Help me out here guys.

[pgp_protector]

Hiding behind a judge's robe to support "science" now, are we?

 

[Danyc]

Hiding behind a judge's robe to support "science" now, are we?

 

[pgp_protector]

LOL

would that be PTP ? (Punch transfer Protocol )

 

[Gawron]

Posted by plindpoe:

"but I just wanted to play as well."

You atheist are all cut from the same cloth. But I will come back to you.

 

[Gawron]

OK, actually, I will deal with one of your enlightened comments now.

Posted by plindpoe:

"1 actual scientific meaning and 11 misunderstandings/strawmen."

Which you stated after I made the comment that the term species had as least 12 different meanings.

OK, how's this? When an evolutionary biologist uses the word "species"...he or she might be referring to...

Quote:
Typological species
A group of organisms in which individuals are members of the species if they sufficiently conform to certain fixed properties. The clusters of variations or phenotypes within specimens (i.e. longer and shorter tails) would differentiate the species. This method was used as a "classical" method of determining species, such as with Linnaeus early in evolutionary theory. However, we now know that different phenotypes do not always constitute different species (e.g.: a 4-winged Drosophila born to a 2-winged mother is not a different species). Species named in this manner are called morphospecies.
Or...

Quote:
Morphological species
A population or group of populations that differs morphologically from other populations. For example, we can distinguish between a chicken and a duck because they have different shaped bills and the duck has webbed feet. Species have been defined in this way since well before the beginning of recorded history. This species concept is much criticised because more recent genetic data reveal that genetically distinct populations may look very similar and, contrarily, large morphological differences sometimes exist between very closely-related populations. Nonetheless, most species known have been described solely from morphology.
Or...

Quote:
Biological / Isolation species
A set of actually or potentially interbreeding populations. This is generally a useful formulation for scientists working with living examples of the higher taxa like mammals, fish, and birds, but meaningless for organisms that do not reproduce sexually. It does not distinguish between the theoretical possibility of interbreeding and the actual likelihood of gene flow between populations and is thus impractical in instances of allopatric (geographically isolated) populations. The results of breeding experiments done in artificial conditions may or may not reflect what would happen if the same organisms encountered each other in the wild, making it difficult to gauge whether or not the results of such experiments are meaningful in reference to natural populations.
Or...

Quote:
Biological / reproductive species
Two organisms that are able to reproduce naturally to produce fertile offspring. Organisms that can reproduce to almost always make infertile hybrids, such as a mule or hinny, are not considered to be the same species.
Or...

Quote:
Mate-recognition species
A group of organisms that are known to recognize one another as potential mates. Like the isolation species concept above, it applies only to organisms that reproduce sexually. Unlike the isolation species concept, it focuses specifically on pre-mating reproductive isolation.
Or...

Quote:
Phylogenetic (Cladistic)/ Evolutionary / Darwinian species
A group of organisms that shares an ancestor; a lineage that maintains its integrity with respect to other lineages through both time and space. At some point in the progress of such a group, members may diverge from one another: when such a divergence becomes sufficiently clear, the two populations are regarded as separate species. Subspecies as such are not recognized under this approach; either a population is a phylogenetic species or it is not taxonomically distinguishable.
Or...

Quote:
Ecological species
A set of organisms adapted to a particular set of resources, called a niche, in the environment. According to this concept, populations form the discrete phenetic clusters that we recognize as species because the ecological and evolutionary processes controlling how resources are divided up tend to produce those clusters
Or...

Quote:
Genetic species
based on similarity of DNA of individuals or populations. Techniques to compare similarity of DNA include DNA-DNA hybridization, and genetic fingerprinting (or DNA barcoding).
Or...

Quote:
Phenetic species
based on phenotypes
Or...

Quote:
Recognition species
based on behavioral interactions
Or...

Quote:
Microspecies
Species that reproduce without meiosis or fertilization so that each generation is genetically identical to the previous generation. See also apomixis.
Or...

Quote:
Cohesion species
Most inclusive population of individuals having the potential for phenotypic cohesion through intrinsic cohesion mechanisms. This is an expansion of the mate-recognition species concept to allow for post-mating isolation mechanisms; no matter whether populations can hybridize successfully, they are still distinct cohesion species if the amount of hybridization is insufficient to completely mix their respective gene pools.
Or...

Quote:
Evolutionary Significant Unit (ESU)
An evolutionary significant unit is a population of organisms that is considered distinct for purposes of conservation. Often referred to as a species or a wildlife species, an ESU also has several possible definitions, which coincide with definitions of species.
So when an evolutionary biologist says that there is clear observational evidence of new species having been formed through the genetic process of speciation...he or she means that they will define the word "species" damn well any way they choose to so that it supports their conclusions that they have observed speciation in nature.

But go ahead, point out the eleven definitions listed above which are "strawmen."

 

[Chalnoth]

[Long list]

So?

 

[Gawron]

You know I came back here to edit my prior post to insert that I knew the one point which would go completely unanswered is my last sentence.

But you have so ably proven my point before I even made it.

Very weak gutless dodge. But I am working on another reply to some of your comments even now.

 

[Chalnoth]

You know I came back here to edit my prior post to insert that I knew the one point which would go completely unanswered is my last sentence.

But you have so ably proven my point before I even made it.

Very weak gutless dodge. But I am working on another reply to some of your comments even now.

Are you talking to me? Because I'm asking what your point was. If your point is merely to provide evidence for your previous assertion that biologists have a number of specific definitions for species, then fine. But I'm wondering why you think it's interesting at all. These different definitions you posted are just minutiae. They are specific details that may be required to be known for some tiny subset of biologists to make their communication clear. They aren't important in the least for getting an overall picture.

So, I ask again, why do you think that the existence of multiple, specific definitions of species is interesting?

 

[plindboe]

Gawron,

It's good that you know how to use wikipedia. The word speciation has one clear definition, namely the process whereby new species arise. That's what I meant in my previous post, since that's the word you used. And yes, that was a nitpick.

I agree however with the point that species aren't easily defined, illustrated quite easily by phenonema such as ring species, and if "species" is what you meant in your earlier post then I have no serious objections.

I look forward to you addressing the other points made to you.

Peter

 

[Gawron]

When I decided to join this forum, I knew from experience that I would be subjected to the usual litany of atheist attacks and slander, a phenomenon completely different from discussion with someone who simply accepts all tenants of evolution. But, I decided to join anyway, taking the chance that on a Christian forum, the debate could be conducted in a civil manner. It took less than ten post to be proven wrong.

Of course, I make allowances for atheist, as I know they are operating from a position of moral relativism, in that there is no moral or ethical code to follow except that which they set for themselves. Thus, usually all one can expect form the average atheist in response to someone who may hold a differing point of view is a barrage of arrogant condescension, elitist disdain, and open insult. Chalnoth, you have met all of my expectations. And yes, I am talking to you.

If you had bothered to read my initial post, to be found here:

http://christianforums.com/t7186925-why-mutations-cant-produce-cross-species-change.html

you would note that in no part of that post did I attempt to argue God, or ID, or Creationism in any form. The same is true of my next major post, to be found here:

http://christianforums.com/t7186846-why-dna-and-protein-could-not-be-produced-by-random-chance.html&page=2

This is because I have no interest in arguing these issues, I am interested in debates and discussions on evolution, not arguments based on which side holds the moral or intellectual high ground. I wouldn’t do it now, except that you made it an issue.

However, even allowing credit for your mental infirmary, I will respond to your attacks.

Posted by Chalnoth:

“It's blatantly obvious that you know nothing about what you're talking about because of what you say about the subject.”

This is the quote you have problems with:

“Speciation is another term which has at least 12 different meanings.”

I have already shown this to be true. It was important because plindboe insisted that at least eleven of them were strawmen. I wanted him to state which eleven. I then state:

“Macro-evolution is the process which attempts to explain how some 'ancestor' of ours crawled out of the sea, became a land mammal, and then for some reason crawled back into the sea and became whales.”


First, since I had already posted on a topic of this at length, I did not feel the need to do so again. I condensed my comments to make my point. You responded:

“No ancestor of ours did this.”

Well, let’s examine that remark. Below is a chart of the basic timeline of the development of life on earth.

The basic timeline is a 4.6 billion year old Earth, with (very approximately):

• 4 billion years of simple cells (prokaryotes),
• 3 billion years of photosynthesis,
• 2 billion years of complex cells (eukaryotes),
• 1 billion years of multicellular life,
• 600 million years of simple animals,
• 570 million years of arthropods (ancestors of insects, arachnids and crustaceans)
• 550 million years of complex animals
• 500 million years of fish and proto-amphibians,
• 475 million years of land plants,
• 400 million years of insects and seeds,
• 360 million years of amphibians,
• 300 million years of reptiles,
• 200 million years of mammals,
• 150 million years of birds,
• 130 million years of flowers,
• 65 million years since the non-avian dinosaurs died out,
• 200,000 years since humans started looking like they do today.

Note that animals crawled from the sea approximately 600 million years ago, followed 240 million years later by the development of amphibians. So you tell me which came first. Fish and proto-amphibians arrose about 500 million years ago, between these two events.

Cetacea are said to be one of the most distinctive and highly specialized orders of mammals. An article on this can be found here:

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/mammal/cetacea/cetacean.html

From the article: “Early whales such as Rodhocetus show many similarities with an early group of land mammals known as mesonychids, which are also close to the root of the hoofed mammals. In fact, some fossil teeth that were once identified as mesonychids are now known to have come from archaeocetes.

These are traced to the Eocene Epoch, from between 54.8 to 33.7 million years ago. This validates my second claim that these creatures “became a land mammal, and then for some reason crawled back into the sea and became whales.” I state again that with that particular post I had no intention of posting in detail on the particulars of these events, as I had already done so on another thread and assumed I would have to do so again.

You state: “Evolution works on populations, and changes occur slowly over multiple generations.” Within the construct of the theory of evolution, I agree. You then state:

“But you are talking here as if evolution works by the choice of individuals. Nothing could be farther from the truth.”

Actually, I said no such thing, you only think I did. But, let's examine this comment further.

Can Organisms Direct Their Evolution?
Anna Maria Gillis

BioScience, Vol. 41, No. 4 (Apr., 1991), pp. 202-205
"Members of the genetics and evolutionary biology communities were set on their collective ear by Cairns’ paper. Critics said any suggestion that mutations occur in direct response to an environmental challenge smacked of a discredited view, neo-Lamarckism, and directly challenged the current view of neo-Darwinism…

By making a pitch for directed mutations, Cairns violated the dogma on which the fields of evolutionary biology and population biology depend…"

Link here: http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf075/sf075b06.htm Or, try this one:

A Biochemical Mechanism for Nonrandom Mutations and Evolution
Barbara E. Wright

Journal of Bacteriology, June 2000, p. 2993-3001, Vol. 182, No. 11
"Many scientists may share Dobzhansky's intuitive conviction that the marvelous intricacies of living organisms could not have arisen by the selection of truly random mutations…

The environment gave rise to life and continues to direct evolution. Environmental conditions are constantly controlling and fine-tuning the transcriptional machinery of the cell. Feedback mechanisms represent the natural interactive link between an organism and its environment. An obvious selective advantage exists for a relationship in which particular environmental changes are metabolically linked through transcription to genetic changes that help an organism cope with new demands of the environment. In nature, nutritional stress and associated genetic de-repression must be rampant. If mutation rates can be altered by the many variables controlling specific, stress-induced transcription, one might reasonably argue that many mutations are to some extent directed as a result of the unique metabolism of every organism responding to the challenges of its environment. Thus, mutations are brought within the realm of metabolic events to become the final, irreversible act of metabolism in the constant struggle to adapt or die."

Full text here: http://jb.asm.org/cgi/content/full/182/11/2993

Or, try this one:

“The bacterial cell cycle is simpler and different than that of the typical eukaryotic cell cycle. The selective pressure during evolution has been directed to achieve optimal growth of the individual free-living microbial cell instead of a variety of replication rates of the differentiated cell within an entire multi-cellular organism. This means that for most bacterial cells division depends more critically on their success in acquiring and using resources than is the case for most eukaryotic cells. The further implication is that bacterial cells somehow measure their own success in growth and from this ‘decide' when they should attempt cell cycle events such as cell division and chromosome replication.”

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=14162727

You sum up: “But you don’t seem to be aware of any of this…”

More slander. I really didn’t come here to fight, but the only thing ‘blatantly obvious’ here is your inability to have a sane discussion.

 

[Braunwyn]

When I decided to join this forum, I knew from experience that I would be subjected to the usual litany of atheist attacks and slander, a phenomenon completely different from discussion with someone who simply accepts all tenants of evolution. But, I decided to join anyway, taking the chance that on a Christian forum, the debate could be conducted in a civil manner. It took less than ten post to be proven wrong.

Of course, I make allowances for atheist, as I know they are operating from a position of moral relativism, in that there is no moral or ethical code to follow except that which they set for themselves. Thus, usually all one can expect form the average atheist in response to someone who may hold a differing point of view is a barrage of arrogant condescension, elitist disdain, and open insult. Chalnoth, you have met all of my expectations. And yes, I am talking to you.

lol here you are attacking atheists painting them all with your bigoted brush and then you dramatically play victim. mmmkay

 

[plindboe]

When I decided to join this forum, I knew from experience that I would be subjected to the usual litany of atheist attacks and slander, a phenomenon completely different from discussion with someone who simply accepts all tenants of evolution. But, I decided to join anyway, taking the chance that on a Christian forum, the debate could be conducted in a civil manner. It took less than ten post to be proven wrong.

Entering a thread with a post of low quality tends to result in low quality responses. Perhaps you should consider whether you bear part of the blame yourself.

Of course, I make allowances for atheist, as I know they are operating from a position of moral relativism, in that there is no moral or ethical code to follow except that which they set for themselves. Thus, usually all one can expect form the average atheist in response to someone who may hold a differing point of view is a barrage of arrogant condescension, elitist disdain, and open insult. Chalnoth, you have met all of my expectations. And yes, I am talking to you.

So you complain about people being rude and uncivil, and follow up with a rude and uncivil sweeping attack. I doubt that's going to induce the civil discussion you say you want.

Peter

 

[Gawron]

Say what you want, I am neither a bigot nor a victim. But when someone attacks me personally, I respond.

I could care less if someone has decided to believe there is no god; it is only the assumption of intellectual superiority based on that decision I find offensive.

 

[plindboe]

Say what you want, I am neither a bigot nor a victim. But when someone attacks me personally, I respond.

Then attack personally as well. When you make sweeping generalizations you're attacking people who didn't insult you.

Peter

 

[Braunwyn]

Say what you want, I am neither a bigot nor a victim. But when someone attacks me personally, I respond.

Then respond to that person and keep the broad generalizations about atheists to yourself if it's not your intent to make broad generalization about a specific group. And your ethical code statements are off the mark and offensive. Either way, it doesn't belong in this form. There is an ethics/morality forum if you want to start a thread about it.

 

[Gawron]

"Perhaps you should consider whether you bear part of the blame yourself."

Actually, I do apologize for post number 127. It was an over-reaction.

I have no wish to personally attack anyone, evident in the nature of the two post I linked to in my response to Chalnoth. But like I said, I have been through this before.

"...rude and uncivil sweeping attack..."

During which I stated the "average" atheist, and named only one.

 

[Gawron]

"The word speciation has one clear definition, namely the process whereby new species arise. That's what I meant in my previous post, since that's the word you used."

You are correct, I did use the word 'speciation.' However, simply drop the 'es' and add 'ation' and you have:

Molecular evolution and morphological speciation in North Atlantic brachiopods (Terebratulina spp.)

Cohen, B. L. and Balfe, P. and Cohen, M. (1991) Molecular evolution and morphological speciation in North Atlantic brachiopods (Terebratulina spp.).

Canadian Journal of Zoology 69(11)p. 2903-2911.

as an example. But, I understand your point.

 

[Split Rock]

Hiding behind a judge's robe to support "science" now, are we?

Everytime creationists wind up in a court room they get PWND bigtime (you know all about that since you are the self-proclaimed PWN Master). Do you know why? Because in a court room they cannot rely on their usual dishonest tactics of appeal to emotion and rhetorical argument. They must show evidence and they have none. Science is all about evidence, so science wins in court. Got it?

 

[Chalnoth]

Gawron,

I'm mildly impressed. You actually do seem to know something about the field. Now, do you want to have a discussion or continue whining? I absolutely despise back-and-forth exchanges where even one person is only focused on defending themselves against what they perceive as attacks, and I simply refuse to participate. You look like you might be capable of a somewhat interesting discussion. So, are you going to post something on topic or not?

 

[Naraoia]

When I decided to join this forum, I knew from experience that I would be subjected to the usual litany of atheist attacks and slander, a phenomenon completely different from discussion with someone who simply accepts all tenants of evolution.

Do you realise that

(1) Atheists and those that accept evolution are two different sets (though with a large intersection).

(And, by the way, tenants is a funny word to use here. I think you want tenets.)

(2) There are plenty of Christians here who will give you exactly the same sort of criticism you've met from atheists. Sorry, this is just not about God.

But, I decided to join anyway, taking the chance that on a Christian forum, the debate could be conducted in a civil manner. It took less than ten post to be proven wrong.

Can guests not read the boards around here?

Of course, I make allowances for atheist, as I know they are operating from a position of moral relativism, in that there is no moral or ethical code to follow except that which they set for themselves. Thus, usually all one can expect form the average atheist in response to someone who may hold a differing point of view is a barrage of arrogant condescension, elitist disdain, and open insult. Chalnoth, you have met all of my expectations. And yes, I am talking to you.

Quit that morality rubbish. Now.


If you want to make yourself understood, be clear. If you aren't clear, don't be upset when people misinterpret you (like that ancestors crawling in and out of water thing... here's another one that thinks that sounded exactly like typical creationist blather.). Most people here have just met too much nonsense to be patient with any appearance of it, I guess. And most people here, I think, will reconsider their opinions of you if you show them they were wrong. See plindboe.