Science vs. Evolution

[Hespera]

Actually, most don't. It's only in heavily religious countries that this is the case. In Europe, for instance, most don't see homosexuality as any more immoral than heterosexuality. But that's besides the point.

Most people think that christianity is nonsense, so lets let that take us where our hero's logic would take us on that.

 

[plindboe]

However many scientists have different views on the ''species'', what they are, their classification, how many there are etc. Aristotle listed only about 500 kinds of animals; Theophrastus, the most eminent botanist of ancient Greece listed only a few hundred different plants. Creationists believe in a few thousand, while evolutionists millions. What qualifies as a 'species' is not agreed upon by anyone. In fact evolutionists argue among themselves since they can't agree what a specie is or how to define one.

The least arbitrary species definition says that members of the same species are capable of producing fertile offspring of both sexes, i.e. we're talking one gene pool. As soon as they can't interbreed and produce fertile offspring, we're talking about different gene pools. A speciation event is when two separate gene pools arise from one; "separate" meaning that genes aren't interchanged between the two pools anymore. If speciation couldn't occur, evolution would be impossible. Before speciation had been observed one could make reasonable arguments against such a possibility, because the continual mixing of genes within a gene pool would slow divergence down, and one could propose selective pressures against speciation events, because animals that has diverged too much from the rest of the gene pool wouldn't be able to produce fertile offspring with anyone. Speciation has been observed though, and each new species will now be able to evolve down their own path, i.e. macroevolution.

Here are a few examples:

Foxes

The red fox (Vulpes fulva) and the Newfoundland red fox have been categorized in different species, although the only difference is a paler reddish coat and shorter tail for the Newfoundland variety. Six taxonomists list 10 varieties of red fox, while 2 others list one species (Vulpes fulva).

There are indeed disagreements, and that's what makes science work. I find it curious however that your examples use varieties and species interchangeably. In my understanding, when scientists use the word "variety" they're generally not talking about species, so the terms are not interchangeable. So it's not a contradiction to say that there exist one species and 10 varieties of red fox.

Corn

One expert (*Sturtevant) categorized 6 species of corn (sweet, flint, flour, pod, dent, and popcorn) while other taxonomists acknowledge that they are all only varieties of one 'species'.

We've changed them so radically from their wild ancestor that they look nothing alike it anymore; no wonder these types of debates happen. Funny how radically life forms can be changed, isn't it?

Platypus

"When zoologists examined a platypus for the first time, some suspected a hoax, thinking that parts of different animals had been sewn together. The platypus has the fur of an otter, the tail of a beaver, the bill and feet of a duck, and the venomous spurs of a fighting gamecock. Although the platypus is a mammal, it lays eggs and does not have nipples (milk oozes out of pore openings in the abdomen)."—*Asimov’s Book of Facts, p. 135.

No scientifist is in agreement with what a species is, so to claim 'speciation' is proove of evolution when the existance of species is in dispute is clearly a fallacy.

So speciation is not evidence for evolution.

It's a fun animal for sure. But it doesn't have "the fur of an otter, the tail of a beaver, the bill and feet of a duck, and the venomous spurs of a fighting gamecock". For instance the bill only looks superficially similar to a duck's beak, but these features are very different when you study them closer.

Peter

 

[Hespera]

The least arbitrary species definition says that members of the same species are capable of producing fertile offspring of both sexes, i.e. we're talking one gene pool. As soon as they can't interbreed and produce fertile offspring, we're talking about different gene pools. A speciation event is when two separate gene pools arise from one; "separate" meaning that genes aren't interchanged between the two pools anymore. If speciation couldn't occur, evolution would be impossible. Before speciation had been observed one could make reasonable arguments against such a possibility, because the continual mixing of genes within a gene pool would slow divergence down, and one could propose selective pressures against speciation events, because animals that has diverged too much from the rest of the gene pool wouldn't be able to produce fertile offspring with anyone. Speciation has been observed though, and each new species will now be able to evolve down their own path, i.e. macroevolution.




There are indeed disagreements, and that's what makes science work. I find it curious however that your examples use varieties and species interchangeably. In my understanding, when scientists use the word "variety" they're generally not talking about species, so the terms are not interchangeable. So it's not a contradiction to say that there exist one species and 10 varieties of red fox.




We've changed them so radically from their wild ancestor that they look nothing alike it anymore; no wonder these types of debates happen. Funny how radically life forms can be changed, isn't it?

It's a fun animal for sure. But it doesn't have "the fur of an otter, the tail of a beaver, the bill and feet of a duck, and the venomous spurs of a fighting gamecock". For instance the bill only looks superficially similar to a duck's beak, but these features are very different when you study them closer.

Peter

be nice now, without falsehood and straw men, what do the theocreologists have to work with? cant you just let them have those?

 

[Cassiterides]

The species problem only exists when a species or several closely related species is/are in the middle of speciation (e.g., dogs and wolves, horses and donkeys), and asexual species (e.g., bacteria, which throw the additional spanner of horizontal gene transfer).

Nonetheless, 'species' is a well defined concept within science, the above exceptions notwithstanding. Moreover, this does not impact the veracity of evolution one bit: it's simply a semantic quibble.

And a lot of the taxonomy evolutionists currently use is from Linnaeus, who himself was a creationist.

Linnaeus came to two definite conclusions: (1) Species were, for the most part, the equivalent of the "Genesis kind." (2) There had been no change across the basic categories—now or earlier. As a result of his studies, Linnaeus arrived at a firm belief in Special Creation and the fixity of species. He said, "We reckon as many species as issued in pairs from the hands of the Creator" (quoted in *H.F. Osborne, From the Greeks to Darwin, 1929, p. 187).

Also the word 'species' itself was invented by John Ray who was a creationist.

Sorry, you were saying there's no universal definition? A species is a group of organisms who can breed to produce fertile offspring. This is the universal definition you will get from any biologist.

This you have robbed from the creationists? Ray and Linnaeus taught fixety of the ''kinds'' in Genesis. Different animals can't breed with others.

''There is no evidence of the origin of a hybrid between man and any other mammal."—*Edward Colin, Elements of Genetics, pp. 222-223.

The creationist argument is whatever we may try to do within a given species, we soon reach limits which we cannot break through.

There is immense complexity within each species, but a distinct barrier between species.

''More biologists would agree with Professor Hampton Carson of Washington University, St. Louis, when he says that speciation is ‘a major unsolved problem of evolutionary biology.’ - *Gordon R. Taylor, Great Evolution Mystery (1983), pp. 140-141.

Speciation has not been observed because physically scientists can not agree with how to define a species.

 

[SithDoughnut]

I did read the replies, however none answered my question. I simply asked for directly observational evidence for evolution in process.

If you think evolution is 'fact', then it should be easy to prove by something we can simply observe.

I gave you an example - viruses. For example, the H1N1 virus. We needed new vaccines for it because it had evolved into a new strain. The same applies to all other viruses. That's an example of evolution that you can see quite easily.

 

[Hespera]

And a lot of the taxonomy evolutionists currently use is from Linnaeus, who himself was a creationist.

Linnaeus came to two definite conclusions: (1) Species were, for the most part, the equivalent of the "Genesis kind." (2) There had been no change across the basic categories—now or earlier. As a result of his studies, Linnaeus arrived at a firm belief in Special Creation and the fixity of species. He said, "We reckon as many species as issued in pairs from the hands of the Creator" (quoted in *H.F. Osborne, From the Greeks to Darwin, 1929, p. 187).

Also the word 'species' itself was invented by John Ray who was a creationist.



This you have robbed from the creationists? Ray and Linnaeus taught fixety of the ''kinds'' in Genesis. Different animals can't breed with others.

''There is no evidence of the origin of a hybrid between man and any other mammal."—*Edward Colin, Elements of Genetics, pp. 222-223.

The creationist argument is whatever we may try to do within a given species, we soon reach limits which we cannot break through.

There is immense complexity within each species, but a distinct barrier between species.

''More biologists would agree with Professor Hampton Carson of Washington University, St. Louis, when he says that speciation is ‘a major unsolved problem of evolutionary biology.’ - *Gordon R. Taylor, Great Evolution Mystery (1983), pp. 140-141.

Speciation has not been observed because physically scientists can not agree with how to define a species.

The creationist argument is whatever we may try to do within a given species, we soon reach limits which we cannot break through.

We know this bit of tired moldy nonsense, we have heard it many times; but of course, we have never seen any evidence of it, nor any indicaiton of where those "limits" might be, or what mechanism would determine or enforce these limits.


Nor will we ever. Even if such did exist the "creationists" are the last people on earth who'd ever do any actual reserach and fid it out. Instead, they just make up stuff.


Oh good reminder on the major research and debate tool of the theocreos: the quote mine.

 

[SithDoughnut]

The creationist argument is whatever we may try to do within a given species, we soon reach limits which we cannot break through.

There is immense complexity within each species, but a distinct barrier between species.

What is this 'barrier' and how does it work?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

And a lot of the taxonomy evolutionists currently use is from Linnaeus, who himself was a creationist.

Linnaeus came to two definite conclusions: (1) Species were, for the most part, the equivalent of the "Genesis kind." (2) There had been no change across the basic categories—now or earlier. As a result of his studies, Linnaeus arrived at a firm belief in Special Creation and the fixity of species. He said, "We reckon as many species as issued in pairs from the hands of the Creator" (quoted in *H.F. Osborne, From the Greeks to Darwin, 1929, p. 187).

Also the word 'species' itself was invented by John Ray who was a creationist.

Which means diddly squat.

This you have robbed from the creationists? Ray and Linnaeus taught fixety of the ''kinds'' in Genesis. Different animals can't breed with others.

Indeed. But the point is that one species (i.e., a group of organisms that can breed with each other, but not with anything else) can split into two (or more) distinct species. I.e., the original group can be split into two groups, each being able to breed with themselves, but not with the other group. This is an observed fact. Furthermore, evolutionary adaptations in one group cannot subsequently spill over into the other (which it could do, before speciation occurred). This drives the two groups further and further apart, and indeed they in turn split into more and more species.

That's how the first 'mammal' species became many, many species.

That's how the theory of common descent works.

''There is no evidence of the origin of a hybrid between man and any other mammal."—*Edward Colin, Elements of Genetics, pp. 222-223.

As indeed there shouldn't be: 'man' is a species, and by definition it cannot breed with any other species. It does, however, share a common ancestry with them.

The creationist argument is whatever we may try to do within a given species, we soon reach limits which we cannot break through.

There is immense complexity within each species, but a distinct barrier between species.

What evidence is there for such a barrier?

''More biologists would agree with Professor Hampton Carson of Washington University, St. Louis, when he says that speciation is ‘a major unsolved problem of evolutionary biology.’ - *Gordon R. Taylor, Great Evolution Mystery (1983), pp. 140-141.

Speciation has not been observed because physically scientists can not agree with how to define a species.

I gave you the definition above, and I gave you a link to a vast number of observed speciation events. Rail against it all you want, we have seen it happen.

 

[Cassiterides]

I gave you the definition above, and I gave you a link to a vast number of observed speciation events. Rail against it all you want, we have seen it happen.

You linked me to a page on 'talk origins', half of it deals with plants.

The question you can't answer is how do you define the emergence of a so called ''new species''? The creationist argument is simply that what evolutionists identify as new species are simply of the same kind. For example the 'talk origins' page cites a 'new species of primrose'. Yet to the average person all primroses are the same, or look very similar (maybe a small variation in colour). Variation should not be confused with 'speciation'.

 

[plindboe]

OK perhaps I haven't understood evolution properly...I have tried to look into it as best I can (I'm not a scientist)..but frankly I still don't quite get it. Though I do understand and recognise natural selection, also genetic engineering.
Just posted this briefly as I have to go out in a minute...perhaps I should formulate my understandings (or misunderstandings) and ask pertinent questions.

Perhaps the following video will clear up some misconceptions. I'm not sure if you harbour any of them, but in any case it's a good video. It addresses many common misconceptions, and explains it in simple terms. He talks a bit fast, so you might have to watch it a couple of times.

YouTube - Evolution

Peter

 

[Cassiterides]

I gave you an example - viruses. For example, the H1N1 virus. We needed new vaccines for it because it had evolved into a new strain. The same applies to all other viruses. That's an example of evolution that you can see quite easily.

That's germ theory of disease, while the Bible teaches disease is the result of sin. There is a philosophical part of disease and it's origin. I suppose an evolutionist though thinks it's random.

 

[Hespera]

That's germ theory of disease, while the Bible teaches disease is the result of sin. There is a philosophical part of disease and it's origin. I suppose an evolutionist though thinks it's random.

Looks like nearly everything you suppose is false.

 

[SithDoughnut]

That's germ theory of disease

No it isn't. Germ theory points out the cause of disease, not the development.

while the Bible teaches disease is the result of sin.

Even if that were true, you're still talking about origins, not development.

There is a philosophical part of disease and it's origin.

And what, pray tell, would that be?

I suppose an evolutionist though thinks it's random.

Not at all. I really would advise you actually try to understand the theory of evolution before you criticise it.

 

[Cassiterides]

I really would advise you actually try to understand the theory of evolution before you criticise it.

I'm well aware at what the theory of evolution says, however i reject it for two reasons:

(1) It's not compatable with the Bible i.e the story of Creation.
(2) It's not directly observable (i.e doesn't adhere to scientific method).

I therefore reject the theory of evolution because of my religion and science. It's not just that i am an ignorant uneducated creationist...

If the evidence for evolution was there i would start to believe it, however it isn't there, and also since there is no scientific evidence for evolution it reinforces my belief in the Bible.

 

[29apples]

I am a little confused. What is a kind and how many kinds are there?

 

[plindboe]

I'm well aware at what the theory of evolution says, however i reject it for two reasons:

(1) It's not compatable with the Bible i.e the story of Creation.

So a preconception that has nothing to do with the actual science. At least you admit it.

(2) It's not directly observable (i.e doesn't adhere to scientific method).

So I guess you dismiss the existence of electrons as well. No one has ever seen them directly.

I therefore reject the theory of evolution because of my religion and science. It's not just that i am an ignorant uneducated creationist...

If the evidence for evolution was there i would start to believe it, however it isn't there, and also since there is no scientific evidence for evolution it reinforces my belief in the Bible.

These two paragraphs contradict. There's plenty of evidence, some of which has been presented in this thread, but your admitted bias prevents you from seeing it.

Peter

 

[IzzyPop]

I'm well aware at what the theory of evolution says, however i reject it for two reasons:

(1) It's not compatable with the Bible i.e the story of Creation.
(2) It's not directly observable (i.e doesn't adhere to scientific method).

I therefore reject the theory of evolution because of my religion and science. It's not just that i am an ignorant uneducated creationist...

If the evidence for evolution was there i would start to believe it, however it isn't there, and also since there is no scientific evidence for evolution it reinforces my belief in the Bible.

And we get to go around in a circle again.

There is plenty of evidence for evolution posted in this thread. There is tons more out there. But feel free to tilt at windmills some more. The lulz give me sweet, sweet dreams at night.

 

[AV1611VET]

I am a little confused. What is a kind and how many kinds are there?

A "kind" is what I call a 'loner word'.

It is one of those words that has no definition this side of Heaven, but is effective in making its point.

Like "trinity" and "faith" -- it is useful in making its point, but cannot be defined to the satisfaction of all.

Without that word, the Flood story would be much harder to explain.

 

[plindboe]

I am a little confused. What is a kind and how many kinds are there?

A kind is a creationist propaganda technique. It doesn't have a specific biological definition, so it allows creationists to sound authoritative without actually having to take a firm stance. It used to mean species. But since then most creationists started realizing the fact of speciation, so it has been elevated to the level of family or order or beyond, depending on who you ask and how much evolution they accept.

Peter

 

[SithDoughnut]

I'm well aware at what the theory of evolution says,

If you were you would not have called it random. The fact that you even bothered to use the word shows that you do not understand evolution.

however i reject it for two reasons:

(1) It's not compatable with the Bible i.e the story of Creation.

OK, so it's personal opinion that stops you from believing.

(2) It's not directly observable (i.e doesn't adhere to scientific method).

It's already been established in this thread that it is. I'll also ask my question again: Who observed God create the Earth?

I therefore reject the theory of evolution because of my religion and science. It's not just that i am an ignorant uneducated creationist...

Well you keep using the scientific method incorrectly, and you think that evolution is random, so I'd say you are ignorant on the subject. That's not a problem though, because ignorance is just a temporary barrier to understanding.

If the evidence for evolution was there i would start to believe it, however it isn't there, and also since there is no scientific evidence for evolution it reinforces my belief in the Bible.

Yes it is, it's just that you won't accept it as evidence. What's quite interesting is that if you reject evolution because it is not directly observable, you should reject Creationism for the same reason. So why the double standard?