Creationists: What are the reasons general acceptance of deep time and evolution

[Loudmouth]

What about separated populations that enjoy sex with each other but turn out to be nearly always infertile?

That would be considered complete speciation since there is still no gene flow between the populations.

What about ring species?

That is considered incipient speciation. Wiki has a decent page:

Incipient speciation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What about parthenogenic species, that are all female and have no interbreeding ever?

The same would apply for bacteria and other asexual species. Species in this case are defined as a population that undergoes the same selective pressures and fills the same niche.

What about long extinct species, for which we cannot derive DNA results or mating habits, but only ancient fossils?

They are defined by morphology using multivariate analyses. In other words, a group of fossils that are statistically more alike than other fossils.

 

[createdtoworship]

There are species in the same genus that do not interbreed. You are wrong.

well anyway,

I won't argue with you on that specific point, although I could. I am more interested in how you believe species to be natural and genus to be man made, isn't it more honest to say that both are man made taxonomy?

species is a taxonomical inquiry invented by Carl Linnaeus in his work systema naturae 1735 (translated from latin to english)
from

https://www.kth.se/polopoly_fs/1.19...umn-content/attachment/Linnaeus--extracts.pdf

how is it that species is not invented by him.

more evidence of the coinage by linnaeus:

"Originally, the term species, coined by Carolus Linnaeus, referred to individual types or kinds of organisms. Linnaeus chose the word species because it is the Latin word used in the Genesis account of the Bible. "

Origin of Species

now would not it be more honest to say that although species is coined by linnaeus, populations however occur in nature?

I would make this adjustment as you have been officially debunked here. But please correct me if I am wrong.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

That would be considered complete speciation since there is still no gene flow between the populations.

Or, rather, very little gene flow, which is different from no gene flow.

That is considered incipient speciation. Wiki has a decent page:

Incipient speciation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



The same would apply for bacteria and other asexual species. Species in this case are defined as a population that undergoes the same selective pressures and fills the same niche.



They are defined by morphology using multivariate analyses. In other words, a group of fossils that are statistically more alike than other fossils.

In other words, you concur that one cannot always use the definition that a species is a group of animals that can sexually reproduce together. Such a definition is fuzzy and sometimes unusable, not because scientists are confused, but because nature doesn't always provide neat fits for our word usages.

Nobody is ever going to observe what dinosaurs can mate with which.

 

[digitalgoth]

Nobody is ever going to observe what dinosaurs can mate with which.

Didn't you watch Jurassic Park?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Didn't you watch Jurassic Park?

No, I missed that movie . . . never saw any reason to go see it.

 

[SkyWriting]

You cannot disprove evolution by definitions nor by rhetoric, only with evidence.

Dizredux

Is that a quote, or rhetoric?

 

[Gottservant]

This thread is answered simply by the fact that a lack of specificity in closed systems creates continually novel outcomes that can be regulated against desired constants.

In other words, evolution is popular because, like money, it facilitates practices that otherwise require more attention than man has the capacity to give.

When it turns out that you can achieve the same results by being patient, a significant portion of people will lose interest in anything but the end-product Evolution indirectly produces and a significant portion of people will propose their own ideal as something to pursue in the broader freedom of life.

If there is any science left after this, it will be gone by the time that the time transcendent reality of choice is concretely documented in relation to the inner working of the living organism.

 

[Dizredux]

Is that a quote, or rhetoric?

Neither, it is a simple fact.


Dizredux

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

This thread is answered simply by the fact that a lack of specificity in closed systems creates continually novel outcomes that can be regulated against desired constants.

In other words, evolution is popular because, like money, it facilitates practices that otherwise require more attention than man has the capacity to give.

When it turns out that you can achieve the same results by being patient, a significant portion of people will lose interest in anything but the end-product Evolution indirectly produces and a significant portion of people will propose their own ideal as something to pursue in the broader freedom of life.

If there is any science left after this, it will be gone by the time that the time transcendent reality of choice is concretely documented in relation to the inner working of the living organism.

The above attempt to separate evolution from science through fancy verbiage was done by a human with a vestigial tail called a "coccyx". It is evidence of previous ancestral species according to the flesh that sported a real tail.