Consistently, we can intentionally speciate by intelligently using existing material and tweaking it. We can even predict our results with a fairly accomplished accuracy.
We can produce a variant on a theme that cannot produce viable life when crossbred to the original organic material.
Can you consistently reproduce such speciation by generational separation and random mutation?
I can do it using intelligent design, but I can't do it without intelligent design. That's all I'm saying.
—AuldSoul
The level of proof you require is so high that if applied to the hypotheses of Creationism or ID, it makes them unprovable. Thus proponents of such hypotheses requiring a level of proof they cannot provide for their own beliefs are engaging in intellectual dishonesty. A great big fat double standard.
It's not my doublestandard.
But go on, for a laugh, explain away a dolphins with atavistic rear limb/fins. To me the only rational explanation is evolutionary theory, and that it validates macroevolution.
I am not arguing against that, read my comments before you go off half-cocked. It only makes you look as narrow minded as you accuse those you are lambasting.
What's your take on it? Other than disappearing from the converastion or avoiding answering it or intellectual dishonesty? Not that you'd do any of that.
You just want argue don't you. My comments indicate my desire for a higher level of proof than we currently have, not because I require it, but because it will be more convincing for others.
