Evolution - and their take over/destruction of science

[Speedwell]

sure it will be evolution since it has now a new complex system.

But it will still be a "dog" a member of the family Canidae. And no "new comple system" just quantitative modification of a dog's foreleg.

 

[klutedavid]

But it will still be a "dog" a member of the family Canidae. And no "new comple system" just quantitative modification of a dog's foreleg.

So how would you define a species and speciation?

 

[Speedwell]

So how would you define a species and speciation?

A species is a man-made classification for a group of creatures who can reproduce only with themselves, not with members of other groups. This is the classical definition, and the most commonly used, but is not the only one (in case you are busy googling to prove me wrong).. In any case, the concept of species is somewhat arbitrary and has no hard boundaries. That is why the determination of species in the field is often difficult and sometimes controversial.

Speciation occurs when a sub-population of a species is reproductively isolated for some reason and over time evolves to the point where it is no longer interfertile with the parent population.

 

[Go Braves]

Why do the folks who think evolution isn't real think a new flu shot is needed every year?

 

[klutedavid]

A species is a man-made classification for a group of creatures who can reproduce only with themselves, not with members of other groups. This is the classical definition, and the most commonly used, but is not the only one (in case you are busy googling to prove me wrong).. In any case, the concept of species is somewhat arbitrary and has no hard boundaries. That is why the determination of species in the field is often difficult and sometimes controversial.

Speciation occurs when a sub-population of a species is reproductively isolated for some reason and over time evolves to the point where it is no longer interfertile with the parent population.

There seems to be some complexity involved in the definition of a species, much debate.

How can science function without first defining it's nomenclature, the word, 'species', should be strongly defined.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Why do the folks who think evolution isn't real think a new flu shot is needed every year?

They don't, they think a flu shot is a scam. In some third world countries there are people trying to stop Bill Gates immunization programs.

 

[Go Braves]

They don't, they think a flu shot is a scam. In some third world countries there are people trying to stop Bill Gates immunization programs.

Lol, you're right, there's folks who believe that conspiracy theory ignorance.

 

[joshua 1 9]

1. prove that either biological or cosmological Evolution is based on "science"?

Have you read Frances Collins book? There is no conflict between science and the Bible. His version of theistic evolution tries to reflect that.

 

[Speedwell]

There seems to be some complexity involved in the definition of a species, much debate.

How can science function without first defining it's nomenclature, the word, 'species', should be strongly defined.

Because, in nature, there does not exist a "hard line" between species to define the concept around. As a consequence, the definition will be to some extent arbitrary and contextual.

 

[klutedavid]

Because, in nature, there does not exist a "hard line" between species to define the concept around. As a consequence, the definition will be to some extent arbitrary and contextual.

Are you implying that nature itself may not be comprehensible, in a defined fortmat?

 

[Speedwell]

Are you implying that nature itself may not be comprehensible, in a defined fortmat?

No. The issue is merely one of constructing a convenient taxonomy for what is essentially a continuum of types.

 

[klutedavid]

No. The issue is merely one of constructing a convenient taxonomy for what is essentially a continuum of types.

Well, may I ask for a definition of species?

 

[Speedwell]

Well, may I ask for a definition of species?

I gave you one: "species" is a classification for a group of creatures who can reproduce only with themselves, not with members of other groups.

 

[Gene2memE]

My level of understanding is so poor?

Speciation: the formation of new and distinct species in the course of evolution.

What part of 'distinct' don't you understand? You think a chimp with green eyes is a 'distinct' species from other chimps?

I have shown you guys about a hundred different examples of the same point, your; "evolution is a slow process" hand waving, which I knew all along was a diversion technique. I believe the clearest example even a child could understand was the train arriving at the station, slowly, .. over four billion years yet never actually arriving.

The bottom line is that we both creationist and evolutionist admit that: "Evolution/speciation of one species into another distinct species NEVER HAPPENS"

Thank you. Now if you want to understand how life really began, why, and where we are headed, .. you know, the 'Big Picture' I would be more than happy to help you with that.

You seem to want evolution to produce a readily defined species delineation between one generation and the next**. Reading further, you appear to want this to occur with large scale morphological differences at the 'kinds' level, which is a fuzzy creationist term but would roughly approximate to the genus level.

So, what you're asking is for us to provide an example of evolution that violates the basic principles and observed laws of evolution. Basically, you're requesting evidence for evolution that is not seen in nature and would be a disproof of evolution. Its like asking for evidence of universal gravitation by requesting evidence of something that defy gravity. See the Catch 22 here?

** Speciation can occur between single generations, generally though polyploidism (doubling of the number of chromosomes, creating reproductive isolation but few, if any, changes to physical appearance) or hybridisation (where there are distinct physical characteristics that show divergence from the parent populations). However, nothing like this occurs at the genus level.

 

[pgp_protector]

No. The issue is merely one of constructing a convenient taxonomy for what is essentially a continuum of types.

Old post but works on pointing it out.

We all can agree (save for the severely color blind) that this text is red.

We can also similarly agree that this text is blue.

If we have red text and decide to change it by just a small amount, the change might be barely noticeable, but still a very small change. This, we will call our micro-evolution. Every word up to now can be considered red, with very minute changes in the hue. If I keep typing long enough, would anyone be able to tell me, just by looking, at which word or letter is this post no longer red, but actually purple or blue? All this micro-evolution keeps occurring in the text, with it's tiny changes in hue, but ultimately, I end up with a completely different color. It's actually the difference between what one would consider red and what one would consider purple (or a whole new species, in this analogy) which is macro-evolution. See, the common misunderstanding is, that macro-evolution means a dog being a direct offspring of some other different canine-like species, or even more stupidly, a cat coming from a dog. Well, that's not what macro-evolution is. There is really only one distinction between micro-evolution and macro-evolution, and it's the same distinction between their prefixes: micro and macro. Just like if something is microscopic or if something is macroscopic. Microscopic usually requires a microscope to see it because it's so small, but the macroscopic are things large enough to be seen by the common human eye. However, things of both size are completely visible and plainly exist, and there are many things in this universe between both general sizes. So as you read this, can you tell me the first word here that is blue, and not purple? After all, every change in color since the first word in this paragraph has only micro-evolved from the color next to it, but we've managed to macro-evolve through 2 colors. This, hopefully, will illustrate how it's illogical to believe that macro-evolution doesn't happen, even given time for enough micro-evolution to occur.

So tell me -- what was the first purple word in the block of text above? What's the first blue word? Remember, if macro-evolution simply can not happen then you're saying the words you are reading now are still red.

 

[xianghua]

But it will still be a "dog" a member of the family Canidae. And no "new comple system" just quantitative modification of a dog's foreleg.

a wing isnt a new complex trait?

 

[Speedwell]

a wing isnt a new complex trait?

No, it is merely a stepwise modification of a forelimb--the same bones, muscles, blood vessels, etc. changed in shape and proportion. Nothing new there at all, and nothing more complex than the creature's original forelimb.

 

[Arius]

You can call it whatever you like. We don't need the bones to be able to tell that we're related to that organism. We also don't need the remains of your grand-grand-grandfather to tell that you're related. Our DNA is more than enough evidence.

Again, so please answer my question; "What species is the Common Ancestor"?

 

[DogmaHunter]

actually the correct logic will be as dog stay as dog+ variations over time= a different version of a dog. but its still a dog so its not evolution.

Humans and chimps = different versions of a primate
Humans, chimps and cats = different versions of a mammal
Humans, chimps, cats and crockodiles = different versions of a vertebrate


Just saying....

 

[DogmaHunter]

Gravitational singularities are mainly considered within general relativity, where density apparently becomes infinite at the center of a black hole, and within astrophysics and cosmology as the earliest state of the universe during the Big Bang. (wikipedia)

I'll just repeat what I said: science doesn't claim that energy is infinite.