Originally posted by John MacNeil You evolutionists don't even seem to know the definition of the theory that you put so much faith in.
--"Darwinian theory--Darwin's theory of evolution, which holds that all species of plants and animals developed from earlier forms by hereditary transmissions of slight variations in successive generations, and that natural selection determines which forms will survive."--Webster's
First, can you document which version of Webster's you got this from. The current edition of Merriam-Webster's doesn't even list "Darwinian theory". Instead, it lists "evolution". That defintion is " b : a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations"
Second, you asked for the defintion of evolution, not Darwinian evolution. And you asked for the "shortest" definition at that.
Third, I gave you the definition evolutionary biologists have. Since evolution is a scientific theory, don't you think it is only fair to let those scientists define it?
This description is of natural selection within individual species so that the species reaches optimal development. It says nothing about one species transforming into another species.
Yes, it does. What do you think "all species of plants and animals developed from earlier forms by hereditary transmissions of slight variations in successive generations" says? One species transforming to another by transmission of slight variations in successive generations.
When you make such claims as animals having a common ancestor, such as humans and apes evolving from the same parentage, then that is where you leave science and reality and enter the world of cultism. There is no evidence of one species changing into another species.
Remember that species are populations that do not naturally breed to produce fertile offspring.
I've told you before, before you make statements like "there is no evidence" you really should search PubMed. There are dozens of studies documenting the formation of new species from existing ones. Both in the wild and in the lab. I'll be happy to give you a list of references (I have in several threads, maybe I'll start a new one) but do the PubMed search yourself. Just enter the search term "speciation" and start looking at the titles of the papers.
There is plenty of evidence of species developing optimally over time. All evidence that evolutionists present that they say supports evolution, is in reality evidence for natural selection, which Darwinian Theory describes.
There are deductions from the statement that species come from a common ancestry. One is that all species should be classified in a nested hierarchy of similarity based upon their relatedness. And that is exactly what we find. There is nothing about natural selection in that evidence at all.
His theory is not about different species having common ancestors, at least not as it is stated. When the people who study fossils and biology found that there were a number of inconsistencies in the fossil record that they couldn't explain, that is when they began making up the species changing into other species scenario.
Sorry, but Darwin was very clear in Origin that he was arguing for common ancestry. For instance, from the Introduction: "In considering the Origin of Species, it is quite conceivable that a naturalist, reflecting on the mutual affinities of organic beings, on their embryological relations, their geographical distribution, geological succession, and other such facts, might come to the conclusion that species had not been independently created, but had descended, like varieties, from other species." There it is, common ancestry right from the first in the Intro to Origin. Also note that the fossil record was not the inspiration. It was the geographical distribution and their mutual affinities that gave the idea of common ancestry.
This is not just true for hominids, but they require a missing link for practically every species on the planet because virtually none of them can be traced back to before the demarcation that occurred when the Neanderthal type of hominids and the Woolly types of animals all suddenly went extinct.
As I've posted, it's not true for hominids. And it's not true of other species. For instance, this paper McNamara KJ, Heterochrony and the evolution of echinoids. In CRC Paul and AB Smith (eds) Echinoderm Phylogeny and Evolutionary Biology, pp149-163, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1988 pg 140 of Futuyma. tracks speciation right across that "demarcation".
Also, as your own websites show, neandertals and woolly mammoths did not "suddenly" go extinct. It took at least 20,000 years.
When they give evidence to support their theory, and it actually refutes their theory, such as this description they gave earlier in this thread;
--"A phylogenetic species is an irreducible (basal) cluster of organisms that is diagnosably distinct from other such clusters, and within which there is a parental pattern of ancestry and descent. (Cracraft 1989)"--
then that shows that evolutionists don't interpret evidence objectively.
That particular referrence was supposed to prove, as the evolutionists presented it, that a race is not a species. Yet, it proves just the opposite. A "parental pattern of ancestry" is evident in all pure breeds of humans, such as blacks and whites, and when the two species interbreed the parental pattern of ancestry is discernable both visually, and genetically. And in all cases the genetic variation of the two species make it impossible for white people to turn into black people or for black people to turn into white people, no matter how many generations they wait for such an occurrence.
But blacks and whites are not two species to start with. That they interbreed to produce fertile offspring shows that. Also, haven't you heard of blacks who can "pass" as whites in white society? That says that black people turned into white people, doesn't it?
John, you were the one that insisted that "races" of humans were not separate species, and now you are trying to claim they are.
Also, you have misunderstood the definition. The phylogenetic species concept tries to track "species" through their transformations through time. IOW, by the phylogenetic species concept, H. sapiens and H. erectus are the same species because H. erectus transformed into H. sapiens. Similarly H. habilis is also part of this same species since H. habilis transformed to H. erectus. (yes, the "missing links" for both of those exist) These are a different phylogenetic species from the robust australopithecines since these have a different genetic cluster and only meet at the common ancestor -- possibly A. afarensis.
