question

LewisWildermuth · May 31, 2002

Originally posted by randman
Geesh, this is why I say a portion of evolutionism is a cult. You can't even agree on a basic fact, clearly seen, if you are suspicious that this fact could be used against your belief system.

No Randman, most of us are just getting tired of you saying there the research is invalid when it supports what you think is evolution and valid when is does not.

Originally posted by randman My point is quite clear. Here we have a pretty amazing pehnomenon. I am asking if theorists have incorporated the fact of this type of phenomena into their analysis of fossils, and the relevance of how such huge differences in bone structure can actually not be outside of what a layman thinks of as species, the ability to produce fertile offspring.[/B]

Why yes it has been concidered but since we can't reanimate the dead to see if they can and do mate all we can do is take the best guess possible.

Originally posted by randman But it is apparent that you guys are so afraid of just taking honest looks at data that any piece of data that you are afraid of, you basically try to deny its existence.
How can on edebate people who basically deny the meaning of what is is. [/B]

Who said there were not scientists at this moment looking into the problem? Just because I am not personly doing it does not prove or disprove anything.

So in all of this you have proven what? That humans can make mistakes? WOW I never thought that was possible.

With all of your threads recently you have yet to prove or disprove anything, yet everytime you claim victory without even bothering to tell anyone else that you are playing a game let alone what the rules are. Is this showing the love of Christ that is supose to be shining through you?

I never remember once reading "Believe in Jesus, that he died for your sinsoh yea and that evolution is stupid and you will be saved." So again what is your point in all of this?

Starscream · May 31, 2002

And if the concept of species was not sometimes blurred and arbitary that would have been perfect evidence for creationism. But alas the evolutionary expectation is correct yet again.

This is a very good point.

randman · May 31, 2002

Lewis, it is apparent you have some sort of problem. I raised a legitimate issue, and asked for some thoughts on it, and you absolutely freak out.

As you know, whale evolution is a hot topic, and I have had evolutionists present whole columns of pictures. I think this aspect of dolphins being able to mate across genera may have some relevance.

I am sorry you are too close-mided to wish to think about it, and I am frankly surprised you would comment on a thread if you have nothing to say but attempt to smear another individual's character. I guess talkign about real data instead of theory is off-limits to someone as yourself.

Starscream · May 31, 2002

Wow randman, I can just feel the Christian love! What a remarkable witness to the faith you are!

I used to think creationists were rude and condescending but your polite and well-reasoned posts have shown me the error of my ways! Can I too be such an excellent example of love and kindness by accepting Jesus as my lord and savior?

seebs · May 31, 2002

Originally posted by Starscream
Wow randman, I can just feel the Christian love! What a remarkable witness to the faith you are!

I used to think creationists were rude and condescending but your polite and well-reasoned posts have shown me the error of my ways! Can I too be such an excellent example of love and kindness by accepting Jesus as my lord and savior?

I suspect you're coming to realize that there's two kinds of apologetics; there's explanations of what brings us to faith, and there's apologies on behalf of the people who are too rude to recognize that apologies are due.

randman · May 31, 2002

Um, it is hard to respond to such vitriol that responds to a simple and honest question with what you consider Christian love, and I am not sure it is even appropiate not to rebuke harshly such deception.

Tell me something. What is wrong with this question?
"What are the implications of 2 species from separate genera, or subfamily, being able to produce fertile offspring?"

Furthrmore, I interpret this sudden concern for Christian love on a science thread to be basically a cheap attempt to dodge the facts.

Jerry Smith · May 31, 2002

Originally posted by randman
"Head and body length is up to 610 cm in males and 490 cm in females. Dorsal fin height is about 40 cm, and weight reaches 1,360 kg (Scheffer 1978b; U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service 1978). The coloration is black throughout. Pseudorca bears some resemblance to Orcinus but can be distinguished by its uniformly dark color, more slender build, more tapering head, smaller and more backwardly curving dorsal fin, and tapering flippers, which average about one-tenth of the head and body length. There are usually 8-11 teeth on each side of each jaw."

"The young are usually 160-200 cm long at birth, gestation lasts 15.5 months, lactation is estimated to continue for about 18 months, and sexual maturity is attained at 8-14 years. Some individuals have lived up to 22 years (Perrin and Reilly 1984; Purves and Pilleri 1978)."

http://www.press.jhu.edu/books/walk...ld/cetacea/cetacea.delphinidae.pseudorca.html

"This family of 17 Recent genera and 34 species inhabits all the oceans and adjoining seas of the world, as well as the estuaries of many large rivers. Some species occasionally ascend rivers. The porpoises of the family Phocoenidae (see account thereof) sometimes have been included in the Delphinidae. Rice (1984) divided the Delphinidae into five subfamilies: Stenoninae, with the genera Steno, Sousa, and Sotalia; Delphininae, with Tursiops, Stenella, Delphinus, Lagenodelphis, Lagenorhynchus, and Grampus; Globicephalinae, with Peponocephala, Feresa, Pseudorca, Globicephala, Orcinus, and Orcaella; Lissodelphinae, with Lissodelphis; and Cephalorhynchinae, with Cephalorhynchus. Barnes, Domning, and Ray (1985) accepted the same subfamilies but placed Orcaella in its own subfamily, Orcaellinae, and transferred it to the family Monodontidae. Pilleri and Gihr (1981b) considered the Stenoninae to be a full family with the name Stenidae."

http://www.press.jhu.edu/books/walkers_mammals_of_the_world/cetacea/cetacea.delphinidae.html#genera

If you will note, pseodoorcas are in the same sub-family as killer whales(Orcinus), and considered closer to killer whales than the porpoises that are mentioned.
You are basically just wrong in your assertions.

Randman: you were right. I should have read the link more carefully. I apologize for my mistake.

randman · May 31, 2002

Also, am I to believe the evolutionists here would welcome, "Bel;ieve in Jesus and you will be saved" as a legitimate argument in discussing evolution?
You guys are just plain creepy in the level of self-deception you exhibit.
I guess though it is one to kill a thread if you are afraid of the topic.

randman · May 31, 2002

Thanks Jerry. Even though we disagree here, I appreciate your honesty. I hope you will r ealize if I seem to beat a dead horse into the ground on certain issues, it is because I genuinely feel others on the threads I post on are not acknowledging basic facts.
This, by the way, was a non-rhetorical question on the implications of dolphins being able to mate across genera. It seems like it would have some application to interpreting fossils, especially in the the proposed whale evolutionary scenarios.

LewisWildermuth · May 31, 2002

I'm sorry.
I give up.
You are night Randman, talking to a person who is so sure that they are right that nothing will change their mind is a waste of time.

Thank you for making me see the erorrs of my ways.

randman · May 31, 2002

Lewis, this was thread was started as a fairly well-defined issue, the implications of this particular phenomona. It is interesting to me, and it seems like it would have some applications, and it is hard data, not conjecture.
I am totally baffled by your attitude and approach. I wasn't bashing research here. In fact, I linked to the information and research quite well I thought. Maybe i should have quoted more, but your bashing me here, and then claiming I am the one not acting like a Christian is nonsensical.

Jerry Smith · May 31, 2002

Originally posted by randman
Thanks Jerry. Even though we disagree here, I appreciate your honesty. I hope you will r ealize if I seem to beat a dead horse into the ground on certain issues, it is because I genuinely feel others on the threads I post on are not acknowledging basic facts.

I understand where you are coming from. I hope you understand too, that some of hyper-skepticalism that you meet comes from too many bad experiences with creationists who will post "facts" that are wrong. I should, of course, read your links more carefully before jumping to the conclusion that the points I questioned weren't in there. And I do apologize sincerely for insinuating that they weren't.

This, by the way, was a non-rhetorical question on the implications of dolphins being able to mate across genera. It seems like it would have some application to interpreting fossils, especially in the the proposed whale evolutionary scenarios.

I'm fairly sure that it does have some application to classifying fossils. I remember hearing someone on the radio last week talking about the gargantuan task of re-examining and re-naming a very large number (I think he estimated 50,000) of extant species based on better data that has come up since they were originally named, sometimes a very long time ago.

I don't know if there is a principal to be found in this example of cross-genus mating that can be used to better identify fossil finds, but it is a good reminder of the intricacies and problems with using morphological data to establish phylogenetic relationships.

randman · May 31, 2002

Well, the first implication in my mind is the incredible range within a species gene pool. Basically, it suggests that species can produce an incredible variety, even without any extraordinary measures such as mutations, and still be able to reproduce.

That then suggests that different fossils which appear greatly different, that could appear in different strata, may not only be the same "species" if you define that as a group that can interbreed, but also that as far as the creationist/evolution debate, they may not have "evolved" in any manner that would count as macro-evolution. In other words, they are just the product of perhaps isolation and normal mating, nothing special, and no evidence, as far as these fossils go, of "evolution" per se.

I think this has relevance in examining some hominid fossils and whale-like fossils.

The last idea is that this is evidence of a kind, that this whole family is the product of a single parent species. Now, of course, evolutionists admit this too, but they stretch common descent back even further. I think then this helps clarify that the debate is between whether greatly separated types of species, different kinds, do indeed have a common ancestor, and helps to remove the non-relavant data such as finches evolving into new finches, which creationism predicts too, from confusing the debate.

DonaldW112 · May 31, 2002

OK, I will jump in here. When talking about classification it is important to remember that the scheme we are using is a human construct. We are trying to put natural things which tend to exhibit a bell curve type of behavior into a neat little box. Sometimes they slop over the edges. Any problems we have with classifications is due to our desire to put things into boxes for discussion purposes. There may always be exceptions. This has no particular import for evolution as it does not change the evidence only the box we put it in.

Also, randman you have not respond to me on the other thread as to why the fossils are in the wrong order for the flood or special creation. Care to comment?

Jerry Smith · May 31, 2002

Originally posted by randman
Well, the first implication in my mind is the incredible range within a species gene pool. Basically, it suggests that species can produce an incredible variety, even without any extraordinary measures such as mutations, and still be able to reproduce.

Obviously this is sometimes the case, your example demonstrates that. I wonder though if it is the exception or the rule, in nature? That would have some bearing.

That then suggests that different fossils which appear greatly different, that could appear in different strata, may not only be the same "species" if you define that as a group that can interbreed,

So you are saying that some of transistions we see between classes, families & genera (such as the mammal-reptile transitions) might really be species to species transitions? I don't think we could hope for that much.

but also that as far as the creationist/evolution debate, they may not have "evolved" in any manner that would count as macro-evolution. In other words, they are just the product of perhaps isolation and normal mating, nothing special, and no evidence, as far as these fossils go, of "evolution" per se.

I don't see how you conclude this, though..

I think this has relevance in examining some hominid fossils and whale-like fossils.

The last idea is that this is evidence of a kind, that this whole family is the product of a single parent species. Now, of course, evolutionists admit this too, but they stretch common descent back even further. I think then this helps clarify that the debate is between whether greatly separated types of species, different kinds, do indeed have a common ancestor, and helps to remove the non-relavant data such as finches evolving into new finches, which creationism predicts too, from confusing the debate.

How so?

Edited to fix UBB

npetreley · Jun 1, 2002

Originally posted by randman
Well, the first implication in my mind is the incredible range within a species gene pool. Basically, it suggests that species can produce an incredible variety, even without any extraordinary measures such as mutations, and still be able to reproduce.

I don't see how anyone could raise any intelligent arguments against that. It is what it is, and we see what it is. No imagination about what it was millions of years ago is required.

That then suggests that different fossils which appear greatly different, that could appear in different strata, may not only be the same "species" if you define that as a group that can interbreed, but also that as far as the creationist/evolution debate, they may not have "evolved" in any manner that would count as macro-evolution. In other words, they are just the product of perhaps isolation and normal mating, nothing special, and no evidence, as far as these fossils go, of "evolution" per se.

I see what you're saying, but I just don't see how you're going to change anyone's mind even with such compelling evidence that doesn't need interpretation.

In my experience, here's how evolutionists regard species and speciation.

Two mosquitoes that are practically identical in every other respect can no longer interbreed due to reproductive isolation. That's called speciation, and it is evidence for evolution because it is the first step toward explaining all the variation we see today.

Two animals that are significantly different (um, due to the variation we see today) can interbreed to produce fertile offspring. That's not called "unexplained non-speciation." It's called evidence of common descent, which supports evolution.

So IMO it's a futile exercise. You could breed a monkey with a bathtub and evolutionists would somehow explain it as supportive of evolution.

randman · Jun 1, 2002

Well, it seems evolutionists ought to set out to discover the limits, the potential, of existing species's gene pools, absent any mutations. Obviously here, we see species can actually produce a massive range without anything happening that would produce macro-evolution at all.
Macro-evolution, basically evolution, is species developing outside of their existing range of potential. The evolutionists think this potential can change and grow, but what is so puzzling talking with them is that they seem to not even be aware there is a limit, an existing potential there.
I am fairly new to debating these issues so I talk in non-technical terms, but the way I see it, the gene pool is like a deck of cards. There is finite number of ways a hand can be ordered, even if you account for mutations, such as less cards, missing cards, mutilated cards, etc,...There is still a limit, and that limit, that potential was there all along.

chickenman · Jun 1, 2002

no limit, new cards can be added, and old cards can be changed

Vorkosigan · Jun 2, 2002

Originally posted by npetreley

Two mosquitoes that are practically identical in every other respect can no longer interbreed due to reproductive isolation. That's called speciation, and it is evidence for evolution because it is the first step toward explaining all the variation we see today.

Bingo! Congratulations! You finally understand speciation. All the variation is due to that initial step of speciation.

Two animals that are significantly different (um, due to the variation we see today) can interbreed to produce fertile offspring. That's not called "unexplained non-speciation." It's called evidence of common descent, which supports evolution.

That's right. If they are not related by common descent, how come they are interfertile? If you are not related by common descent to a yeast bacterium, how come you share half your genes with it? Yes, I've heard your ridiculous argument about "using genes over just like programmers reuse code." What for? Your Designer has unlimited power and imagination, but managed to bollix up his code so badly we apes can't produce our own vitamin C, something most other mammals can do.

Interfertility, Nick, has nothing to do with speciation per se. It says that two animals must be closely related, with a common ancestor in the recent past, like all the camelids, or lions and tigers. This relationship, of course, Creationists have no explanation for at all, except to say "Design!" Or "it is that way, because it is that way."

So IMO it's a futile exercise. You could breed a monkey with a bathtub and evolutionists would somehow explain it as supportive of evolution.

Keep trying! Someday you'll achieve real wit, and surprise us all.

I hope you realize that if you trash evolution by natural selection, you are still no closer to proving your Design thesis. That requires positive evidence of its own. Of which you have nada, zip, zero. If you had any, you'd trundle it out and end the debate. But these complaints you make....all they do is reveal you have no positive evidence for your case.

Vorkosigan

npetreley · Jun 7, 2002

Originally posted by randman
There is still a limit, and that limit, that potential was there all along.

The problem isn't limits in genetics, even if they exist. It's that there's no limit to man's imagination. The evidence doesn't matter at all. Evolution can accomodate any evidence whatsoever because it's based almost entirely on speculation.

This lion and tiger don't obey the expected rule of speciation? No problem! We can imagine that they can interbreed because they have a common ancestor, which makes perfect sense even though two mosquitoes who we KNOW have a common ancestor cannot interbreed!

"For some reason" there is no evolutionary history in the fossil record for the cambrian explosion? No problem! We can imagine that the bones were probably too soft to make any fossils. Yeah, that's the ticket.

This fossil evidence looks like new forms suddenly appear in stages? No problem! We can imagine that gradualism speeds up really fast all of a sudden now and then, and call it punk eek.

Phylogenies branch in unexpected directions? No problem! etc...

question

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

God Made Me A Skeptic

Well-Known Member

Fish out of water

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Fish out of water

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Fish out of water

pumpkin sailor

Well-Known Member

evil unamerican

Active Member

pumpkin sailor

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency