- Aug 15, 2015
- 145
- 141
- 70
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- UK-Labour
No, they make their conclusions following the demonstrable evidence.
Upvote
0
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.
Or they really want to think that they are a new species. I mean, if I were studying it for 40 years, I'd certainly want to believe that is what it is. But that's just me.
Some do. Some don't. Some find it necessary to "hide the decline" to politically influence us rubes. They want the power their speculation brings, the nice lunches, the respect and speeches, and, of course, the grant money.No, they make their conclusions following the demonstrable evidence.
When I was younger I used to dream of ways to get rich. Joining the worldwide atheistic evolution conspiracy was not one that occurred to me. Mainly, I suppose, because none of the scientists I knew seemed particularly well-to-do or politically powerful.Some do. Some don't. Some find it necessary to "hide the decline" to politically influence us rubes. They want the power their speculation brings, the nice lunches, the respect and speeches, and, of course, the grant money.
I would never have thought that either. Looks like we agree.When I was younger I used to dream of ways to get rich. Joining the worldwide atheistic evolution conspiracy was not one that occurred to me. Mainly, I suppose, because none of the scientists I knew seemed particularly well-to-do or politically powerful.
They're still finches though.Let the excuses and the tap dancing begin!!
As I understand it, bacteria create a new species every nine HOURS, and have been doing so for allegedly millions of years.
Yet ... guess what? they're still bacteria!
They're still finches though.
As I understand it, bacteria create a new species every nine HOURS, and have been doing so for allegedly millions of years.
Yet ... guess what? they're still bacteria!
That's a fair assessment. Back in the day (before the "modern" revival of creationism lead by Whitcomb and Morris in the 60s, anyway) 19th century Evangelical theologians were willing to give ground to all of it except the special creation of man, which they would not give up.Bacteria represent an entire domain of life (one of the 3 domains).
This is what always gets me about creationists and "kinds". The further you move from humans, the broader the acceptance of evolutionary change becomes.
Is this the argument you would use if you saw an ape give birth to a human being, or vice versa?And cats are still felines. And mammals. And tetrapodia. And vertebrates. And Eukaryotes.
And humans are still mammals!
Is this the argument you would use if you saw an ape give birth to a human being, or vice versa?
But they're still finches, call me when they turn into octopuses[/sarcasm]
But ... but it could still be argued that they are cyanobacteria!What needs to be shown is a finch with octupus tentacles as opposed to wings.
According to the journal Science, following a 31 year study of Darwin's Finches on the Galapagos Islands, rapid hybridization and speciation has been bserved in the wild after a migrant finch managed to breed successfully and establish a colony.
This, hopefully will provide evidence for those people who declare that speciation has never been observed - well it has now.
The BBC website has a readable outline for the study but it is free to read (after registration) at the Science Journal website.
Let the excuses and the tap dancing begin!!
BBC : Bird seen becoming new species
Until that finch flew to the island it didn’t interbreed with them either. Just as red tailed deer tend not to breed with white tailed deer. Just as every animal on this planet tends not to breed even with the different subspecies in the same species. For 200 years they claimed none of them interbred, yet the DNA sequences of those finches shows they have extensive interchange of genes and are of mixed ancestory, each and every one of them. To claim that they can’t doesnt fit with the data.The progeny of the observed colony cannot breed with the other species of finches on the islands - as far as I understand it (and I'm definitely no expert on this) this is one of the definitions of speciation.
You need to slow down, stop looking for "gotchas" and think this through. Species have very fuzzy boundaries, and the taxonomic term is a collection of ad hoc concepts. Trying to play one definition off against another has gotten you nowhere. Try another tack.Until that finch flew to the island it didn’t interbreed with them either. Just as red tailed deer tend not to breed with white tailed deer. Just as every animal on this planet tends not to breed even with the different subspecies in the same species. For 200 years they claimed none of them interbred, yet the DNA sequences of those finches shows they have extensive interchange of genes and are of mixed ancestory, each and every one of them. To claim that they can’t doesnt fit with the data.
See above post.
How much more evidence do creationists need to accept the ToE as the only viable explanation of animal/plant diversity on the planet???
You need to slow down, stop looking for "gotchas" and think this through. Species have very fuzzy boundaries, and the taxonomic term is a collection of ad hoc concepts. Trying to play one definition off against another has gotten you nowhere. Try another tack.
Why do you care, anyway? Speciation occurs. So what?
When they diverge far enough do be definitive--then it's easier. In general there will be a long time during the speciation process when at least partial interfertility will be possible. But in biology species determination is often difficult and sometimes controversial, regardless. That, and the species "boundary" (if there is such a thing) is not as important to a biologist as it is to a creationist. With regard to the finches, it was the variation in beaks Darwin observed which gave him the idea of evolution, not the exact determination of species.What did you find tobe fuzzy about them mating right in front of their eyes?
Why try to play them off, you can’t follow either one.
Species - Biology-Online Dictionary
“(2) (taxonomy) An individual belonging to a group of organisms (or the entire group itself) having common characteristics and (usually) are capable of mating with one another to produce fertile offspring. Failing that (for example the Liger) It has to be ecologically and recognisably the same.”
Speciation doesn’t occurr, certainly not with interbreeding pairs.
So, if the collection of terms are ad hoc concepts, then claiming one finch is a separate species is also ad hoc and holds little merit at all. Even if I see nothing ad hoc in either definition. Nor fuzzy when they are interbreeding right in front of their noses.
Why do I care? Apparently I care that science is done, not ad hoc classifications that have no meaning according to you. And btw, how does one support speciation after one admits his classification of species is based on ad hoc definitions?
Dear. Another one arguing against evolution
Listen carefully: ever "new" species, is a subspecies of its ancestral species.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?