Ring species

[AV1611VET]

It’s also quite good at expanding the mind. Interestingly hallucinogenic drugs have been used by many cultures to invoke visions of their gods. Perhaps you should try it; the effects can be quite amazing.

No thanks --- if I want to "expand my mind," I'll do it legally.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Do, what???

I think the question must be too hard for him to answer.

I notice you guys are quick with put-downs and smark-alecky answers; but legitimate answers come slower than a snail in molasses.

He was being [SIZE=-1]facetious[/SIZE]. Being a Christian is not an arrestable offence in Australia.

No thanks --- if I want to "expand my mind," I'll do it legally.

Where's the fun in that?

 

[AV1611VET]

He was being [SIZE=-1]facetious[/SIZE]. Being a Christian is not an arrestable offence in Australia.

Okay, thanks.

 

[Blayz]

I think he was making an allusion to either:

• "Stare into the Sun", or
• "Stare into the underage boy"

The latter is probably an offence, not sure about the former.

Entirely correct.

Do, what???

I think the question must be too hard for him to answer.

I notice you guys are quick with put-downs and smark-alecky answers; but legitimate answers come slower than a snail in molasses.

Yes, either that or I was having dinner and watching some TV. I do have a life outside fo.rums.

 

[Blayz]

No thanks --- if I want to "expand my mind," I'll do it legally.

There's no high like the Most High.


Personally though, I'll take LSD. Definite party drug of choice.

 

[AV1611VET]

There's no high like the Most High.

WOW --- check ur reps!

You guys surprise the snot out of me sometimes ---

 

[thaumaturgy]

There's no high like the Most High.


Personally though, I'll take LSD. Definite party drug of choice.

That's because it's hard to take God to that kind of party.

 

[Schroeder]

A Challenge for Creationists! (I like this word challenge)

Since LittleNipper consistently ignored this question in another thread, I thought I'd give it a whole thread of its own. I'm hoping that some creationist will drop by and give their thoughts.

THE FACTS

Ensatina eschscholtzi is a lungless salamander native to western North America. Its distribution forms a ring around the Great Central Valley of California; the salamanders are not found inside the valley itself.

If we start from the southern end of the valley and follow it north and then south again on the other side, we encounter several subspecies of Ensatina salamanders. These overlap in distribution and interbreed with their neighbours. Furthermore, their appearance shows a gradual increase in the degree and regularity of patterning from simple brownish unpatterned E. e. eschscholzi to bright orange-and-black banded E. e. klauberi.

With the klauberi subspecies we arrive back to our starting point. Klauberi and eschscholzi overlap but do not interbreed, and they look very distinct. They are clearly different species. Yet they are connected by a continuum of more or less transitional forms that are perfectly capable of interbreeding with their neighbours.

THE CHALLENGE

Therefore I ask the creationists who are willing to take up the challenge:

(1) How many species is Ensatina eschscholzi? Why?

(2) If it is more than one, where does the boundary between the species exist?

(3) How do you explain ring species such as Ensatina in terms of creationism? "Goddidit" and "just because" are not sufficient explanations.

we know speciation happens, we see ring species. but uts funny that they seem to keep their name, such as salamander. It doesnt seem to change INTO anything but a different type of salamander. So i dont see how it proves or even shows the theory.

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

So does this simply mean that you have no evidence that any evolutionary biologist has attempted to see if any so-called "ring species" indeed cannot interbreed? Hint: "cannot" and "will not" are different. One is physical and one is mental. There are lots of people I could breed with -- but I choose not to. This does not confirm evolution.


however, we accept species that don't interbreed although they could as distinct species (Pundamilia pundamilia & P. nyererei, my favourite two Lake Victoria fish).

You have no idea if they are different "species" or not...have they been bred to see if they can produce viable offspring? I bet they can.

ring species is more a problem for the definition of the word species than it is for evolution. it's a question of where do you put the boundary between this species and that species. They are still following natural mechanisms of change over time. then again it wasnt that long ago that astronomers were debating the definition of planet. unwillingness to breed can be genetically derived.

 

[Naraoia]

So does this simply mean that you have no evidence that any evolutionary biologist has attempted to see if any so-called "ring species" indeed cannot interbreed? Hint: "cannot" and "will not" are different. One is physical and one is mental. There are lots of people I could breed with -- but I choose not to. This does not confirm evolution.

*grin* You explain to me that cannot and will not are different. Great. If, however, the members of two populations are clearly distinct in both appearance and genetics, and don't, or only very rarely, interbreed, does that not make them at least something like different species? It's not personal choice, it's something very consistent across the whole populations, and the salamanders don't even have much of a culture to prevent them from mating with the other type.

On the other hand, they are still connected by a series of interbreeding populations. Which would make them the same species. Which they apparently aren't, or soon won't be, because they are reproductively and genetically isolated, if not yet incompatible. I still wonder how creationism offers a better explanation for this phenomenon of a continuous ring joining in incompatible ends than evolution.

You have no idea if they are different "species" or not...have they been bred to see if they can produce viable offspring? I bet they can.

That's a problem of Mayr's biological species concept, not of evolution. The fish I've mentioned are perfectly cross-compatible with each other, AFAIK, their offspring are fertile but a female of one species doesn't naturally choose a male of the other species for mating. They have to be manipulated into mistaking one kind of male for the other in order to make them mate. And again, the two types of fish are distinct in colouration and ecology.

By the way, I'd love to see your species definition. If I have to choose one I'm leaning more towards the non-interbreeding criterion (as in: genetically and/or morphologically distinct populations not naturally interbreeding, or interbreeding only very infrequently, although they may live in daily contact with each other) where it's applicable* than the incompatibility criterion for precisely the reason that species pairs like the Pundamilia fishes exist; although neither criterion is a wall nature has built, both are artificial boundaries set up by humans.

(*Where it's applicable meaning that this definition is only really applicable for sympatric species - when two wolf packs live thousands of miles from each other, non-interbreeding is a completely useless criterion, unless you want to sample every such pack and see if your sample animals fancy each other)

 

[TheOutsider]

we know speciation happens, we see ring species. but uts funny that they seem to keep their name, such as salamander. It doesnt seem to change INTO anything but a different type of salamander. So i dont see how it proves or even shows the theory.

Right. And those salamanders are still Amphibians, still Chordates, and still animals. What is your point exactly?

 

[Naraoia]

Right. And those salamanders are still Amphibians, still Chordates, and still animals. What is your point exactly?

The old KIND pseudo-argument again

 

[Vene]

The old KIND pseudo-argument again

I'm tempted to start a topic asking how we can tell what a kind is. I still haven't gotten an answer to my question yet.

All I want to know is how can we tell if two species are members of the same kind.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

we know speciation happens, we see ring species. but uts funny that they seem to keep their name, such as salamander.

Well, yes. 'Salamander' is just the name of a group of organisms that are all descended from one species (which we might naively call 'salamander').

Schroeder, what do you expect to see after just two centuries? Evolutionists maintain that the formation of taxa such as phyla requires millions of years. Have you been observing population genetics for millions of years?

Can you explain why there should be some limit to the amout of variation a population can undergo given enough time?

It doesnt seem to change INTO anything but a different type of salamander. So i dont see how it proves or even shows the theory.

First, no theory is proven. They are evidenced, but they are not proven (proof is for mathematics and for alcohol).
Second, the logic is thus:

• The theory of evolution predicts speciation events.
• We see speciation events.
• Therefore, speciation is evidence of the theory of evolution.

More generally:

• P --> Q
• Q
• Therefore, P is more likely

Given that there is no other scientific explanation for Q (speciation), the scientific consensus falls on P (the explanation for Q).

 

[thaumaturgy]

I'm tempted to start a topic asking how we can tell what a kind is. I still haven't gotten an answer to my question yet.

All I want to know is how can we tell if two species are members of the same kind.

I think the answer would be "Does they're being in the same 'kind' help or hinder the Creationist against which you are debating".

If it helps then they are in the same "Kind", if it hinders, then not.

Easy peasy!

(Sheesh I can't imagine why I have to explain this simple Baraminology Concept to you. I mean, you are a scientist, right? Why can't you get even the simple stuff down? )

 

[thaumaturgy]

Well, yes. 'Salamander' is just the name of a group of organisms that are all descended from one species (which we might naively call 'salamander').

Well, to be fair, the salamander is pretty evil looking, it's small and slick and reptilian.

Since it has legs, it probably could be classified as a "Proto-Devil" since the serpent (another slick reptile) lost his legs in Genesis

[BIBLE]Genesis 3:14[/BIBLE]

So until the dirty evil Salamander (S. protosatanicus) mends its evil ways, we'll be left classifying it along with the Serpent in the same "kind".

Only major difference being that it cannot talk. Otherwise you'd have to contend with constantly being tempted to deny God's Will everytime you walked near a pond.

 

[Vene]

I think the answer would be "Does they're being in the same 'kind' help or hinder the Creationist against which you are debating".

If it helps then they are in the same "Kind", if it hinders, then not.

Easy peasy!

(Sheesh I can't imagine why I have to explain this simple Baraminology Concept to you. I mean, you are a scientist, right? Why can't you get even the simple stuff down? )

I have the irrational hope that I can get a straight answer.

 

[TheOutsider]

I have the irrational hope that I can get a straight answer.

You have much to learn, young Padawan. There is no useful definition of "kind". There never has been and never will be. AV will probably give you some nonsense about God's Taxon and then not tell you what God's Taxon is.

 

[NailsII]

No thanks --- if I want to "expand my mind," I'll do it legally.

On this point I concur with the theistic gentleman.
There are many things we can do with our minds, but allow our senses and reason and thought processess to be poisoned.....
Senseless.
But what consenting adults do in their own homes is none of my business.

 

[NailsII]

Not even close, Nails --- not even close.
Does this sound like the testimony of someone being picked on by God?

No, but this does:
[bible]job 3[/bible]

Despite the obvious plagerism of the egyptian book of the dead to produce the 10 commandments....

What???

APPENDIX (From the Papyrus of Nebseni)

Hail, Usekh-nemmt, who comest forth from Anu, I have not committed sin. Hail, Hept-Shet, who comest forth from Kher-aha, I have not robbed with violence. Hail, Fenti, who comest forth from Khemenu, I have done no violence. Hail, Am-khaibitu, who comest forth from Qerrt, I have not stolen. Hail, Neha-hau, who comest forth from Rasta, I have not slain men. Hail, Ruruti, who comest forth from heaven, I have not made light the bushel. Hail, Arti-f-em-tes, who comest forth from Sekhem, I have not acted deceitfully. Hail, Neba, who comest and goest, I have not stolen the property of the god. Hail, Set-qesu, who comest forth from Hensu, I have not told lies. Hail, Uatch-nesert, who comest forth from Het-ka-Ptah, I have not carried away food. Hail, Qerti, who comest forth from Amenti, I have not uttered evil words. Hail, Hetch-abhu, who comest from Ta-she, I have attacked no man. Hail, Unem-snef, who comest forth from the execution chamber, I have not salin a bull which was the property of the god. Hail, Unem-besku, who comest [forth from the Mabet chamber], I have not acted deceitfully. Hail, Neb-maat, who comest forth from Maati, I have not pillaged the lands which have been ploughed. Hail, Thenemi, who comest forth from Bast, I have never pried into matters [to make mischief]. Hail, Aati, who comest forth from Anu, I have not set my mouth in motion. Hail, Tutuf, who comest from from A, I have not been wroth except with reason. Hail, Uamemti, who comest forth from the execution chamber, I have not debauched the wife of a man. Hail, Maa-anuf, who comest forth from Per-Menu, I have not polluted myself. Hail, Heri-uru, who comest forth from [Nehatu], I have terrorized no man. Hail, Khemi, who comest forth from Ahaui, I have not made attacks. Hail, Shet-kheru, who comest forth from Uri, I have not been a man of anger. Hail, Nekhem, who comest forth from Heq-at, I have not turned a deaf ear to the words of truth. Hail, Ser-Kheru, who comest forth from Unes, I have not stirred up strife. Hail, Basti, who comest forth from Shetait, I have made none to weep. Hail, Her-f-ha-f, who comest forth from thy cavern, I have not committed acts of sexual impurity, or lain with men. Hail, Ta-ret, who comest forth from Akhkhu, I have not eaten my heart. Hail, Kenmti, who comest forth from Kenmet, I have cursed no man. Hail, An-hetep-f, who comest forth from Sau, I have not acted in a violent or oppressive manner. Hail, Neb-heru, who comest forth from Tchefet, I have not acted [or judged] hastily. Hail, Serekhi, who comest forth from Unth, I have not.... my hair, I have not harmed the god. Hail, Neb-abui, who comest forth from Sauti, I have not multiplied my speech overmuch. Hail, Nefer-Tem, who comest forth from Het-ka-Ptah, I have not acted with deciet, I have not worked wickedness. Hail, Tem-Sep, who comest forth from Tetu, I have not done things to effect the cursing of [the king]. Hail, Ari-em-ab-f, who comest forth from Tebti, I have not stopped the flow of water. Hail, Ahi-mu, who comest forth from Nu, I have not raised my voice. Hail, Utu-rekhit, who comest forth from thy house, I have not curse God. Hail, Neheb-Nefert, who comest forth from the Lake of Nefer, I have not acted with insufferable insolence. Hail, Neheb-kau, who comest forth from [thy] city, I have not sought to make myself unduly distinguished. Hail, Tcheser-tep, who comest forth from thy cavern, I have not increased my wealth except through such things are [justly] my own possessions. Hail, An-a-f, who comest forth from Auker, I have not scorned [or treated with contempt] the god of my town.

A small review for those who are not aware of the ancient egyptian polytheim:
This particular verse, unique to each individual, was recited as part of his passage to the next world as proof of his 'good heart'.
The book itself is believed to have originated around 3300BC, but has been found in similar versions much later. Not two books, however, are believed to have been identicle. Some were written on walls, inscribed on tombs or later written onto papyrus and buried with the deceased.