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

I think real drove all his teachers batty by his inability to understand evidence and facts as presented.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

parados wrote:
real life wrote:
parados wrote:
There are many answers and all of them are correct.

Oh.......

Well, I guess that settles it.

Why didn't I see it before?

Well....um, I guess we're done then.......

Coffee, anyone?

Yes, we are done..

It is false logic to think there is only one answer to a complex question.

And it's good logic to state that ALL answers to a question are correct?

I guess you must believe that it's so........as long as they lead to the answer you are looking for.

It's this sort of non-falsifiability --- 'we don't know HOW evolution happened, we are just sure that it MUSTA happened'--------

that causes some of us to continue to doubt.

I thought falsifiability was part of the scientific approach. But I could be wrong about that as well. (That's scientific.)

Since you can't be wrong, yours is very much a faith-based approach.

You are the one trying to get to the answers you are looking for rl.
You have not addressed anything I have said about evolution and how it works. Instead you pull one statement out of context and try to twist its meaning.

I never said I can't be wrong. I only pointed out that your argument is wrong. You are free to point out where I was wrong. Asking questions about something I never said doesn't point out problems with my argument. Failing to provide any facts doesn't point out problems with my argument. Changing the meaning of words doesn't point out problems with my argument. It all points to your inability to make a valid argument so you can only attempt to point out "problems" with others arguments while never actually addressing their arguments.

0 Replies

If you accept the position that evolution could be wrong, then let's look at speciation.

In your example of x, y, and z --

x begets y . (They are of the same species, correct?) Does y ever produce a descendant that is not a member of the same species?

Also , x begets z . (They are of the same species, correct?) Does z ever produce a descendant that is not a member of the same species?

If your answer to either of the above is yes, then what does this particular hypothetical descendant breed with, since he is the first (and only) of his 'new species'?

If neither y nor z produces a descendant that is not a member of their same species, then although there may be minor variations among them, no 'new species' has been begun.

0 Replies

So, please provide your evidence that horses, mules and donkeys are all the same species. When you do that then we can discuss your claim that only species can interbreed and they always produce the same species.

0 Replies

Clever (not) dodge , introducing sterile hybrids.

I've been hoping for some time that someone would attempt this.

Unless you're saying that these sterile animals advance evolution somehow, I am not sure what you trying to gain here.

But go ahead.

0 Replies

Who's dodging?

There are no recorded instances of fertile male mules, however there are several instances of fertile female mules.

Quote:

While the disparity between parental chromosomes satisfactorily accounts for sterility in male hybrids, it does not explain the occasional fertile female able to produce several offspring with noE. asinus traits.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/x065044271121628/

Now that we have dispensed with your lack of knowledge when it comes to mules, answer if donkeys, horses and mules are the same species?

0 Replies

baddog1 wrote:

You will likely not get a point by point answer(s) from the evo's on here because your questions do not fit into their plan; or your questions are simply beyond their comprehension. If they answered your questions - it may adversely effect their staunch emotion-based positions.

I've answered his questions (in very civil fashion), point by point, several times now. He's just not listening (and neither are you apparently).

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

baddog1 wrote:
You will likely not get a point by point answer(s) from the evo's on here because your questions do not fit into their plan; or your questions are simply beyond their comprehension. If they answered your questions - it may adversely effect their staunch emotion-based positions.

I've answered his questions (in very civil fashion), point by point, several times now. He's just not listening (and neither are you apparently).

Ros you are generally very civil, tho occasionally given to a little friendly sarcasm, as is yours truly. But nothing really mean spirited or insulting generally, as I recall.

Do you still maintain that a species NEVER starts with just one member?

If so, I don't think I've ever heard you explain exactly (or even approximately) how many members are required to start a species.

Nor how these members all change from one species to another(apparently some sort of mid-life crisis?) at the time the species begins.

0 Replies

RL, does a new species of bird begin with a new bird or a new egg?

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

real life wrote:
He only needs to be able to breed with living contemporary members of the species, who in turn met the same requirement when they were born, who in turn met the same requirement etc. stepwise back to the original X.

That is incorrect.

You are applying finite rules to infinite sets. Your logic is invalid.

It's interesting to see real life having the same difficulties here as elsewhere. I'd read this earlier, but hadn't picked up on the similarity with his insistence that there are only yes/no answers to questions which do not necessarily lead to yes/no responses.

Very binary approach. Toggle up. Toggle down.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Ros you are generally very civil, tho occasionally given to a little friendly sarcasm, as is yours truly. But nothing really mean spirited or insulting generally, as I recall.

I knew that Wink

real life wrote:

Do you still maintain that a species NEVER starts with just one member?

If so, I don't think I've ever heard you explain exactly (or even approximately) how many members are required to start a species.

Nor how these members all change from one species to another(apparently some sort of mid-life crisis?) at the time the species begins.

I have explained how new species develop.

I have explained that the word species is simply a label given to a comparison between organisms along the line of transition which can no longer interbreed.

I have explained that your use of the term species is inaccurate in a scientific sense, and that the inaccuracy gives rise to that fallacy of logic which you are trying to have me explain.

You have refused to accept that explanation and continue to trot out your logical fallacy.

You don't seem to have any trouble seeing how a Wolf can transition to Chihuaua's and Great Danes, even though a wolf is never going to give birth to either one. You accept this level of transition because we call them "Breeds" instead of "Species", but it's exactly the same process, just a smaller step.

Honestly, we know that Wolves gave rise to Chihuauas because Wolves gave rise to all dogs, but no Wolf ever gave birth to a Chihuaua. So run the transition in your head, Wolf ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Chihuaua. When did the Wolf become the Chihuaua?

Or are you going to deny that all dogs are the descendants of wolves?

You can't have it both ways, either speciation makes sense, or wolves can't give rise to Chihuaua's. But if wolves can give rise to Chihuaua's, then speciation can occur by the same process.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

wandeljw wrote:
real life,

People have been trying to tell you that speciation does not work the way you describe.

Yes I know speciation doesn't work.

That was pitiful RL. You've stooped to a new low in blatant misrepresentation. You should be ashamed.

0 Replies

Quote:

If your answer to either of the above is yes, then what does this particular hypothetical descendant breed with, since he is the first (and only) of his 'new species'?

This question of yours rl presupposes that no species can breed outside itself. You start with a provable false presupposition. I can introduce instance after instance of "species" breeding with other "species".

Since species CAN breed outside their own species your question is based on a false premise that is proven false.

There is an article that claims as many as 10% of birds breed outside their species. True or not, I have no way of knowing, but there is little question that birds do breed outside of species.

Quote:

x begets y . (They are of the same species, correct?) Does y ever produce a descendant that is not a member of the same species?

Also , x begets z . (They are of the same species, correct?) Does z ever produce a descendant that is not a member of the same species?

Now we move to your next fault. It presupposes that the arbitrary line drawn to define species is an absolute. No such thing exists in the real world. "Species" is an arbitrary line drawn to try to define an observation. It in no way means that a species is completely separate from its relatives when it comes to breeding. In the real world observations of species across an area can show 2 species separate from each other and unable to breed but the species can and do interbreed in the area where they meet. The individual creatures contain different genetic code. One generation is not necessarily exactly the same as the previous. You presuppose that all members of a species are genetically the same. They are not.

0 Replies

Ros, the people in the next condo have a dog that I swear is a chihuawolf!
:wink:

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

baddog1 wrote:
You will likely not get a point by point answer(s) from the evo's on here because your questions do not fit into their plan; or your questions are simply beyond their comprehension. If they answered your questions - it may adversely effect their staunch emotion-based positions.

I've answered his questions (in very civil fashion), point by point, several times now. He's just not listening (and neither are you apparently).

Ros: I was not including you in my "lumping" of evo's. As RL states - most times you have the decency to answer the question(s), then offer your personal thoughts.

0 Replies

real only knows how to work with "x" and "o's."

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

Ros, the people in the next condo have a dog that I swear is a chihuawolf!
:wink:

Really? Send pictures, it must be one heck of a funny looking mutt.

0 Replies

Been out on the sea bit so Ive missed the latest brew-ha-ha .

Quote:

t's this sort of non-falsifiability --- 'we don't know HOW evolution happened, we are just sure that it MUSTA happened'--------

Im sure RL knows better but is embarrased to desiplay his foreknowledge that the concept of falsifiability works quite well in evo-devo sciences.

1If, a species is NOT derived via evolution then we should not see intermediates at spots where sedimentological records would predict them to be. (However, we use the stratigraphy as a starting point now)

2Stratigraphy and age dating should be unrelated to earths "deep" ages--Hmm no help for RL here

3Intermediates should either not exist or else , id such "monstrosities" even appear, they should have no bearing in time

4Earth processes, should have no bearing on appearance or disappearance of derived species-

5There should be no "upward differentiation of fossils in the record. Everything should be a jumble

6If organisms were all created rather than evolved, there should be an equal distribution of all the organisms in the ancient and modern world(we should still have dinosaurs and we should see lions and tigers in the Cambrian, (not to mention trees))

The processes of falsifiability is one of applied "what ifness", and no matter how many tests of the facts, evidence, support sciences etc, we can apply falsifiability and use predictive elements of the eciences to make them mundane "tools" for such things as I do , namely minerals exploration. I defy the RLs of the world to claim likewise. There is no "Institute of Creational Petroleum Geologists" or the "American Creationist Mining Forum". There was a "flood Geology Institute" and there is the "ICR" but they have no standards for applyingany rules of science to bettwer understand or ecplore the geological world.

Funny how RL can bluster and object, but it always boils down to this,"How can you ustilize your worldview in applied science?" If you cant, then yer kinda screwed and without a paddle and oar.
Just for grins , lets apply a "falsifiability test case " to the Flood.
viz.
1 If the flood DID NOT occur, then, worldwide we should not see orderly arrangements of fossil beds in distinct time sequences. We should ALL OVER, see a jumbled up mish mash of fossils that were sorted physically in the sediments. There should be no fixed order in appearance and sequences of existence.

2. If there wasNO FLOOD, thn we should not see worldwide evidence of a contemporaneous "cut and fill" scouring and deposition of universal sediment loads all related to the ame events and provenance.

Both of those are falsifiable statements which are , dly able to be shown to be false.

No Help In science RL.

PS I liked the analogy that ros used for a statistical appearance of species."Which locust is responsible for the swarm", as species is aconcept of multivariate traits that compile through time , the compounding of minute trait shifts through time is correct and quite a nice analogy for people who are comfortable with the quantitative aspects.
Futuyamas, Evolutionary Biology
and Rodgers and SantoshContinents and SupercontinentsHas an excelent section on the concept of applied falsifiability of the geo-sciences beneath evolutionary aynthesis, LSo DAwkins River out of Edenis a god non-technical recount of Darwinian mechanisms including speciation.

Id stay away from Gould, he just assumes too much variation is based on punctuated equilibrium and , thats really merely one mechanism out of many and Darwins own "Limitation of the fossil record" answer many of Gould and Eldredges claims.

0 Replies

ros said,I guess from aquote

Quote:

You don't seem to have any trouble seeing how a Wolf can transition to Chihuaua's and Great Danes, even though a wolf is never going to give birth to either one. You accept this level of transition because we call them "Breeds" instead of "Species", but it's exactly the same process, just a smaller step.

THe more we learn about genomes and "ecytra genomic alleles" we learn that what Id been long talikng about, namely STR's or Short tandem repeat alleles, which lie oitside the exon lines of the genome, care either there or not there in large numbers. Canids like humans have a large compliment of STRs; and this makes there genomes more malleable than say a deer or a cow.
Hominids, certain birds, canids, are the gfe animals that can be naturally or artificially manipualted in their own genomes to display all these weird and unique shapes and sizes of phenotypes. Evolutionary significance is that thee animals were all "travelers" and quickly adapted to available resources , and they do this by shape, size, and coat cover. Horses have a somewhat lesser component of STRs but their size differentiation is not as extreme.

STR analysis has become an important populational differentiator for sedentary human populations who live separated from each other by just a few tens of miles

0 Replies

parados wrote:

"Species" is an arbitrary line drawn to try to define an observation.

Hmmmmm. Maybe you have been listening after all.

This is a point I've made on several occasions (but have been loudly booed by evolutionists for doing so. Be careful who is nearby when you say it.)

The dividing 'line' between species is typically the issue of interbreeding.

parados wrote:

species CAN breed outside their own species

Another point I've made on more than one occasion. You're doing well.

But what often happens is that eventually they are reclassified into one species .

And I would not be surprised to find that the number of interbreeding 'species' is higher than the 10% you quoted.

This is very bad news for evolutionists, because the fewer species there are, the less 'speciation' is found to have occurred.

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know