65
   

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

 
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Aug, 2007 04:47 pm
farmerman wrote:
Quote:
Care to show where I've ever made such a claim?


Im projecting dupa. Youre inability to understand statistical variance and "when is a speices a species" can leave me with no other option. If you dont wanna see one, then you surely cant see the other.

Unless of course you see how selective breeding can work? Then if thats so, merely apply it to the natural system.

RL, early in your A2k days, you "lectured' as to how microevolution doesnt count as anything Darwinian, its really interbreeding within the Biblical "kinds". Im sure that was you.You always ended with "a fsh is still a fish" or some nonsense like that If you wish to deny having said that , I cant backit up unless I run thriough all this thread, and I dont think Im going to waste my time doing that.



Wilso- spendi who?



Animal fanciers develop new 'breeds'. Are you equating a 'breed' with a 'species'?

btw If you want to find something I've said, you can use the 'search' function. It's quite handy.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Aug, 2007 06:36 pm
fm wrote-

Quote:
Wilso- spendi who?


That's out the other side of desperation.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Aug, 2007 06:47 pm
real; btw If you want to find something I've said, you can use the 'search' function. It's quite handy.

This is really funny coming from the master of confusion.
0 Replies
 
Pauligirl
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Aug, 2007 09:32 pm
real life wrote:

Well, either a species starts with 1 member.........

.......or you suddenly go from 0 to more than 1 (6? 10? 100? ......how many?).

But nobody seems to want to definitely commit to either explanation.


How many? However many there are in the population. Do you think that it's one single thing that changes overnight? I hope not.

http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/evolution.html#BIRTH
As a simple example, imagine a world that has deep oceans and warm, sunny beaches (much like ours). In the sea live some crabs. To begin with, these crabs can only survive in water a few feet deep. Their world ends where the tide washes up and down the shoreline - they can eat, live and breed only in the warm shallows. As there is more food in the warmer, sunnier waters near the beach, the crabs are driven there to feed. As the waves crash in and out, some will be washed up onto dry land, or stranded on a sand-bank as the tide goes out, and perish. Others might be able to survive just long enough to scuttle back into the sea.

This creates what is called a "selective pressure" on the crabs - natural selection weeds out those individuals unable to tolerate being out of water for prolonged periods. Those who can will be able to spend much more time on the shoreline - they will get the richer pickings, and they will have a greater probability of breeding and passing on their genes. Some of their offspring might not be able to last as long out of water as the parents, but others might be able to tolerate it a little more. Again, these will have a slight advantage in terms of feeding, mating and survival (they might be able to escape marine predators by climbing onto a dry rock). It becomes a positive feedback loop. The genes of those who survived longest and generated the most offspring will become more abundant in the population as a whole. After many generations, the crabs will be scuttling around on the beach, foraging for food, no longer restricted to a purely marine lifestyle.

Over time, different environmental conditions will shape different aspects of their bodies. They may come to rely on a particular type of food, or they shell may change in size and shape (to provide protection against the environment or predators). They will come to be radically different from their ancestors - a new species. They are, of course, still crabs - but they are a new type of crab, unable to breed with (or even meet) the species that they originated from. After a million years of separation and differing environmental conditions, these new crabs may have split further into a number of different, new species, or may have been changed into a type of creature that can no longer be called a crab.
Evolution is not a ladder - it's an enormous bush with millions of branches. We humans (and the chimps, gorillas and other apes) are just the current crop of leaves on part of the vertebrate/mammal/primate branch. As long as life exists on this planet, the bush will keep on spreading, and humans will be just one more branching-point with several new twigs growing from it.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Aug, 2007 09:50 pm
We saw hundreds, if not thousands, of little red rock crabs in the Galapagos Islands. They stayed out of the water for long periods of time.

Some good pictures of the Galapagos including the red rock crabs.
http://ambient.2y.net/jon/places/galapagos.html
0 Replies
 
Wilso
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Aug, 2007 04:17 am
Pauligirl wrote:
real life wrote:

Well, either a species starts with 1 member.........

.......or you suddenly go from 0 to more than 1 (6? 10? 100? ......how many?).

But nobody seems to want to definitely commit to either explanation.


How many? However many there are in the population. Do you think that it's one single thing that changes overnight? I hope not.



No, that's the misinformation he deliberately inserts into the argument as some kind of evidence of "poofism" (I thing ci came up with that word. I love it). He's been programmed not to accept anything that can't be explained by supernatural magic.
0 Replies
 
baddog1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Aug, 2007 05:37 am
Wilso wrote:
Pauligirl wrote:
real life wrote:

Well, either a species starts with 1 member.........

.......or you suddenly go from 0 to more than 1 (6? 10? 100? ......how many?).

But nobody seems to want to definitely commit to either explanation.


How many? However many there are in the population. Do you think that it's one single thing that changes overnight? I hope not.



No, that's the misinformation he deliberately inserts into the argument as some kind of evidence of "poofism" (I thing ci came up with that word. I love it). He's been programmed not to accept anything that can't be explained by supernatural magic.


Again - no answer(s) - only jibberish. Shocked
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Aug, 2007 07:18 am
baddog1 wrote:
Again - no answer(s) - only jibberish. Shocked

No answers to what? You mean the question that has been answered fifteen times already? That answer? Why should Wilso be expected to repeat it again.
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Aug, 2007 07:33 am
Speciation Explained

Explained Again

And Again

Again

Another Time

AGAIN

AND AGAIN

ANOTHER TIME

Another Time Again

One More Time

And On And On And On

Again Today

Can you understand why Wilso and others are annoyed, baddog?
0 Replies
 
baddog1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Aug, 2007 07:39 am
rosborne979 wrote:
baddog1 wrote:
Again - no answer(s) - only jibberish. Shocked

No answers to what? You mean the question that has been answered fifteen times already? That answer? Why should Wilso be expected to repeat it again.


Which question are you referring to ros?
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Aug, 2007 07:42 am
Please pay attention, baddog.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Aug, 2007 08:15 am


Hi wandeljw,

It's not that folks haven't offered the standard explanations of speciation.

But when a specific criticism of those explanations is offered, then simply repeating the same explanations, without addressing the criticism, is seen as a dodge.

I think that is what baddog is referring to.
0 Replies
 
baddog1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Aug, 2007 08:50 am
real life wrote:
Hi wandeljw,

It's not that folks haven't offered the standard explanations of speciation.

But when a specific criticism of those explanations is offered, then simply repeating the same explanations, without addressing the criticism, is seen as a dodge.

I think that is what baddog is referring to.


Yes - and there have been several "dodges" on this thread. On many occasions - RL asked specific questions that went specifically unanswered. Thus my assertion(s).
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Aug, 2007 08:50 am
real life wrote:
But when a specific criticism of those explanations is offered, then simply repeating the same explanations, without addressing the criticism, is seen as a dodge.

The only criticism you have offered is a logical fallacy, which has been explained (in several different forms) already. After I explain it, you just repeat it.
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Aug, 2007 08:53 am
baddog1 wrote:
real life wrote:
Hi wandeljw,

It's not that folks haven't offered the standard explanations of speciation.

But when a specific criticism of those explanations is offered, then simply repeating the same explanations, without addressing the criticism, is seen as a dodge.

I think that is what baddog is referring to.


Yes - and there have been several "dodges" on this thread. On many occasions - RL asked specific questions that went specifically unanswered. Thus my assertion(s).


No. The links I gave provide more than enough information to answer RL's questions. All of the dodging has been done by RL.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Aug, 2007 09:29 am
Oh- I don't know about that wande.

The anti-IDers seem to have dodged over to this thread where it is easier for them to repeat all their old tricks again thus sparing them any inconvenient mental effort.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Aug, 2007 09:35 am
spendius wrote:
Oh- I don't know about that wande.

The anti-IDers seem to have dodged over to this thread where it is easier for them to repeat all their old tricks again thus sparing them any inconvenient mental effort.



spendi, Please provide us with what specific topic is being addressed, and show us how the response is not providing the right answer. Generalities like yours don't tell us anything; it's only obfuscation.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Aug, 2007 10:07 am
wandeljw wrote:
baddog1 wrote:
real life wrote:
Hi wandeljw,

It's not that folks haven't offered the standard explanations of speciation.

But when a specific criticism of those explanations is offered, then simply repeating the same explanations, without addressing the criticism, is seen as a dodge.

I think that is what baddog is referring to.


Yes - and there have been several "dodges" on this thread. On many occasions - RL asked specific questions that went specifically unanswered. Thus my assertion(s).


No. The links I gave provide more than enough information to answer RL's questions. All of the dodging has been done by RL.


hi wandeljw,

With all due respect, the links do not even address my questions.

Many of them are cut-and-paste standardized speciation blurbs that do not even contemplate the questions I have raised.

Others simply gloss over the questions.

Basic questions including:

How does a species 'start' with MANY members, going from 0 members to many (since it has been asserted by several members that it NEVER starts with one)?

If a critter can interbreed with his contemporaries of the old species, then he is not a 'new species', is he?

If one member of a 'new species' is born, what will he breed with to perpetuate the line?

are brushed aside repeatedly.
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Aug, 2007 10:18 am
real life wrote:

How does a species 'start' with MANY members, going from 0 members to many (since it has been asserted by several members that it NEVER starts with one)?


THIS question has been addressed several times.

Quote:

If a critter can interbreed with his contemporaries of the old species, then he is not a 'new species', is he?


No he is not based on our defination of species.

Quote:

If one member of a 'new species' is born, what will he breed with to perpetuate the line?


New species do not happen in single generations.


All of these questions have been answered in the posts that Wandel provided.
0 Replies
 
baddog1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Aug, 2007 10:38 am
Here we go again - same ole stuff:

maporsche wrote:
real life wrote:

How does a species 'start' with MANY members, going from 0 members to many (since it has been asserted by several members that it NEVER starts with one)?


THIS question has been addressed several times.


Dodgeball.

real life wrote:

If a critter can interbreed with his contemporaries of the old species, then he is not a 'new species', is he?

maporsche wrote:
No he is not based on our defination of species.


Who's definition? Who is "our"?

maporsche wrote:
real life wrote:

If one member of a 'new species' is born, what will he breed with to perpetuate the line?


New species do not happen in single generations.


Dodgeball.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 06/25/2025 at 05:49:26