-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Are we still evolving?
- Thread starter paulm50
- Start date
justlookinla
Regular Member
The video started with speaking of "the process which made us". Can anyone identify "the process which made us" and support the process with evidence based on the scientific method.
As far as the question, are we still evolving. Yes, we are and will never evolve into another life form. We see scientific evidence of that in observing bacteria becoming bacteria, finches becoming finches and moths becoming moths.
Upvote
0
Yes, I did.
They aren't arbitrary, and they are based on real world events, as in producing offspring.
If all you have is denial, please post elsewhere.
Upvote
0
justlookinla
Regular Member
Show me the offspring of the life form which produced pine trees and elephants.
Upvote
0
Zosimus
Non-Christian non-evolution believer
Looked in a mirror lately?
I refer you to http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/01/140111-hybrid-dolphin-species-ocean-animal-science/
"A well-known dolphin species, the clymene dolphin, arose from mating between two separate and distinct dolphin species, report genetics researchers."
So wait a minute... if species are defined by two things that CANNOT produce fertile offspring, how is it that two species interbreed to form a third species? It makes no sense.
Like most things in science...
Upvote
0
I am not a hybrid of a chimp and human.
Do you have any examples of a chimp-human hybrid or not?
How did they become distinct species to begin with?
Upvote
0
- Jan 10, 2010
- 37,281
- 8,501
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
'Species" is a very finely defined term.......but it has been defined for different reasons for different fields.
Plant species are not the same as animal species for reproduction. And there are different versions for animals as well. But they are all "real world" based......for different reasons.
Upvote
0
- Jan 10, 2010
- 37,281
- 8,501
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Upvote
0
Zosimus
Non-Christian non-evolution believer
If that is so, then you should have no difficulty in stating a clear, universally-accepted definition of species.
Loudmouth has stated his preference for the set of all animals that can/do have offspring.
This definition is defective for a number of reasons. First of all, it defines each individual bacteria as its own species because bacteria never have offspring with other bacteria. It does not explain how different species of dolphins can interbreed and produce a third species. It also does not explain how a chihuahua can be the same species as a St. Bernard.
Now I am aware that you have a desire to thrust our your jaw, and declare firmly that there is no dispute in the matter, but there is!
Why should I accept the biological species concept as superior to, let's say, the mate-recognition species concept, the ecological species concept, the cladistic species concept, or the phylogenetic species concept?
Upvote
0
I specified that it was the definition used for sexual species.
We already know how that happens. It's called sexual reproduction. That's how interbreeding happens.
How did you get those two different populations of dolphin species to begin with? How did you define them? The only way you can get those different populations is to restrict interbreeding to begin with.
The assumption that you are making is that speciation is irreversible. It isn't. Are we incapable of defining something as dry because it can get wet later?
What the scientific definition of species (for sexual species) focuses on is the mechanism and the effects it has on population. The effect we are looking for is population specific mutations that accumulate over time and cause one population to become different from another. The mechanism that causes this is a barrier to genetic flow between the populations. If that barrier disappears, then the effect will be different, but that doesn't change the facts of what is going on.
Perhaps they shouldn't be the same species.
What effects would those other mechanisms have on the divergence of species over time?
Upvote
0
- Jan 10, 2010
- 37,281
- 8,501
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
I wouldn't. Each serves a function. None is "superior." All are man-made.
Upvote
0
False. My definition only requires that they don't. Again, the definition is looking at an effect, which is genetic divergence. When two populations don't intrebreed this causes population specific mutations to accumulate, producing divergence over time. This will occur even when the two populations could produce viable hybrids.
Given that you reject any and all observations that run counter to your beliefs, I'm not sure.
Upvote
0
Zosimus
Non-Christian non-evolution believer
http://www.livescience.com/42456-dolphin-species-interbred.html
As you can clearly see here, two species of dolphins are interbreeding. It's not just that the members of the species theoretically can. They are actually getting it on so regularly that they have created what scientists blithely call "a whole new species of dolphins."
Now, according to your definition, if Dolphin A has sex with Dolphin B and produces Dolphin C, those three dolphins should not ALL be different species. Yet there you have it.
It's a shame you're so closed off to empirical evidence.
Upvote
0
Why isn't it being described as a single species interbreeding?
What you had is a long time period where they didn't interbreed, and this produced two species. In fact, the genetic barrier between the original two species is still there. The mutations in one species is not finding its way to the other species. Instead, they are combining in a hybrid species while the original parent species stay separate.
If they were the same species, then you would only have Dolphin A. You can't have a hybrid from two different species without first producing two different species.
Even you describe them as two different species.
Upvote
0
