Can you be Christian and believe in evolution?

[Job 33:6]

Only if we are not watching every single generation. Your videos skips a thousand generations and more.

If I went to the paint store and I had black colors on my left and white colors on my right, it would be easy to skip over a thousand colors and say, oh yeah that's white and that's black. It would be really easy to separate them if I skipped over colors.

But if you watch every single color transition in the middle, at some point in time, you would be forced to start calling something white or to start calling something black. If you went through every single color, you would have no choice but to change. And that change in your mind, that change in your professional designation, it would occur at a single moment in time.

If I handed you a piece of paper and I said that you needed to assign every single shade to either white or black, there would be a moment in time where you would change your answer.

You would have no choice.

And so it is with animals, you would have no choice but to change your mind.

And it doesn't matter to me when you change your mind, whenever you do, that's the moment where we can say that the parent is not the same as the child.

But this would require you to look at every single generation.

And scientists don't go back and retroactively change parent species. The parent is born, you call it species A, later on in time you notice that the populations aren't interbreeding anymore, so you designate the latest generation as species B. You don't go back in time and then change the parent from A to B, the parent remains as a A, and the child is designated as B.

And again, it doesn't matter to me when you change your mind. It doesn't matter when you Make that conscious choice to designate B as a new species.

No matter what generation you draw that line, you will be left with a situation where children will be of a different species than their parents.

And you could run through the same logical process with anatomy. If a species is designated based on an anatomical feature, let's say it's skull has a hole in it. And let's say that's the defining anatomical feature. At some point in time, there was an individual born with a hole in its head where it's parents did not have that hole.

So if we look at anatomy, it works the same way.

Logically, you have to have a moment in time where you change your mind, and it's that moment that will separate the parent from the child. And if you group a parent in with the child, then it would just be the grandparent that is different from the parent. And so you would be left with the same situation of a parent having a child of a different species.

 

[olgamc]

The problem with your argument is that there is no category of a group that exists between two species. If species be evolves from species A, there is no in between. There is a definite point in time in which group B exists where it previously had not.

It's not my argument. It's the theory of evolution.

And in the video they skip generations, they jump from 200 to 1200 etc

Exactly. Not my argument.

But if we were to watch those birds, every single generation. The line between the old species and the new, it would occur at an instant in time.

No, it actually wouldn't. There is no line. Like if you thought of white birds becoming black birds, you could imagine it as a slow progression from white through all the shades of grey to black. You can clearly see the white, and you can clearly see the black, but you can't point at the exact time in the grey area where white became black. I think it was your own argument a few days ago, so I don't know what happened to your reasoning since then.

There's no such thing as an animal that is not one species or another and is somehow in between being either or. All animals, all individuals, are designated as one species or another.

Don't ask me - I didn't invent the concept.

Just like if I go to the store and I have a group of shades of black and dark gray, and I have a group of shades of white and light gray, if I have to separate white from black, I have to draw the line somewhere. And it doesn't matter who's on one side or the other or what color or what shade is on one side or the other.

Well sure, as long as it makes sense to you and you are the only one. But then I come along and to me it looks like 3 categories - whites and almost whites, different shades of greys, and almost blacks and blacks. Then we argue. LOL But birds don't argue. They just mate or don't mate, and their eggs are either good or not viable.

At some point in time, you will have to definitively say, this is not black, this is white. In one generation, you will have to make that judgment. No matter how you want to classify species.

Sure, if we wait long enough for all the white to be out until there is no question whatsoever, we can finally pronounce the species as a separate species from white. But it's not a separate species from dark grey.

So even if we took your answer, and you said when all the children can no longer interbreed,

with the original population

that's the moment the individuals are designated as a new species, okay even if we took that, those individuals still had mothers that existed in a time before then. And so their mothers would not be part of the new species. Because there would still be interbreeding going on.

their mothers would be the same species as their children because they could interbreed

No matter how you shake it, you have to draw a line in a point of time. And that point of time is not something gradual, it's a moment. Even if the overall process is gradual, the line is still at a moment in time.

No matter how you shake it, you do not understand the official definition of species.

Species
BIOLOGY
a group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding.

So if individuals can interbreed with their parents, both individuals and their parents are the same species. If individuals cannot interbreed with the original parents, then the individuals and the original parents are a different species.

 

[Job 33:6]

It's not my argument. It's the theory of evolution.

Exactly. Not my argument.

No, it's just your misunderstanding of the theory.

No, it actually wouldn't. There is no line. Like if you thought of white birds becoming black birds, you could imagine it as a slow progression from white through all the shades of grey to black. You can clearly see the white, and you can clearly see the black, but you can't point at the exact time in the grey area where white became black.

In taxonomy, you have no choice. You can't suspend judgment indefinitely. Just like when you pick a color of paint out at the store, you can't sit there and say, I can't tell if the shade of gray is more like white or black, you have to cast judgment in order to make your purchase, you need to tell the store clerk what you think the color is.

Scientists don't have the Liberty of not classifying animals and just suspending judgment forever.

I think it was your own argument a few days ago, so I don't know what happened to your reasoning since then.

Don't ask me - I didn't invent the concept.

Again, you're misunderstanding the theory.

Well sure, as long as it makes sense to you and you are the only one. But then I come along and to me it looks like 3 categories - whites and almost whites, different shades of greys, and almost blacks and blacks. Then we argue. LOL But birds don't argue. They just mate or don't mate, and their eggs are either good or not viable.

Like I said, when it comes to taxonomy, there is no third category. Either the animal is to be classified as species A, or species B. You don't get the Liberty of making up some new category of animal that is not one species or another.

When it comes to colors of pain, we can think of new names, or names of shades of Gray, but you don't get that Liberty with animals and classification. You can come up with new names, but you can't come up with new levels of classification. And you can't place animals into a category between one species or another. Animals will always receive a species designation.

Sure, if we wait long enough for all the white to be out until there is no question whatsoever, we can finally pronounce the species as a separate species from white. But it's not a separate species from dark grey.

When it comes to classification of animals, you don't have the Liberty of waiting to cast judgment.

You can't just look at the original population and see it changing and say, oh I'm not going to say whether it's species A or B I'm just going to wait a thousand generations and then after a thousand generations when I'm certain, then I'll start calling it species B.

You don't have that Liberty, you have to call it either A or B.

with the original population

their mothers would be the same species as their children because they could interbreed

No matter how you shake it, you do not understand the official definition of species.

Species
BIOLOGY
a group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding.

So if individuals can interbreed with their parents, both individuals and their parents are the same species. If individuals cannot interbreed with the original parents, then the individuals and the original parents are a different species.

And I've already corrected you several times here, lions and tigers can interbreed, and they can have fertile offspring. Polar bears and grizzly bears is another example.

Your understanding of the subject is rudimentary.

 

[olgamc]

In taxonomy, you have no choice. You can't suspend judgment indefinitely.

You can and do suspend judgement until you have enough data to make a decision.

Remind me again, how did they categorize Lucy and how long did it take?

Australopithecus afarensis, Lucy's species | Natural History Museum

Australopithecus afarensis is one of the best-known early hominins thanks to an extraordinary skeleton known as Lucy. Find out what we've learned about this species and important fossils. How do we know that Lucy and her species walked upright? How do we know Lucy was female? How did she die?

www.nhm.ac.uk

Just like when you pick a color of paint out at the store, you can't sit there and say, I can't tell if the shade of gray is more like white or black, you have to cast judgment in order to make your purchase, you need to tell the store clerk what you think the color is.

Ever heard of greige? It’s a color that compared to grey looks beige and compared to beige looks grey. You take a paint chip home, compare it to the color of your decor in your lighting, then you decide if it looks grey or beige, then you buy it.

Scientists don't have the Liberty of not classifying animals and just suspending judgment forever.

Not forever, but just until a general consensus is reached.

Again, you're misunderstanding the theory.

Again, you are misunderstanding the term species.

Like I said, when it comes to taxonomy, there is no third category. Either the animal is to be classified as species A, or species B. You don't get the Liberty of making up some new category of animal that is not one species or another.

Sure you do. If you decide that the transitional fossil you are examining cannot interbreed with species A, and there is no species B, you define a new species and give it a name, and that fossil belongs to the new species. If you find a transitional fossil that cannot interbreed with species A or with species B, then you call it species C. If you find a fossil that can interbreed with both - then you have a long argument until you learn more information and come to a consensus. And after you have agreed on a name, and new information becomes available, you can change the name.

Examining How and Why Scientific Names…

While interning in the Collections Department this summer, I became interested in how and why the scientific names of species evolve over time. Each…

naturemuseum.org

When it comes to colors of pain, we can think of new names, or names of shades of Gray, but you don't get that Liberty with animals and classification. You can come up with new names, but you can't come up with new levels of classification. And you can't place animals into a category between one species or another. Animals will always receive a species designation.

If the group can interbreed with species A, it is species A. When the group stops being able to interbreed with species A, it becomes species B. The parents of individuals that belong to species B can interbreed with their children, so the parents belong to species B.

When it comes to classification of animals, you don't have the Liberty of waiting to cast judgment.

You can't just look at the original population and see it changing and say, oh I'm not going to say whether it's species A or B I'm just going to wait a thousand generations and then after a thousand generations when I'm certain, then I'll start calling it species B.

That’s exactly what you do. That’s why different breeds of dogs are still the same species.

You don't have that Liberty, you have to call it either A or B.

You call it a variation within the species.

And I've already corrected you several times here, lions and tigers can interbreed, and they can have fertile offspring.

Sure?

Polar bears and grizzly bears is another example.

Yes, another example of scientists not following their own definitions. Like homo sapiens and neanderthal. Imo, if they are not going to follow their own definition of species, they should change the definition. Which they haven't. Go figure. Like I said, I didn't invent the definition of species and the theory that describes speciation. If it doesn't make sense - ask them, not me. Out of curiosity, what species is the offspring of polar bear and grizzly bear?

Oh! How interesting. It is BOTH species.

Your understanding of the subject is rudimentary.

And yours is absolutely flawless.

When did you say was the exact point in time that your home became cozy? Or the water that I was boiling for my tea changed from cold to hot? Or, if you know so much, when was the exact date that the first Homo sapien appeared?

 

[olgamc]

The natural laws create humans. We are told that God creates those laws.

We are told that humans are created in God's image. Can natural forces arrange the elements of the periodic table (over a long period of time, of course, and in a very long series of steps) in such a way as to create a bio-spiritual being - a being who is both material and spiritual?

 

[olgamc]

And scientists don't go back and retroactively change parent species. The parent is born, you call it species A, later on in time you notice that the populations aren't interbreeding anymore, so you designate the latest generation as species B. You don't go back in time and then change the parent from A to B, the parent remains as a A, and the child is designated as B.

Right, the original parent remains as A

And again, it doesn't matter to me when you change your mind. It doesn't matter when you Make that conscious choice to designate B as a new species.

No matter what generation you draw that line, you will be left with a situation where children will be of a different species than their parents.

Than their original parents, not their actual parents

And you could run through the same logical process with anatomy. If a species is designated based on an anatomical feature, let's say it's skull has a hole in it. And let's say that's the defining anatomical feature. At some point in time, there was an individual born with a hole in its head where it's parents did not have that hole.

At the point of the child's birth, the child is not a new species. He is just a variation of species A. You don't have a population with holes in skulls yet. You need to wait until that population is built before you can determine that it's a separate species.

So if we look at anatomy, it works the same way.

Logically, you have to have a moment in time where you change your mind, and it's that moment that will separate the parent from the child.

The original parent

And if you group a parent in with the child, then it would just be the grandparent that is different from the parent. And so you would be left with the same situation of a parent having a child of a different species.

The child's own parent is grouped with the child, as well as the child's own grandparent. You have to skip many generations back when the predecessor is significantly different from the child. And yes, it is a subjective process and scientists argue and change things.

In 1978 wolf and dog were classified as different species - Canis lupus and Canis familiaris.
In 2005 canis lupus was the species, and canis lupus familiaris was a sub-species
In 2008 they decided that the dog can be classified two different ways - canis lupus familiaris under one classification model, and canis familiaries under another.

So classifications do change, and the scientists haven't quite figured out how to classify animals exactly. They are still learning.

 

[Job 33:6]

Right, the original parent remains as A

Than their original parents, not their actual parents

It doesn't matter. Because even if we identify their original parents as species A, let's say for simplicity that it's their grandparents, you would still be left with a situation where the grandparents had parent offspring that were of another species. At one generation or another, there will be a change in species. You can't just suspend judgement and act as if the middle generations are not one species or another.

At the point of the child's birth, the child is not a new species. He is just a variation of species A. You don't have a population with holes in skulls yet. You need to wait until that population is built before you can determine that it's a separate species.

Ok, and when that population is present and the determination is made, that child with the hole in its skull with a parent with no hole in its skull, is the child of a new species.

The original parent

The child's own parent is grouped with the child, as well as the child's own grandparent. You have to skip many generations back when the predecessor is significantly different from the child. And yes, it is a subjective process and scientists argue and change things.

.and somewhere in that chain of generations, the change occurs where a parent is of species A, and a child of species B. The change has to occur, otherwise you would never have a species B if you only ever had generations of species A.

In 1978 wolf and dog were classified as different species - Canis lupus and Canis familiaris.
In 2005 canis lupus was the species, and canis lupus familiaris was a sub-species
In 2008 they decided that the dog can be classified two different ways - canis lupus familiaris under one classification model, and canis familiaries under another.

So classifications do change, and the scientists haven't quite figured out how to classify animals exactly. They are still learning.

Doesn't change anything. At some point a determination must still be made. If you have 1000 generations, and Generation #1 is species A and Generation 1000 is species B, somewhere in that series of generation, the change from A to B has occurred.

Just like in the video.

Even if we back all the way up to some arbitrary predecessor, then it would be the predecessors child that is of species B.

The change of designation from A to B doesn't happen over multiple generations. Nobody says "generations 300 to 400 are in mid-transition between both A and B species". Animals are classified as single species. People are homo sapiens for example. We are not multiple species. We are just one species. So we cannot be both species A and B at the same time.

So the transition from A to B has to happen at some point in time. And that change would be identified in a single generation.

And maybe that's generation 275, maybe it's 823, it doesn't really matter. The point is that one of those generations between 1 and 1000 will be the first generation of species B. And that's the time when a child of species B will not be the same species as their parent. Even if scientists have trouble identifying the precise generation that this occurs. It's easier to identify in laboratories under controlled settings.

In fact, speciation has been observed in laboratories, and offspring of new species have been observed. So I'm not sure that this topic is even up for debate.

 

[Job 33:6]

Oh! How interesting. It is BOTH species.
View attachment 345245

And yours is absolutely flawless.

When did you say was the exact point in time that your home became cozy? Or the water that I was boiling for my tea changed from cold to hot? Or, if you know so much, when was the exact date that the first Homo sapien appeared?

I don't think that's an actual published species identification. It's just something wiki stuck in there to explain that it's a hybrid.

And it doesn't matter to me when someone crosses the line and starts calling their tea hot. But it is the case that at some point in time, a person will. If I pour cold water into a pot on the stove, there is no doubt that at some point in time, between refrigerated to boiling, I will make a decision to call it hot.

Homo sapiens had arisen around 250,000 years ago.

 

[olgamc]

I don't think that's an actual published species identification. It's just something wiki stuck in there to explain that it's a hybrid.

If it disagrees with you, it is not a valid publication. I've seen that before. If the expert is not your expert, he is not an expert. Right? Ok then, what is the species of the child of two bears? Please provide an actual publication.

And it doesn't matter to me when someone crosses the line and starts calling their tea hot. But it is the case that at some point in time, a person will. If I pour cold water into a pot on the stove, there is no doubt that at some point in time, between refrigerated to boiling, I will make a decision to call it hot.

Right. So the time on the clock is 9:00:01 am and you pronounce the tea hot. And I come in and ask you what was it at 9:00:00 am - one second ago? And you say "it was refrigerator cold". Ok, whatever you like. Like I said, if you don't understand the word gradual, there is nothing I can do.

So according to you, when they found the rest of Lucy's group, they classified everyone younger than Lucy as Au. afarensis and everyone older than Lucy as Au. anamensis. Right? Can you provide an actual publication to show that that's what happened? Because that's not what I see from the publications I've looked at.

Homo sapiens had arisen around 250,000 years ago.

Around is not an exact point in time. It's just another way of saying somewhere between 200,000 and 300,000 years ago. You say there is an exact point in time. When is it?

 

[olgamc]

It doesn't matter. Because even if we identify their original parents as species A, let's say for simplicity that it's their grandparents, you would still be left with a situation where the grandparents had parent offspring that were of another species. At one generation or another, there will be a change in species. You can't just suspend judgement and act as if the middle generations are not one species or another.

I honestly don't know how they would classify a transitional fossil, if they found one, that would be able to interbreed with the original population and the modern population. I am guessing probably as a sub-species. Just like they did with dogs. Has this ever been done with transitional fossils? (If you know, could you please provide a reference.) Oh yeah, we are a sub-species - homo sapiens (sapiens). As opposed to a neanderthal - homo sapiens neanderthalensis. So are we the same species as neanderthal or not?

The correct answer is - depends on who you ask. It's grey. It's like saying "well, from one perspective it is still white, but from another perspective it is already black.". Well, which is it? The answer is - it's grey, not definitively decided, depends.

Ok, and when that population is present and the determination is made, that child with the hole in its skull with a parent with no hole in its skull, is the child of a new species.

If the species was characterized by that one attribute - yes. But one small attribute is not enough difference to create a new species. Just like in my example, the first bird with the little red spot is not the same species as the last bird with a completely red tail. Watch the video. Yellow birds after a 1,000 generations are already yellow, but they are still the same species as the red birds. They are not different enough yet.

In other words, you are still confusing the concepts of one small change with a series of small changes. Evolution is a series of small changes. It's a gradual process.

.and somewhere in that chain of generations, the change occurs where a parent is of species A, and a child of species B. The change has to occur, otherwise you would never have a species B if you only ever had generations of species A.

Not the change. A series of changes. If you think of the last drop that filled the bucket - the last minute change that completed the transition - that last drop completes a big enough accumulation of changes from the original (empty) bucket, but it does not complete a big enough accumulation of changes from an almost full bucket. There is no such thing as one drop the size of a bucket. Drops are small. It takes many drops to fill a bucket.

Doesn't change anything. At some point a determination must still be made. If you have 1000 generations, and Generation #1 is species A and Generation 1000 is species B, somewhere in that series of generation, the change from A to B has occurred.

Right. Gradually. Over time. Like drops in a bucket.

Just like in the video.

The video demonstrates a gradual change. A series of small changes over time. Can you pinpoint the exact frame in the video when the yellow birds become their own species? So before that frame they are red, and after that frame they are yellow and no longer mate with red. Can you find that spot? If you can, go ahead.

The change of designation from A to B doesn't happen over multiple generations. Nobody says "generations 300 to 400 are in mid-transition between both A and B species".

That's exactly what they say. "It's not a species yet, but we might be observing the early stages of speciation".

Animals are classified as single species. People are homo sapiens for example. We are not multiple species. We are just one species. So we cannot be both species A and B at the same time.

Correct, homo sapiens is not two species. As far as current science knows.

So the transition from A to B has to happen at some point in time.

Correct

And that change would be identified in a single generation.

Wrong. According to the current theory of evolution, the change is gradual, it does not happen over one generation. Except for maybe in some plants, I think they have observed that recently. But, as far as I know, they have not yet observed or even theorized that it is possible with humans. If they change the theory at some point in the future, we can come back to this question. Maybe you'll be the one to convince them to change.

And maybe that's generation 275, maybe it's 823, it doesn't really matter. The point is that one of those generations between 1 and 1000 will be the first generation of species B. And that's the time when a child of species B will not be the same species as their parent. Even if scientists have trouble identifying the precise generation that this occurs. It's easier to identify in laboratories under controlled settings.

Lab experiment reference?

In fact, speciation has been observed in laboratories, and offspring of new species have been observed. So I'm not sure that this topic is even up for debate.

Reference please? With something as complicated as humans? Or even birds? Or even fruit flies? Show me an experiment where speciation happens over 1 generation.

 

[Job 33:6]

I honestly don't know how they would classify a transitional fossil, if they found one, that would be able to interbreed with the original population and the modern population. I am guessing probably as a sub-species. Just like they did with dogs. Has this ever been done with transitional fossils? (If you know, could you please provide a reference.) Oh yeah, we are a sub-species - homo sapiens (sapiens). As opposed to a neanderthal - homo sapiens neanderthalensis. So are we the same species as neanderthal or not?

There are sub populations, or sub species. The thing is though, sub species are still classified within individual species. So original species A may have sub species 1, 2, and 3, while new species B may have sub species 4, 5, and 6. Or something like that. So even if a sub species might bridge two species, that sub species would still be identified under one species or another. Which sounds counter intuitive, but that's just the way that it is.

transitional fossils are kind of their own separate thing. But some of the same basic concepts are at play. Classic examples might be something like tiktaalik found in layers between fish and amphibians for example.

The correct answer is - depends on who you ask. It's grey. It's like saying "well, from one perspective it is still white, but from another perspective it is already black.". Well, which is it? The answer is - it's grey, not definitively decided, depends.

everyone universally agrees that at some point the change does occur from white to black. Even if where that happens is disputed in some occasions.

And that's the point we are interested in with respect to the question of if female animals could have offspring of a different species.

If the species was characterized by that one attribute - yes. But one small attribute is not enough difference to create a new species. Just like in my example, the first bird with the little red spot is not the same species as the last bird with a completely red tail. Watch the video. Yellow birds after a 1,000 generations are already yellow, but they are still the same species as the red birds. They are not different enough yet.

One attribute can be enough. I don't think there is any specific minimum number of attributes that must be needed for species identification.

In other words, you are still confusing the concepts of one small change with a series of small changes. Evolution is a series of small changes. It's a gradual process.

But at some moment in time, everyone transitions from calling something white to calling it black.

Not the change. A series of changes. If you think of the last drop that filled the bucket - the last minute change that completed the transition - that last drop completes a big enough accumulation of changes from the original (empty) bucket, but it does not complete a big enough accumulation of changes from an almost full bucket. There is no such thing as one drop the size of a bucket. Drops are small. It takes many drops to fill a bucket.

Ok, so that last drop would be the difference between calling the bucket empty vs calling it full. A change in a single drop.

Same analogy. If you had a bucked and water slowly dropping into it, at some point in time, You would have no choice but to transition from calling the bucket empty, to calling the bucket full. And maybe you feel that is drop number 200, maybe some other person thinks it's dropped number 300. But regardless, everyone reaches a point where they have to conclude that the bucket is full.

And when that happens, That's the moment in time that we can say in a single drop that the bucket went from being empty to being full.

Right. Gradually. Over time. Like drops in a bucket.

The video demonstrates a gradual change. A series of small changes over time. Can you pinpoint the exact frame in the video when the yellow birds become their own species? So before that frame they are red, and after that frame they are yellow and no longer mate with red. Can you find that spot? If you can, go ahead..

Well the video skips hundreds of generations, but if the video watched every single generation, sure we could draw the line between the two species.

That's exactly what they say. "It's not a species yet, but we might be observing the early stages of speciation".

Correct, homo sapiens is not two species. As far as current science knows.

Correct

Wrong. According to the current theory of evolution, the change is gradual, it does not happen over one generation. Except for maybe in some plants, I think they have observed that recently. But, as far as I know, they have not yet observed or even theorized that it is possible with humans. If they change the theory at some point in the future, we can come back to this question. Maybe you'll be the one to convince them to change.

But the identification of species does in fact happen from one generation to another, even if the process is gradual.

Just like we would transition from calling a bucket empty to calling at full, even if the bucket is only filling one drop at a time.

Lab experiment reference?

Reference please? With something as complicated as humans? Or even birds? Or even fruit flies? Show me an experiment where speciation happens over 1 generation.

Let's do some digging and see what we find. Not the process of speciation happening in one generation. What I'm talking about is a change in identification of species A to species B, happening within a generation.

 

[Job 33:6]

If it disagrees with you, it is not a valid publication. I've seen that before. If the expert is not your expert, he is not an expert. Right? Ok then, what is the species of the child of two bears? Please provide an actual publication.

I'm not saying that if it disagrees with me, then it's wrong. I'm just saying that, it looks like the person who typed the page was just saying that it's a hybrid and not its own distinct classified species. It doesn't have a foot note or anything.

They probably just typed it in that way to help the reader understand what it is. Not to actually call it by a specific name.

Also, species don't have naming conventions like that.

Right. So the time on the clock is 9:00:01 am and you pronounce the tea hot. And I come in and ask you what was it at 9:00:00 am - one second ago? And you say "it was refrigerator cold". Ok, whatever you like. Like I said, if you don't understand the word gradual, there is nothing I can do.

Yea exactly. With species, there is no "warm" option in the middle. You are either species A, or you are species B. There is no option for something in the middle. The tea is either hot or cold.

So according to you, when they found the rest of Lucy's group, they classified everyone younger than Lucy as Au. afarensis and everyone older than Lucy as Au. anamensis. Right? Can you provide an actual publication to show that that's what happened? Because that's not what I see from the publications I've looked at.

I didn't say that. Seems like a strawman. But it is true that Lucy was not classified as a hybrid.

Around is not an exact point in time. It's just another way of saying somewhere between 200,000 and 300,000 years ago. You say there is an exact point in time. When is it?

One of those generations. Because I don't have a time machine, I cannot tell you. But if I did have a time machine, I could. If I watched every single generation.

 

[olgamc]

There are sub populations, or sub species. The thing is though, sub species are still classified within individual species. So original species A may have sub species 1, 2, and 3, while new species B may have sub species 4, 5, and 6. Or something like that. So even if a sub species might bridge two species, that sub species would still be identified under one species or another. Which sounds counter intuitive, but that's just the way that it is.

transitional fossils are kind of their own separate thing. But some of the same basic concepts are at play. Classic examples might be something like tiktaalik found in layers between fish and amphibians for example.


everyone universally agrees that at some point the change does occur from white to black. Even if where that happens is disputed in some occasions.

And that's the point we are interested in with respect to the question of if female animals could have offspring of a different species.

One attribute can be enough. I don't think there is any specific minimum number of attributes that must be needed for species identification.


But at some moment in time, everyone transitions from calling something white to calling it black.

Ok, so that last drop would be the difference between calling the bucket empty vs calling it full. A change in a single drop.

If you compare the original bucket, then the change is a lot of drops and you can go from an empty bucket to a full bucket. If you compare the full bucket to the one drop less of a full bucket, the change is one drop and you did not go from an empty bucket to a full bucket, you went to an almost full bucket to a full bucket.

Same analogy. If you had a bucked and water slowly dropping into it, at some point in time, You would have no choice but to transition from calling the bucket empty, to calling the bucket full. And maybe you feel that is drop number 200, maybe some other person thinks it's dropped number 300. But regardless, everyone reaches a point where they have to conclude that the bucket is full.

Right. Because they don't watch every drop. They compare across many drops. Same as in the video. That's how they decide on species - they compare individuals from very different points in time. All individuals born around the same time are in the same species. Like Lucy's family.

Just like we would transition from calling a bucket empty to calling at full, even if the bucket is only filling one drop at a time.

Ok, let's watch the evolution of a very small bucket and see what we can see.
0 drops - bucket is definitely empty
10 drops - bucket is definitely full

0 - definitely empty (species A)
1 - a little bit less empty and more full than at 0 drops
2 - a little bit less empty and more full than at 1 drop
3 - a little bit less empty and more full than at 2 drops
4 - a little bit less empty and more full than at 3 drops
5 - a little bit less empty and more full than at 4 drops
... you get the idea
9 - a little bit less empty and more full than at 8 drops
10 - definitely full

Exactly when did we go from empty to full?

Ok, let's go the other way
10 - definitely full (species B)
9 - a little bit less full and more empty than at 10 drops
8 - a little bit less full and more empty than at 9 drops
7 - a little bit less full and more empty than at 8 drops
6 - a little bit less full and more empty than at 7 drops
5 - a little bit less full and more empty than at 6 drops
...
1 - a little bit less full and more empty than at 2 drops
0 - definitely empty

Exactly when did we go from full to empty?

Let's do some digging and see what we find. Not the process of speciation happening in one generation. What I'm talking about is a change in identification of species A to species B, happening within a generation.

 

[olgamc]

I'm not saying that if it disagrees with me, then it's wrong. I'm just saying that, it looks like the person who typed the page was just saying that it's a hybrid and not its own distinct classified species. It doesn't have a foot note or anything.

They probably just typed it in that way to help the reader understand what it is. Not to actually call it by a specific name.

So what is it's actual species? I am curious.

Also, species don't have naming conventions like that.

Sure?

Article H.3

www.iapt-taxon.org

Yea exactly. With species, there is no "warm" option in the middle. You are either species A, or you are species B. There is no option for something in the middle. The tea is either hot or cold.

Sure? So what species is a dog then?

I didn't say that. Seems like a strawman. But it is true that Lucy was not classified as a hybrid.

Sure you did. You said there was a black line - when someone categorizes the first person of species B. Lucy was the first individual found of species B. That means that her parents would have been categorized as species A. Or was Lucy not the first individual of species B?

One of those generations. Because I don't have a time machine, I cannot tell you. But if I did have a time machine, I could. If I watched every single generation.

Fair enough. I am with you on this, I believe that humans just appeared at one distinct point in time. But that's not evolution. So let's pick something we can watch - like our little bucket, and you tell me the exact drop when we went from empty to full and from full to empty.

 

[Job 33:6]

So what is it's actual species? I am curious.

Sure?

Article H.3

www.iapt-taxon.org

.

Great, so yea, it's just a formal way of identifying a hybrid. It in and of itself is not a species classification. It's just a naming convention for hybrids.

You wouldn't go and see a grizzley and polar bear hybrid and say "that's a species so and so ex such and such". Rather you would say "that's a hybrid between this species and that".

This also doesn't happen in linear/temporal evolution. Like you wouldn't call something a hybrid between a prior species and a future species that doesn't exist yet (you wouldn't even know what to call the future species because it doesn't exist). You would just identify the new species as a new species and let that be that.

Sure? So what species is a dog then?

Sure you did. You said there was a black line - when someone categorizes the first person of species B. Lucy was the first individual found of species B. That means that her parents would have been categorized as species A. Or was Lucy not the first individual of species B?

There is a definite line. I didn't say that Lucy was the specimen that defines that line.

That's why I've said over and over again, that it doesn't matter to me when you draw that line, but rather I'm making the point that there is a line.

Fair enough. I am with you on this, I believe that humans just appeared at one distinct point in time. But that's not evolution. So let's pick something we can watch - like our little bucket, and you tell me the exact drop when we went from empty to full and from full to empty.

It is evolution though. Because as I've noted countless times now, everyone has to draw that line somewhere. Even in a gradual transitions.

Same with the bucket. And as I said earlier, it doesn't matter to me if it's dropped number 200 or 300, the point is that the transition from species A to species B happens.

 

[Job 33:6]

If you compare the original bucket, then the change is a lot of drops and you can go from an empty bucket to a full bucket. If you compare the full bucket to the one drop less of a full bucket, the change is one drop and you did not go from an empty bucket to a full bucket, you went to an almost full bucket to a full bucket.

And as I've said before, in taxonomy, you're either one species or another. You aren't an "almost species".

Right. Because they don't watch every drop. They compare across many drops. Same as in the video. That's how they decide on species - they compare individuals from very different points in time. All individuals born around the same time are in the same species. Like Lucy's family.

Yes. And as noted multiple times now, if every drop was observed, the change from A to B would still occur. Somewhere in the middle, in a single drop.

Ok, let's watch the evolution of a very small bucket and see what we can see.
0 drops - bucket is definitely empty
10 drops - bucket is definitely full

0 - definitely empty (species A)
1 - a little bit less empty and more full than at 0 drops
2 - a little bit less empty and more full than at 1 drop
3 - a little bit less empty and more full than at 2 drops
4 - a little bit less empty and more full than at 3 drops
5 - a little bit less empty and more full than at 4 drops
... you get the idea
9 - a little bit less empty and more full than at 8 drops
10 - definitely full

Exactly when did we go from empty to full?

In taxonomy, there are no middle drop categories. So, in our case examples above, whenever we reach reproductive isolation. Whether that's drop 3 or drop 7 would depend on the observations.

 

[olgamc]

Great, so yea, it's just a formal way of identifying a hybrid. It in and of itself is not a species classification.

So... what species is it then? Because you said it has to be some species... so what is it?

There is a definite line. I didn't say that Lucy was the specimen that defines that line.

That's why I've said over and over again, that it doesn't matter to me when you draw that line, but rather I'm making the point that there is a line.

Ok, well, if it doesn't matter, let's draw the line at Lucy. Were Lucy's parents classified as the same species as Lucy or a different species than Lucy?

It is evolution though. Because as I've noted countless times now, everyone has to draw that line somewhere. Even in a gradual transitions.

Same with the bucket. And as I said earlier, it doesn't matter to me if it's dropped number 200 or 300, the point is that the transition from species A to species B happens.

With Lucy I drew the line. With bucket you draw the line. Go ahead, please, draw the line when bucket changed from A to B? And then draw the line when bucket changed from B to A. However you do it, I don't care. You do you. Draw the line.

 

[olgamc]

And as I've said before, in taxonomy, you're either one species or another. You aren't an "almost species".

Well apparently you can be, because you can be a subspecies, which is another way of saying "just a bit different from the original", or "still species A, but on it's way to becoming species B".

In taxonomy, there are no middle drop categories. So, in our case examples above, whenever we reach reproductive isolation. Whether that's drop 3 or drop 7 would depend on the observations.

Ok, so because we decided that our bucket has a 10 drop capacity, we know that to go from species A to species B we need exactly 10 drops. Our bucket is not 1 drop capacity, right? We had pre-determined that to begin with. And maybe some other buckets exist that are 1 drop capacity, but not this bucket.

So drop 0 is species A and drop 10 is species B, reproductive isolation is achieved on drop 10. Drop 10 cannot reproduce with drop 0. Drop 10 is the last drop in the bucket, it completes the transition from empty to full. Agree?

So drops 0 - 9 belong to the empty species.

Ok, let's try the other way. When we extract the last drop from the bucket, we achieve the full transition from full to empty. Agree? Going from 10 to 0, reproductive isolation occurs at drop 0.

So drops 10 - 1 belong to the full species.

?

 

[Job 33:6]

So... what species is it then? Because you said it has to be some species... so what is it?

Hybrids aren't considered separate species, so in this case it would just be left as a hybrid.

This wouldn't happen in linear or single lineage of evolution. Because you can't have hybrids involving species that don't exist yet. Like saying "this is a hybrid between species A and some unknown species that doesn't exist yet".

As interesting as it is.

 

[Job 33:6]

Well apparently you are, because you can be a subspecies, which is another way of saying just a bit different from the original

Ok, so because we decided that drop 0 is species A and drop 10 is species B, reproductive isolation is achieved on drop 10. Drop 10 cannot reproduce with drop 0. Drop 10 is the last drop in the bucket, it completes the transition from empty to full. Agree?

So drops 0 - 9 are empty.

Yes. So 0-9 would be species A, and B would be drop 10.