Don't tell me there's no proof for evolution

Im gonna say that RL is unwilling to acknowledeg ignorance. His ability to deny evidence is almost pathological.
Id love to see him argue with an IDer or an OEC. The fact that he denies evidence is not a problem that we should be anything but amused at.

He still is deftly avoiding all his own evdence. Just to remind everyone, as soon as he gets close to having to answer a pointed question, he tries to get snotty and try ridicule of established science.
If RL has anything better to add, hes sure not able or willing. If he had anything compelling I think he would have trotted it out by now. Hows that look for his "worldview" ? If theres no evidence to support it, nor any hope of even finding any (if thats why all the ICR people have given up on "finding the ARk" or "proving the Grand Canyon was a product of a flood" or that "earth is less than 10000years old"). Kind of bankrupt ?

Whats the Difference between the Bible and Harry Potter?-- Everyone freely admits that Harry Potter is made-up.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

No, i'm saying that it is not simply whether or not two individuals can successfully interbreed. The recent bear example might be an indicator--however, no one knows if the offspring were sexually viable. If there were sufficient evidence that successful interbreeding were not a basis upon which to determine speciation, evolutionary biologists would redefine their terms.

I appreciate your willingness to address this issue of speciation.

(I am somewhat disappointed in fm's unwillingness to do same.)

Hope you are having a great day. Smile

0 Replies

Why don't you educate yourself for a change, "real life?"

**********************************************************

In biology, a species is one of the basic units of biological classification. A species is often defined as a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring. While in many cases this definition is adequate, more precise or differing measures are often used, such as based on similarity of DNA or on the presence of specific locally-adapted traits.

The commonly used names for plant and animal taxa sometimes correspond to species: for example, "lion," "walrus," and "Camphor tree." But they often do not: for example, "deer" refers to a family of 34 species, including the Red Deer and Mule Deer; and "orangutan", while once considered a single species, has been found to be two.

A usable definition of the word "species" and reliable methods of identifying particular species are essential for stating and testing biological theories and for measuring biodiversity. Traditionally, multiple examples of a proposed species must be studied for unifying characters before it can be regarded as a species. Extinct species known only from fossils are generally difficult to give precise taxonomic rankings to. A species which has been described scientifically can be referred to by its binomial names.

Source at Wikipedia

***************************************************************************

The question "What is a species?" is the center of a REALLY contentious debate in all aspects of evolutionary biology. There are several different approaches to the "species definition" in use today.

The definition you allude to is known as the "biological species definition" - species are naturally-occuring, naturally-reproducing populations of organisms. A critter is a member of that species if, mated to another member of the species, they produce offpring which are in turn capable of producing offspring of that species. Thus, since the offspring of a horse and donkey, or a tiger and lion, are sterile (almost all the time), horses and donkeys, and tigers and lions, are members of different species.

Some other species definitions are the Specific Mate Recognition System (SMRS) and the Phylogenetic Species definition. Under SMRS, species are defined by their particular (dare I say, specific) set of mating cues and anatomy - e.g., different horns in different bovid species, different phermones in different insects, different genital anatomy in the various beetle species, etc. Under the Phylogenetic Species definition, species are defined by the branching off of populations - the ability to breed with your sister-group is a primitive feature, but the inability to do so is a derived feature acquired during post-split evolution.

From an e-mail to staff at the University of Pennsylvania, written by Tom Holtz, of the United States Geological Survery, March, 1995.

******************************************************************

There is no convenient summary or "sound bite" for the following. Therefore, the reader is urged to read "What is a Species, and What is Not?," Ernst Mayr, in Philosophy of Science, Vol. 33, June, 1996.

Mayer, What is a Species and What is Not?, at AOL's "The Darwin Page."

0 Replies

Quote:

Anything that is at a species or higher level is macro evolution because it can be demonstrated that different species will not interbreed. The test is ability to breed, anything below species is subspeies or variety.

from http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1214227&highlight=interbreed#1214227

Quote:

If you put various varieties of dogs on an island you are merely putting one species on the island. The definition of species is the ability to interbreed

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1211902&highlight=interbreed#1211902

Quote:

macroevolution is just a name weve given to describe changes at species level or higher. To prove that it HAS worked, we look at the fossil record and decide when the boundaries are broken between species and higher taxa. As far as Im concerned, the ability to NOT INTERBREED on two closely related species is proof enough.

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1180820&highlight=interbreed#1180820

Quote:

CI originally made reference to different finches on the Galapaagos islaands. these finches are sepaarate species and their genetic makeeup show minor differeence from each other as they are still diverging from the original parent (common ancestor ) finch. The fact that they are separate species means that they dont interbreed and that defeats Bibs whole story.

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1096375&highlight=interbreed#1096375

0 Replies

Real Life omitted a more recent quote from farmerman:

farmerman wrote:

Quote:
So, given evidence that two species share genetic information that produces similar traits, you conclude 'it's evolution'.

But then, given evidence that two species do NOT share genetic information but still have similar traits, you conclude 'it's evolution'.

See, it really doesn't matter what the evidence is, you're going to interpret it as supporting evolution, aren't you?

For those wondering, 'what's fm talking about?' , here's a concise link
http://www.txtwriter.com/backgrounders/Evolution/EVpage14.html

WHY does this begin to sound like a performance of "whos on first?". The discussion of convergent evolution is fairly well (and simply treated on your link). Add to the fact that there are ranges of genetic information AMONG the marsupials, monotremes, placentals, and , as well as clear fossil linkages of all 8 or so mammalian orders from successive strata.

In the realms of reality and evidence, your own "elegant" fairy tales lack any semblance of order, systematics, derivation of forms , linkages, as well as geologic preservation of precursors.

0 Replies

WOW, I didnt know that RL was keeping a dossier on my posts. (with arrows and colors on the appropriate words to signify importance).
My comments still hold. The working definition of a species (not fossil species because Ive already stated the conditions from which we assign species status in the fossil record and you merely fail to include that) is an ultimate attainment of a condition of sexual isolation from its other organisms of related varieties.

"

So I guess Imwondering where youre going. You are smart enough to measure the oncept of sexual isolation, are you not?

Quote:

I appreciate your willingness to address this issue of speciation.

(I am somewhat disappointed in fm's unwillingness to do same.)

I might say that, from that line of BS , you are a disengenuous SOS. there RL. Youve been attempting a joust in the clouds over an issue that , by definition, is a keystone of biodiversity and evolution. I can understand why you wish to poo pooh the concept but , so far, you havent presented anything worth countering. Why should I be the only one debating if all you do is finish with a NO IT ISNT and A NYAH NYAH NYAH.Give me some counters as to how an RL nomenclature would work??. According to you EVERYTHING interbreeds. Thats just stupid because , genetics, the fossil record, adaptive radiation, biogeographic distribution , and ecological niche exploitation say that youre just all wet.

When species develop, we can see that, like the red wolf species of the AFar, they will interbreed until, at some time, they statistically become sexually isolated as the evolutionary divergence makes itself felt in the splitting (or budding) populations. Complete sexual isolation may take decades or centuries, only by constant study can we see the point of complete isolation (rather than mere dimorphism)
The Manatee and Dugong are sexually isolated (yet fully capable of being forced to interbreed) Theyve become sexually isolated by virtue of occupying separate niches. (by geographic isolation)

The speciation of specific dense billed finches on certain islands of the GAlapogos have been studied for alomost 50 years by Prnceton U. The isolation of 2 of the varieties has gone on after , perhaps 100 generations and there is the almost complete sexual isolation of a few subspecies that would confer species status

The reason that the species concept revolves around sexual isolation, is that, higher and higher taxa are fully isolated sexually and we then look at more gross morphological differences to define them into further convenient classification groups.(In other words, once sexual isolation is a given, all other morph differences are in play)However, since the Linnean system has never considered genetic differences , the newest (Alphaneumeric system proposed recently) looks first at

1 sexual isolation

2genetic diversity

3morphology

There is no raging argument in "what is a species" , most raging arguments in this area are among Creationists thmselves who wish to show their relevance. However, as I said before, youre Creationist beliefs are bankrupt and without ANY evidence.

YOU know, when I read those quotes you posted, I was aware they were mine from my "signature" sloppy spelling.

For those whove not recorded the Farmerman species criterion, It Is primarily SEXUAL ISOLATION, got it RL?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

If a 'new species' were to originate (it must, by definition start with one member, unless somehow magically many members all receive the same mutation at the same time and 'cross the line') , then since that one new member cannot interbreed with any of the other species, the 'new species' is toast.

This is just wrong.

Hopefully Neo isn't boneheaded enough to try to learn anything about evolution from you.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

farmerman wrote:
Quote:
Coral and sediments on top of the world's tallest mountains indicate they were once undersea.

So it dispatches the oft stated objection to the Flood:

You then agree with me t5hat they were once "UNDERSEA". SEA is not a flood, it is a SEA.

If the entire world is flooded, it is all 'undersea' at that point , is it not?

All the parts of the world has been flooded at one time or another. But all parts weren't all flooded at the same time.

Why are fossils so neatly distributed instead of all jumbled together?

Evolution: A change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next.

Creationism: The belief that oak-trees can outrun raptors when trying to escape to higher ground during a global flood.

0 Replies

you've obviously never been run over by an oak tree.

Tree
K
O

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

real life wrote:
If a 'new species' were to originate (it must, by definition start with one member, unless somehow magically many members all receive the same mutation at the same time and 'cross the line') , then since that one new member cannot interbreed with any of the other species, the 'new species' is toast.

This is just wrong.

Hopefully Neo isn't boneheaded enough to try to learn anything about evolution from you.

I don't often swim in this pool as I know a fair amount about the bible but precious little of natural science.

Nevertheless, when I see an absolute statement made without explanation I have to ask: Why is it just wrong?

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
real life wrote:
If a 'new species' were to originate (it must, by definition start with one member, unless somehow magically many members all receive the same mutation at the same time and 'cross the line') , then since that one new member cannot interbreed with any of the other species, the 'new species' is toast.

This is just wrong.

Hopefully Neo isn't boneheaded enough to try to learn anything about evolution from you.
I don't often swim in this pool as I know a fair amount about the bible but precious little of natural science.

Nevertheless, when I see an absolute statement made without explanation I have to ask: Why is it just wrong?

Because new species never start with just one member.

real life wrote:

If a 'new species' were to originate (it must, by definition start with one member...

And that is simply incorrect. It's not what the theory of evolution says, and it's not what the evidence shows.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

neologist wrote:
rosborne979 wrote:
real life wrote:
If a 'new species' were to originate (it must, by definition start with one member, unless somehow magically many members all receive the same mutation at the same time and 'cross the line') , then since that one new member cannot interbreed with any of the other species, the 'new species' is toast.

This is just wrong.

Hopefully Neo isn't boneheaded enough to try to learn anything about evolution from you.
I don't often swim in this pool as I know a fair amount about the bible but precious little of natural science.

Nevertheless, when I see an absolute statement made without explanation I have to ask: Why is it just wrong?

Because new species never start with just one member.

real life wrote:
If a 'new species' were to originate (it must, by definition start with one member...

And that is simply incorrect. It's not what the theory of evolution says, and it's not what the evidence shows.

So a beneficial mutation must occur in two individuals?

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

So a beneficial mutation must occur in two individuals?

A single mutation, beneficial or not, does not define a new species. Even multiple mutations do not define a new species. Mutations are relatively small.

A mutation occurs once and spreads through the population.

Many mutations occur and spread through the population.

A population accumulates many mutations and variations (by the way, mutation is not always necessary, variation of existing gene combinations can also lead to new species) and natural selection relentlessly culls the population when any selectable trait begins to interact with the environment.

This leads to a disproportionate distribution of alleles within the population, and that is the very definition of evolution (disproportionate distribution of alleles).

Eventually, the population that remains is so different from the original population, that if they somehow run across each other, they can no longer interbreed. And we would call them a different species.

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

So a beneficial mutation must occur in two individuals?

There is a disconnect here, which i feel fairly certain the member "real life" would like to encourage. As Ros has already pointed out, variations can occur without mutation. However, when mutation is the mechanism for significant change in a population, it is not as though, Hey Presto!, a mutation just suddenly appears, and appears in only one, two or a few members of a population. A mutation can occur in many individuals which results in the evidence of the mutation being present in many individuals for many generations without speciation. I have used an example more than once about mammoths. A mutation which must have been common (because it did lead to speciation) was long, thick fur--the significant characteristic of the woolly mammoth. You could have a population of mammoths in which this mutation were sufficiently prevelant that there were always woolly mammoths in the population, but when environmental conditions did not favor the woolly mammoth, nor threaten them, so that they continued to appear in each generation, but also continued to be a part of the original population, and bred with the original population.

However, if environmental conditions changed so as to favor the woolly mammoth, or the "woolly" members of that population migrated to an environment in which their long, thick fur conferred an advantage, then sexual isolation might occur. So, you either have a change in the environment which favors the woolly mammoth,--and those mammoths who lack the long, thick fur, and who migrate away from the now hostile environment survive--you would have the two types of mammoth isolated from one another. Sufficient generations of isolated mutation could lead to a situation in which the original mammoths and the woolly mammoths are no longer able to produce reproductively viable offspring when interbreeding. But whether or not this occurs, their sexual isolation and and the major morphological distinction of one part of the mammoth population having long, thick fur will eventually make them separate species. The same thing occurs of the environment does not change, and the "woolly" members of the mammoth population migrate to an environment in which their long, thick fur confers and advantage on them.

The "mutation" which resulted in long, thick fur could occur for generations without speciation if it did not confer either an advantage or disadvantage on those displaying the trait. What are referred to as mutations can occur in a population for long periods of time, and in many individuals, and only become significant if they help individuals to reproduce, or if the "mutation" harms their efforts to reproduce. This isn't some simple-minded situation in which suddenly, "Poof!," one or two individual suddenly display a trait, by mutation, which leads them to all a once establish a new species. The member "real life" needs to falsely characterize the process in that manner in order to ridicule what he has abundantly shown he does not understand.

On a previous page i gave several links for definitions of how the species boundary might be described. The line is not a sharp delineation, which is why "real life" amuses himself by laughing, in his ignorance. But science, unlike religion, is always willing to revise definitions and hypotheses based on new data, or more sophisticated understandings of existing data. It is theology which insists that all the answers are already there, and refuses to admit to any revision.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

It is theology which insists that all the answers are already there, and refuses to admit to any revision.

Consider how resolutely he believes in the bobble. The original sin was one of gaining knowledge. The underlying message is clear. Staying dumb and ignorant is staying pure.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

neologist wrote:
So a beneficial mutation must occur in two individuals?

A single mutation, beneficial or not, does not define a new species. Even multiple mutations do not define a new species. Mutations are relatively small.

A mutation occurs once and spreads through the population.

Many mutations occur and spread through the population.

A population accumulates many mutations and variations (by the way, mutation is not always necessary, variation of existing gene combinations can also lead to new species) and natural selection relentlessly culls the population when any selectable trait begins to interact with the environment.

This leads to a disproportionate distribution of alleles within the population, and that is the very definition of evolution (disproportionate distribution of alleles).

Eventually, the population that remains is so different from the original population, that if they somehow run across each other, they can no longer interbreed. And we would call them a different species.

Thanks. That is a very understandable explanation. Does it also account for the degree of speciation where the descendants (if that is the correct word) no longer bear a physical resemblance?

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

Thanks. That is a very understandable explanation. Does it also account for the degree of spoliation where the descendants (if that is the correct word) no longer bear a physical resemblance?

Sorry, I don't understand the question.

The idea that the forces driving evolution (variation and selection) will eventually lead to organisms of widely differing forms, is supported by the fossil record as well as genetics. Is that what you're asking?

0 Replies

Wilso wrote:

. . . The original sin was one of gaining knowledge. . .

That is only partly correct. Before Edenic sin, Adam had already spent an unspecified time gaining knowledge by naming the animals. The sin was A&E's desire to gain knowledge of good and bad, a moral, or behavioral distinction.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

neologist wrote:
Thanks. That is a very understandable explanation. Does it also account for the degree of spoliation where the descendants (if that is the correct word) no longer bear a physical resemblance?

Sorry, I don't understand the question.

The idea that the forces driving evolution (variation and selection) will eventually lead to organisms of widely differing forms, is supported by the fossil record as well as genetics. Is that what you're asking?

Yes. Is that also a process of speciation?

0 Replies

I think he is asking if newly derived species will diverge morphologically. The answer is yes, but it is a qualified answer. The onager (wild ass), the horse, the domestic donkey, the zebra and the quagga all have significantly different appearances, significant morphological differences. Nevertheless, they have a common ancestor, and are sufficiently morphologically similar that you can look at a quagga and a horse and understand that they have a common ancestor.

So, i would say, tentatively, that the answer to Neo's question is yes. The recent speculation about the mating of a brown bear (a "grizzly") and a polar bear might be the best example. These two species are separate species largely because of sexual isolation--the morphological differences are trivial. We don't know if the offspring were fertile or not, so it is not possible to say to what extent the two species had diverged. However, sexual isolation did lead to noticeable morphological differences (the white coat, heavy fat layer and thick fur of the polar bear make it fit to live in a colder climate, and to hunt in an arctic sea).

0 Replies

Don't tell me there's no proof for evolution

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know