by GermanXJW 229 Replies latest jw friends
Realist:
I beg your attention for one moment. You stated:
""""Not one change of species into another is on record ... we cannot prove that a single species has been changed."
(Charles Darwin, My Life & Letters)
wrong statement...due to lack of knowledge at that time (around 1850 or so).""""""
Can you please cite the modern example of a change of species from one type into another? I know this question is beneath you, but please indulge me....
thichi,
ok a few examples of speciation at work....p. maniculatus (a mouse species in the rocky mountains), A. leucurus and A. harrisi (2 chipmunk species at the grand canyon), hundreds of drosophila species (fruitflies) on hawaii, a finch species in asia, and so on and so forth...there is an endless number of cases.
you can make a pubmed search ...that should yield enough results.
Realist:
What is your definition of what constitutes a species?
These could include folk, biological, morphological, genetic, paleontological, evolutionary, phylogenetic and biosystematic definitions.
Since the question is based on a quote from Darwin, In your mind, what was Darwin’s idea of "Species" in his quote?
as stated above:
the ususal definition is: animals belong to different species if they cannot produce fertile offspring in nature.
Ok, a simplistic answer, so a simplistic question:
Your example of a Mouse changing into a " " please feel in the blanks.
The problem is that the definition can include folk, biological, morphological, genetic, paleontological, evolutionary, phylogenetic and biosystematic definitions.
Since the question is based on a quote from Darwin, In your mind, what was Darwin’’s idea of "Species" in his quote?
Realist:
What definition do you agree with? :
The definition (proposed by Dobzhansky) is, "That stage of evolutionary progress at which the once actually or potentially interbreeding array of forms becomes segregated into two or more arrays which are physiologically incapable of interbreeding."
The definition (proposed by Ernst Mayr) is, "Groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations which are reproductively isolated from other such groups."
thichi,
i would agree with the first quote. (depending on the context of the second quote)
Thanks. Please stay with me....
By this definition, then, would you not agree that it makes it unambiguously clear that one species cannot breed with another?
thichi,
what ever your point is you win.... i am too tired tonight...
have a good one!
If you pursue this Evolution topic the same way you proceed from false assumptions, (regarding me), then I understand your reality. The issue is the merit of ID as opposed to Evolution. What are you doing? You can attack me all you want, but the fact still remains that it is the information, or reasons for your claims, that really matter, not my intelligence, or even your poor communication skills for that matter.
False assumptions regarding you? I have made some assumptions about you, but what I feel is PROVED is that you have an almost pathological obsession with foisting your opinions on people when you have no real knowledge of what you’re talking about. And you’ve done that YOURSELF. Even people who haven’t been taking part in discussions (and I do mean discussionS) see it and make comments.
But of course, they are wrong and you are right…
""Now, I have no problem with you questioning an author, or submitting questions. What I have a problem with is someone who doesn’’t know the difference between them making a good point and making themselves look silly."" Why not just state this up front. If this is what you really believe, then why did you say what you did? I feel that upon looking back at your words, you too realize that this was uncalled for.
Get back to me when you can make that a coherent sentence and actually cite whatever the hell it is you’re referring to. But you're probably an expert in English too...
"""" This should read, ""willing to type keywords into a search engine, go to the web sites found, and then cut and paste articles without knowing their relevancy, accuracy or honesty"""". Wow, there you go again! Is this all you got? Yes, we know your paranoid feelings about me, But you say or do noting to disprove what was posted. Would it make you feel better if I re-typed the information for you? Get real.
I point out if you state things in your own words, it demonstrates you know what you’re talking about. You don’t even understand the difference between re-typing information and putting it in your own words. I told you you were funny. I have also provided a resource for you to see what the rebuttals for many of the points you have raised are, and asked you to tell me which points are not rebutted so I can concentrate on them, so your statement “you say or do noting to disprove what was posted” is a lie. I thought you were a Christian, isn’t lying wrong, or is this theocratic warfare?
"""Oh please don’’t twist things…… people really aren’’t that stupid Thi Chi. I’’m asking you to put the argument in your own words. Like I do. Just like they expect at University. It indicates that you understand the argument you’’re making.""" Words mean things. I refer you to your comment and claim. More backtracking? Once your words are explored, it does look very ugly, does it not?
Again, with emphasis; get back to me when you can make that a coherent sentence and actually cite whatever the hell it is you’re referring to.
""Why not read through the threads with me and Jerry on them properly Thi Chi? He’’s a well respected Creationist amongst Creationists. I think you’’ll find his evasion, his bad science, and his personal attacks and lies illustrative"" If I can find three, no ten Scientists that disagree with you, what would we have? Only the Fallacy of your claims of Absolute Adherence to a mantra that some may disagree with. Who knows?
I think we’d have either three or ten scientists that disagreed with me. Nothing else. No comment on Jerry’s performance? Don’t you attack liars who support the argument you wish to support… oh, but you lie too, fine… I see… Oh, unsubstanciated claims regarding fallacies; please demonstrate.
Historically, how many times have we had the Science community denounce a viewpoint only to find out the minority was correct?
1/ Science is different from Natural Philosophy
2/ Church ordained doctrinal beliefs about the world are not ‘science’.
Bearing the above in mind, please give me an example.
Let me help you,
I think you need help at a couple of hundred bucks and hour…
History is not on your side.
No? Superstition 0, Science, quite a lot. Is superstition going to make a surge in the final quarter or something? Every superstition about the paranormal or supernatural (I’m not speaking of folk medicine or such like, but ghosties and god) remains either unproved or disproved. Science makes mistakes, but at least it moves forward and learns from them.
The less you believe, the less you are wrong.
Your lack or irony is refreshing; The less you believe, the less you are wrong! You’re the chap who ‘believes’ in things, at least in terms of belief as a faith, i.e. something that is held to be true without external objective backing.
I will continue to explore both sides, and point out the good and the bad, on both sides. Openminded, Fair and Balanced
Deluded? I think so. I think other people do too. And I’ve never seen you explore both sides, you stand and fight your presupposed opinion.
Regarding speciation… under the first of the two quotes you gave, then horses and donkeys would be the same species, as some crossbreeds are fertile. It would also make large numbers of bird that are commonly viewed as different species the same species. This is plainly ridiculous, as in the majority of the above cases interbreeding would not occur in the wild. With the birds, any interbreeding would have to be done artificially, as the females would not see the males as members of their own species due to the differences in sexual signalling, even if the sperm could successfully penetrate the egg and fertilise it.
The problem is that speciation is more of a spectrum than a black and white switch. This is predicted by standard evolutionary models, as it’s believed much speciation is through geographic divergence and later responses to differing natural selection factors, and through sexual selection. Interspecies fertility would be maintained long after the organisms were commonly identified as different species. Continued divergence or mutations would reach a point where there was no longer any possibility of interbreeding, even though in many cases no interbreeding would have taken place for a very very long time.
Thus I find that the second ‘weak’ definition is often the initially applicable descriptor of speciation, and that over time this leads to the first ‘strong’ descriptor.
If one examines the ‘mammal world’ (most of the world), the ‘marsupial world’ (
