Do you agree with these statements?

[Shemjaza]

If you can define 'species', then perhaps we won't get confused.

Species aren't claimed to be unchangeable and absolute. Ultimately species are practical human labels for degrees of variation.

Human's tamed wolves and slowly warped them into dogs... but it would be impossible to point to the first dog.

Typically with concurrent sexual species they are considered separate if they cannot or typically do not interbreed.

It's more complicated with extinct related species... I think it mostly comes down arbitrary degrees of genetic or morphological difference.

 

[Qwertyui0p]

The problem with kinds is that they are arbitrary and undefinable.

There is no objective measure or definition of kind or kind barrier.

People are often happy with a " great cat kind" or even a "cat kind", possibly even an "ape kind" just as long as humans don't count as part of a group with any other animals.

In reality humans and chimps are closer related to each other genetically then either is to a gorilla.

Since organisms only reproduce after their kind, then we can tell that, for example, lions and tigers are from the same kind. If two creatures can produce fertile offspring than they are from the same kind. This only works one way though, because failure to reproduce might be from mutations.

 

[Shemjaza]

Since organisms only reproduce after their kind, then we can tell that, for example, lions and tigers are from the same kind. If two creatures can produce fertile offspring than they are from the same kind. This only works one way though, because failure to reproduce might be from mutations.

Just to check:
If they can reproduce fertile offspring then they are the same kind.
If they cannot produce fertile offspring then they might be the same kind.

Is that correct?

 

[Job 33:6]

Explain the following.

Not even fossil leaves or pollen are known from this earlier time.

This is actually a pretty poor argument. Back on the days of Darwin, there were no clear transitional fossils at all, but that didn't stop the theory from being illogical or backed by the evidence it had at the time.

Over the past 150 years more and more transitional fossils have been dug up. And they all fit the succession, fish > amphibian/fish hybrids > amphibians > amphibian/reptile hybrids> reptiles> reptile/bird and reptile/mammal hybrids> and today's birds and mammals.

Biological evolution never depended on fossils, and in the beginning there were none to speak of. But now we have hundreds that fit predictions of the theory. And as said before, it's never been about the quantity of fossils, but rather it's about the temporal order on which they're found. The succession. It doesn't take an infinite number of fossils to demonstrate the existence of the fossil succession.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Just to check:
If they can reproduce fertile offspring then they are the same kind.
If they cannot produce fertile offspring then they might be the same kind.

Is that correct?

There is a third possibility - if they cannot produce any offspring at all they still might be the same kind. Non-evolutionary mutations have a lot to answer for

 

[Radagast]

There is a third possibility - if they cannot produce any offspring at all they still might be the same kind. Non-evolutionary mutations have a lot to answer for

Not just mutations: sterile worker bees are the same "kind" and species as the drones and queens.

 

[Tone]

Were you under the impression I was invoking argument from popularity?

Sounded like that's what you were saying...just saying...

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The fact that it is beyond science to examine the 'metaphysical' does not mean it does not exist.

That depends on your definition of 'exist'

 

[Carl Emerson]

Is that a real question?

 

[SelfSim]

Is that a real question?

Depends on which process one uses in deciding what's real ..

 

[klutedavid]

It's pretty unlikely for any developed land animal to become a sea creature, but the evidence indicated that is has happened a number of times.

Also, basically every step you described from zebra to whale exists in other animals... so each step is clearly functional and viable.

Evidence at last.

You say that it has happened a number of times in the past.
Well can you provide that strong evidence, the evidence must be beyond dispute.

 

[klutedavid]

This is actually a pretty poor argument. Back on the days of Darwin, there were no clear transitional fossils at all, but that didn't stop the theory from being illogical or backed by the evidence it had at the time.

Over the past 150 years more and more transitional fossils have been dug up. And they all fit the succession, fish > amphibian/fish hybrids > amphibians > amphibian/reptile hybrids> reptiles> reptile/bird and reptile/mammal hybrids> and today's birds and mammals.

Biological evolution never depended on fossils, and in the beginning there were none to speak of. But now we have hundreds that fit predictions of the theory. And as said before, it's never been about the quantity of fossils, but rather it's about the temporal order on which they're found. The succession. It doesn't take an infinite number of fossils to demonstrate the existence of the fossil succession.

So it's no so much about the hard evidence but more the idea, that over time, evolution of species occurs.

Well, I am not arguing that different species occur in different epochs, that is what the fossil record states. Beyond any doubt that is the case.

What I want is the evidence itself that species, say fish, become tetrapods. Not, can you see the link or the pattern. I'm after hard evidence because I lack the belief, the belief in the evolution of plants to animals, fish to tetrapods, e.t.c.

Convince me with the examples of this evolution of species.

 

[Ophiolite]

Morphology across species in the fossil record does not occur, how can someone be trained. To observe a mechanism that does not occur in the fossil record?

Thank you for your reply. It indirectly answers my question by exposing your ignorance of morphological patterns in the fossil record. Clearly you are unaware, for example, of the evolutionary trend in suture lines in ammonites; hinge development in lamellibranchs; dentition trends within the Elephantidae; the changing role of the hyomandibula in early tetrapods; and several thousand other examples.

Your desperately trying to convince me that angiosperms, did not just suddenly appear in the fossil record. They evolved gradually?

I have no respect for someone who resorts to a Gish Gallop as an alternative to an honest and open discussion. When you wish to discuss matters in a serious and adult manner send me a pm.

 

[klutedavid]

That depends on your definition of 'exist'

The definitions are impossible to define. Absolute knowledge is necessary to define words such as, 'natural', 'universe', 'existence', 'spiritual', 'God'. That is why philosophy exists, an endless debate about the meaning of terms.

 

[Speedwell]

So it's no so much about the hard evidence but more the idea, that over time, evolution of species occurs.

Well, I am not arguing that different species occur in different epochs, that is what the fossil record states. Beyond any doubt that is the case.

What I want is the evidence itself that species, say fish, become tetrapods. Not, can you see the link or the pattern. I'm after hard evidence because I lack the belief, the belief in the evolution of plants to animals, fish to tetrapods, e.t.c.

Convince me with the examples of this evolution of species.

Do you still deny speciation itself?

 

[klutedavid]

Thank you for your reply. It indirectly answers my question by exposing your ignorance of morphological patterns in the fossil record. Clearly you are unaware, for example, of the evolutionary trend in suture lines in ammonites; hinge development in lamellibranchs; dentition trends within the Elephantidae; the changing role of the hyomandibula in early tetrapods; and several thousand other examples.
I have no respect for someone who resorts to a Gish Gallop as an alternative to an honest and open discussion. When you wish to discuss matters in a serious and adult manner send me a pm.

Excuse me Orpiolite, I am not after inference and suggestion, I am after clear evidence.

If you believe that Pakicetus belongs in the evolution of the whale. Then demonstrate with hard evidence that Pakicetus is, in fact, a member of the whale evolutionary lineage.

Give me the fossil evidence or take your bat and go home.

I am not a young earth creationist which Gish probably is.

 

[pitabread]

Excuse me Orpiolite, I am not after inference and suggestion, I am after clear evidence.

Have you ever read this particular article? The Origin of Whales and the Power of Independent Evidence

It's also packed with references for further reading. If you're interested in the evidence of whale evolution, this should be a good springboard.

 

[klutedavid]

Do you still deny speciation itself?

In the fossil evidence I have yet to see the evidence of speciation. I do see A, B, C, e.t.c. in different epochs. I cannot see anything else, except abrupt appearances of species.

In fact Speedwell, I am struggling to find a concrete definition of 'species'.

Just supply the evidence in the fossil record and that is the end of this nonsense. Either it's there or it's not there.

 

[Ophiolite]

Excuse me Orpiolite, I am not after inference and suggestion, I am after clear evidence.

If you believe that Pakicetus belongs in the evolution of the whale. Then demonstrate with hard evidence that Pakicetus is, in fact, a member of the whale evolutionary lineage.

Give me the fossil evidence or take your bat and go home.

I am not a young earth creationist which Gish probably is.

Thus:

• You are unaware of the wealth of evidence.
• You reject the wealth of evidence.
• You cherry pick allegedly adverse examples
• You reject the scientific method, in which inference, properly tested is a wholly acceptable technique.
• You resort to false descriptions of the method. (Suggestion? Huh!)

You might at least have the courtesty to address me by proper forum name. I didn't, for example, call you klutzdavid.

It is apparent that your mind is closed. That is a pity. I would be happy to discuss the quality of source data, the support for the inferences, the plausible alternatives in an open manner, but not with the brick wall of your disbelief. I have better things to do with my time. Please don't waste your time by replying.

 

[Speedwell]

In the fossil evidence I have yet to see the evidence of speciation. I do see A, B, C, e.t.c. in different epochs. I cannot see anything else, except abrupt appearances of species.

In fact Speedwell, I am struggling to find a concrete definition of 'species'.

Generally speaking, populations of creatures are said to belong to different species when they are not interfertile. But there really isn't a hard line and during speciation there will generally be an extended period of partial interfertility. That is why the differentiation of species is often difficult and sometimes controversial. "Species" is merely a human construct imposed on what is almost a continuum of living phenotypes.

Just supply the evidence in the fossil record and that is the end of this nonsense. Either it's there or it's not there.

What about speciation observed in living creatures?