Total Posts:26|Showing Posts:1-26
Jump to topic:

If evolution is true...

Pitbull15
Posts: 479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2014 11:31:55 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
How can I, a mere duck, type these words on a keyboard?

Checkmate atheists.
zmikecuber and I debate the Modal Ontological Argument
http://www.debate.org...

"YOU ARE A TOTAL MORON!!! LOL!!!- invisibledeity

"I have shown incredible restraint in the face of unrelenting stupidity."-Izbo10

"Oh my God, WHO THE HELL CARES?!"-Peter Griffin

"Let me put this in Spanish for you: NO!!"-Jase Robertson
monty1
Posts: 1,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2014 11:38:14 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Chimpanzees, which are our nearest relative have been taught how to communicate with people quite well.
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2014 11:45:08 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Given an infinite number of universes, the odds are that a duck will type something coherent at one point or another.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
Intrepid
Posts: 372
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2014 12:11:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/12/2014 11:45:08 AM, philochristos wrote:
Given an infinite number of universes, the odds are that a duck will type something coherent at one point or another.

So why not now?

Checkmate theists.
RHEMA.97
Posts: 42
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2014 8:00:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Evolution is just a theory it has never been observed and proven true and it has a lot of holes in the theory.
bulproof
Posts: 25,295
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2014 8:03:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/13/2014 8:00:16 PM, RHEMA.97 wrote:
Evolution is just a theory it has never been observed and proven true and it has a lot of holes in the theory.

Learn what a Theory is before demonstrating your ignorance.
RHEMA.97
Posts: 42
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2014 9:13:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/13/2014 8:03:45 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 4/13/2014 8:00:16 PM, RHEMA.97 wrote:
Evolution is just a theory it has never been observed and proven true and it has a lot of holes in the theory.

Learn what a Theory is before demonstrating your ignorance.

A Theory
Theory is a group of ideas meant to explain a certain topic of science, such as a single or collection of fact(s), event(s), or phenomen(a)(on). Typically, a theory is developed through the use of contemplative and rational forms of abstract and generalized thinking.

EVOLUTION IS JUST A THEORY. Its all based on peoples ideas first by Darwin then his followers that doesnt mean theyre right because theyre ideas were rational and had some science. there are also some theories which I find more rational than evolution but even in those theory there is still some irrationality .

(you cant say evolution is 100 percent ) its never been tested to be true. Even Darwin had some doubts about his theory
bulproof
Posts: 25,295
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2014 9:47:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/13/2014 9:13:39 PM, RHEMA.97 wrote:
At 4/13/2014 8:03:45 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 4/13/2014 8:00:16 PM, RHEMA.97 wrote:
Evolution is just a theory it has never been observed and proven true and it has a lot of holes in the theory.

Learn what a Theory is before demonstrating your ignorance.

A Theory
Theory is a group of ideas meant to explain a certain topic of science, such as a single or collection of fact(s), event(s), or phenomen(a)(on). Typically, a theory is developed through the use of contemplative and rational forms of abstract and generalized thinking.

EVOLUTION IS JUST A THEORY. Its all based on peoples ideas first by Darwin then his followers that doesnt mean theyre right because theyre ideas were rational and had some science. there are also some theories which I find more rational than evolution but even in those theory there is still some irrationality .

(you cant say evolution is 100 percent ) its never been tested to be true. Even Darwin had some doubts about his theory

Why don't you cite the apologists site you lifted that from.

Here try this.
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method, and repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation.[1][2] As with most (if not all) forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive " that is, they seek to supply strong evidence for but not absolute proof of the truth of the conclusion"and they aim for predictive and explanatory force.[3][4]

Typically, before a scientific theory can be created, a hypothesis must be developed which is a supposition or proposed explanation that is formed on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation. If a substantial amount of evidence is gathered that consistently suggests the validity of a hypothesis, the hypothesis can be converted into a theory.[5]

The strength of a scientific theory is related to the diversity of phenomena it can explain, and to its elegance and simplicity (Occam's razor). As additional scientific evidence is gathered, a scientific theory may be rejected or modified if it does not fit the new empirical findings- in such circumstances, a more accurate theory is then desired. In certain cases, the less-accurate unmodified scientific theory can still be treated as a theory if it is useful (due to its sheer simplicity) as an approximation under specific conditions (e.g. Newton's laws of motion as an approximation to special relativity at velocities which are small relative to the speed of light).
http://en.wikipedia.org...

BTW how do you feel about the Theory of Gravity or the Germ Theory
Berend
Posts: 188
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2014 1:44:00 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/13/2014 9:13:39 PM, RHEMA.97 wrote:
At 4/13/2014 8:03:45 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 4/13/2014 8:00:16 PM, RHEMA.97 wrote:
Evolution is just a theory it has never been observed and proven true and it has a lot of holes in the theory.

Learn what a Theory is before demonstrating your ignorance.

A Theory
Theory is a group of ideas meant to explain a certain topic of science, such as a single or collection of fact(s), event(s), or phenomen(a)(on). Typically, a theory is developed through the use of contemplative and rational forms of abstract and generalized thinking.

EVOLUTION IS JUST A THEORY. Its all based on peoples ideas first by Darwin then his followers that doesnt mean theyre right because theyre ideas were rational and had some science. there are also some theories which I find more rational than evolution but even in those theory there is still some irrationality .

(you cant say evolution is 100 percent ) its never been tested to be true. Even Darwin had some doubts about his theory

I will first state, Evolution is true. The only thing in evolution that has not been seen is change of kingdoms. However we have massive piles of evidence to explain how we have things to show that they did in the past. I HIGHLY suggest you go to the book store and get The Ancestor's Tale and The Greatest Show on Earth. The second gives evidence and the first explains. All by Richard Dawkins.

As for you explaining the theory, Theory =/= Scientific Theory

http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

Second we have seen evolution. To have a kingdom change, you must undergo massive amounts of small change, like a bill changing size. Take Pokemon if your mind is used to that type of show. Those monsters evolve a lot. They go from small to big and ways that are hard to understand by simply minds. However watching and noting the small changed from form to form you will see evolution of kingdoms, etc are just massive amounts of small changes.

Whales, first holes on their head to help breath, then fins, then blubber, etc to the point you get what you see today.

A good example of evolution is the AID's Virus. You get aids, you inject something to kill it, it evolves. Small organisms evolve is why you get flue shots every year. They change, adapt. That is only small evolution. With hundreds to millions of tiny forms of small evolutionary changes, you will see when together a massive change.

A $1 looks small, but get 100 and you have $100.
ethang5
Posts: 4,117
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2014 12:10:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/14/2014 1:44:00 AM, Berend wrote:
At 4/13/2014 9:13:39 PM, RHEMA.97 wrote:
At 4/13/2014 8:03:45 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 4/13/2014 8:00:16 PM, RHEMA.97 wrote:
Evolution is just a theory it has never been observed and proven true and it has a lot of holes in the theory.

Learn what a Theory is before demonstrating your ignorance.

A Theory
Theory is a group of ideas meant to explain a certain topic of science, such as a single or collection of fact(s), event(s), or phenomen(a)(on). Typically, a theory is developed through the use of contemplative and rational forms of abstract and generalized thinking.

EVOLUTION IS JUST A THEORY. Its all based on peoples ideas first by Darwin then his followers that doesnt mean theyre right because theyre ideas were rational and had some science. there are also some theories which I find more rational than evolution but even in those theory there is still some irrationality .

(you cant say evolution is 100 percent ) its never been tested to be true. Even Darwin had some doubts about his theory

I will first state, Evolution is true. The only thing in evolution that has not been seen is change of kingdoms. However we have massive piles of evidence to explain how we have things to show that they did in the past. I HIGHLY suggest you go to the book store and get The Ancestor's Tale and The Greatest Show on Earth. The second gives evidence and the first explains. All by Richard Dawkins.

As for you explaining the theory, Theory =/= Scientific Theory

http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

Second we have seen evolution.

What do you mean? Do you mean we have seen change of species? And what do you mean by "seen"?

To have a kingdom change, you must undergo massive amounts of small change, like a bill changing size. Take Pokemon if your mind is used to that type of show. Those monsters evolve a lot. They go from small to big and ways that are hard to understand by simply minds. However watching and noting the small changed from form to form you will see evolution of kingdoms, etc are just massive amounts of small changes.

Whales, first holes on their head to help breath, then fins, then blubber, etc to the point you get what you see today.

A good example of evolution is the AID's Virus. You get aids, you inject something to kill it, it evolves. Small organisms evolve is why you get flue shots every year. They change, adapt. That is only small evolution. With hundreds to millions of tiny forms of small evolutionary changes, you will see when together a massive change.

A $1 looks small, but get 100 and you have $100.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2014 12:58:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/14/2014 12:10:25 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 4/14/2014 1:44:00 AM, Berend wrote:
At 4/13/2014 9:13:39 PM, RHEMA.97 wrote:
At 4/13/2014 8:03:45 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 4/13/2014 8:00:16 PM, RHEMA.97 wrote:
Evolution is just a theory it has never been observed and proven true and it has a lot of holes in the theory.

Learn what a Theory is before demonstrating your ignorance.

A Theory
Theory is a group of ideas meant to explain a certain topic of science, such as a single or collection of fact(s), event(s), or phenomen(a)(on). Typically, a theory is developed through the use of contemplative and rational forms of abstract and generalized thinking.

EVOLUTION IS JUST A THEORY. Its all based on peoples ideas first by Darwin then his followers that doesnt mean theyre right because theyre ideas were rational and had some science. there are also some theories which I find more rational than evolution but even in those theory there is still some irrationality .

(you cant say evolution is 100 percent ) its never been tested to be true. Even Darwin had some doubts about his theory

I will first state, Evolution is true. The only thing in evolution that has not been seen is change of kingdoms. However we have massive piles of evidence to explain how we have things to show that they did in the past. I HIGHLY suggest you go to the book store and get The Ancestor's Tale and The Greatest Show on Earth. The second gives evidence and the first explains. All by Richard Dawkins.

As for you explaining the theory, Theory =/= Scientific Theory

http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

Second we have seen evolution.

What do you mean? Do you mean we have seen change of species? And what do you mean by "seen"?

Speciation has been observed, yes.
bulproof
Posts: 25,295
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2014 1:00:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Wouldn't let me change the title, so here is the real title.............minus if.

evolution is true...
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2014 1:12:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/13/2014 9:13:39 PM, RHEMA.97 wrote:
At 4/13/2014 8:03:45 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 4/13/2014 8:00:16 PM, RHEMA.97 wrote:
Evolution is just a theory it has never been observed and proven true and it has a lot of holes in the theory.

Learn what a Theory is before demonstrating your ignorance.

A Theory
Theory is a group of ideas meant to explain a certain topic of science, such as a single or collection of fact(s), event(s), or phenomen(a)(on). Typically, a theory is developed through the use of contemplative and rational forms of abstract and generalized thinking.

http://dictionary.reference.com...

In technical or scientific use, Theory, principle, and law represent established, evidence-based explanations accounting for currently known facts or phenomena or for historically verified experience: the theory of relativity, the germ theory of disease, the law of supply and demand, the principle of conservation of energy. Often the word law is used in reference to scientific facts that can be reduced to a mathematical formula: Newton's laws of motion. In these contexts the terms theory and law often appear in well-established, fixed phrases and are not interchangeable. In both technical and nontechnical contexts, theory can also be synonymous with hypothesis, a conjecture put forth as a possible explanation of phenomena or relations, serving as a basis for thoughtful discussion and subsequent collection of data or engagement in scientific experimentation in order to rule out alternative explanations and reach the truth. In these contexts of early speculation, the words theory and hypothesis are often substitutable for one another: Remember, this idea is only a theory/hypothesis; Pasteur's experiments helped prove the theory/hypothesis that germs cause disease. Obviously, certain theories that start out as hypothetical eventually receive enough supportive data and scientific findings to become established, verified explanations. Although they retain the term theory in their names, they have evolved from mere conjecture to scientifically accepted fact.

EVOLUTION IS JUST A THEORY. Its all based on peoples ideas first by Darwin then his followers that doesnt mean theyre right because theyre ideas were rational and had some science.

No, they didnt have some science, they had all the science, all the evidence.

there are also some theories which I find more rational than evolution but even in those theory there is still some irrationality .

Like what? Which theory is irrational? Atomic theory? Theory of Relativity?

(you cant say evolution is 100 percent ) its never been tested to be true.

Although technically there is no such thing as "Truth" in science, evolution has been tested to be a Fact.

Even Darwin had some doubts about his theory

Oh, you mean a guy who just formulated a hypothesis, without the knowledge of the mountains of evidence that currently support it, 150 years later?
monty1
Posts: 1,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2014 1:20:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Christians who can't accept evolution will become extinct. Other Christians such as brother neutral have become more thoughtful modern Christians who now accept evolution as fact and are busy trying to reconcile the facts with their religious superstition.

It's recognized as their last stand and nothing more. With the decline of Christianity comes the lessening of the evil the churches are doing in the world. The end is in sight when their numbers will have declined to being insignificant and easy to ignore.
ethang5
Posts: 4,117
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2014 3:47:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/14/2014 12:58:34 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 4/14/2014 12:10:25 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 4/14/2014 1:44:00 AM, Berend wrote:
At 4/13/2014 9:13:39 PM, RHEMA.97 wrote:
At 4/13/2014 8:03:45 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 4/13/2014 8:00:16 PM, RHEMA.97 wrote:
Evolution is just a theory it has never been observed and proven true and it has a lot of holes in the theory.

Learn what a Theory is before demonstrating your ignorance.

A Theory
Theory is a group of ideas meant to explain a certain topic of science, such as a single or collection of fact(s), event(s), or phenomen(a)(on). Typically, a theory is developed through the use of contemplative and rational forms of abstract and generalized thinking.

EVOLUTION IS JUST A THEORY. Its all based on peoples ideas first by Darwin then his followers that doesnt mean theyre right because theyre ideas were rational and had some science. there are also some theories which I find more rational than evolution but even in those theory there is still some irrationality .

(you cant say evolution is 100 percent ) its never been tested to be true. Even Darwin had some doubts about his theory

I will first state, Evolution is true. The only thing in evolution that has not been seen is change of kingdoms. However we have massive piles of evidence to explain how we have things to show that they did in the past. I HIGHLY suggest you go to the book store and get The Ancestor's Tale and The Greatest Show on Earth. The second gives evidence and the first explains. All by Richard Dawkins.

As for you explaining the theory, Theory =/= Scientific Theory

http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

Second we have seen evolution.

What do you mean? Do you mean we have seen change of species? And what do you mean by "seen"?

Speciation has been observed, yes.

Really? Reference please.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2014 4:13:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/14/2014 3:47:41 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 4/14/2014 12:58:34 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 4/14/2014 12:10:25 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 4/14/2014 1:44:00 AM, Berend wrote:
At 4/13/2014 9:13:39 PM, RHEMA.97 wrote:
At 4/13/2014 8:03:45 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 4/13/2014 8:00:16 PM, RHEMA.97 wrote:
Evolution is just a theory it has never been observed and proven true and it has a lot of holes in the theory.

Learn what a Theory is before demonstrating your ignorance.

A Theory
Theory is a group of ideas meant to explain a certain topic of science, such as a single or collection of fact(s), event(s), or phenomen(a)(on). Typically, a theory is developed through the use of contemplative and rational forms of abstract and generalized thinking.

EVOLUTION IS JUST A THEORY. Its all based on peoples ideas first by Darwin then his followers that doesnt mean theyre right because theyre ideas were rational and had some science. there are also some theories which I find more rational than evolution but even in those theory there is still some irrationality .

(you cant say evolution is 100 percent ) its never been tested to be true. Even Darwin had some doubts about his theory

I will first state, Evolution is true. The only thing in evolution that has not been seen is change of kingdoms. However we have massive piles of evidence to explain how we have things to show that they did in the past. I HIGHLY suggest you go to the book store and get The Ancestor's Tale and The Greatest Show on Earth. The second gives evidence and the first explains. All by Richard Dawkins.

As for you explaining the theory, Theory =/= Scientific Theory

http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

Second we have seen evolution.

What do you mean? Do you mean we have seen change of species? And what do you mean by "seen"?

Speciation has been observed, yes.

Really? Reference please.

http://www.talkorigins.org...
jkerr3
Posts: 177
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2014 5:17:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/12/2014 11:31:55 AM, Pitbull15 wrote:
How can I, a mere duck, type these words on a keyboard?

Checkmate atheists.

? your obviously not a duck your a human, IDK what your trying to prove here?
ethang5
Posts: 4,117
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2014 3:09:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/14/2014 4:13:45 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 4/14/2014 3:47:41 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 4/14/2014 12:58:34 PM, tkubok wrote:

Speciation has been observed, yes.

Really? Reference please.

http://www.talkorigins.org...

Really? Talk origins? That is your evidence of speciation?

Allow me a few selective quotes.

This FAQ discusses several instances where speciation has been observed. It also discusses several issues related to speciation.

Part 2 discusses several definitions of what a species is.

Part 4 looks at the question, "How can we tell when a speciation event has occurred?"

Speciation event. Hmm. What is that?

I consider this FAQ incomplete. One reason for this is that I am still chasing references (I still have a list of over 115 to find).

Now, you have to watch closely so you don't miss the trick. I will underline sentences and phrases you should remember.

A discussion of speciation requires a definition of what constitutes a species. This is a topic of considerable debate within the biological community.

Now notice that the author himself, when talking about the definition of speciation, mentions the biological community. Ok, onwards.

Three recent reviews in the Journal of Phycology give some idea of the scope of the debate (Castenholz 1992, Manhart and McCourt 1992, Wood and Leatham 1992). There are a variety of different species concept currently in use by biologists. These include folk, biological, morphological, genetic, paleontological, evolutionary, phylogenetic and biosystematic definitions.

Again he mentions the concepts in use by biologists. And lists some of these concepts. Then amazingly, he says,

In the interest of brevity, I'll only discuss four of these -- folk, biological, morphological and phylogenetic.

He will not discuss the genetic concept in the interest of brevity! This after twice noting biologists in his comments about what species are!

Over the last few decades the theoretically preeminent species definition has been the biological species concept (BSC). This concept defines a species as a reproductive community.

The BSC has undergone a number of changes over the years.

He's telling you this because he is about to change the BSC once again so that the citations he list later will qualify under his new definition. So he catalogs the changes.

.....implicit in this definition....
A few years later, Dobzhansky defined a species as....
.... had relaxed this definition to the point.....
..... He defined species as....
In this form of the definition a species is.....

Ready now? After he has sufficiently diverted the reader, he drops the next telling bit of evidence,

The BSC is most strongly accepted among vertebrate zoologists and entomologists.

But not biologists. He gives what he thinks is the reason why, but that does not explain why he focused on the biological community in the beginning of the article. I will show you why shortly.

It is not coincidental that the BSC is less widely accepted among botanists.

He tweaks it slightly here and says botanists instead of biologists, but he feels he is now covered enough in the "fairly pointing out the criticisms" department.

There has been considerable criticism of the theoretical validity and practical utility of the BSC.

Note the underlined words. These criticisms are not superficial. He goes on to list some....

There is an abundance of asexual populations that this definition just doesn't apply to (Budd and Mishler 1990). Examples of taxa which are obligately asexual include bdelloid rotifers, euglenoid flagellates, some members of the Oocystaceae (coccoid green algae), chloromonad flagellates and some araphid pennate diatoms. Asexual forms of normally sexual organisms are known. Obligately asexual populations of Daphnia are found in some arctic lakes. The BSD can be of no help in delimiting species in these groups.

Now, reading the above, guess which species still pepper his claims of observed speciation? I'll give you 3 guesses and we'll throw out the first 2.

One popular microbiology text doesn't even mention the BSC (Brock and Madigan 1988).

Gee. I wonder why? Guess which concept of speciation Brock and Madigan DOES mention? You guessed it, the genetic. The one our author dropped for the sake of brevity.

A more serious criticism is that the BSC is inapplicable in practice. This charge asserts that, in most cases, the BSC cannot be practically applied to delimit species.

Wow. More serious than a considerable criticism of the theoretical validity and practical utility of the BSC?

Another criticism of the BSC comes from the cladistic school of taxonomy (e.g. Donoghue 1985). The cladists argue that sexual compatibility is a primitive trait. Organisms that are no longer closely related may have retained the ability for genetic recombination with each other through sex. This is not a derived characteristic. Because of this it is invalid for defining monophyletic taxa.

Dispite the above, the author uses as evidence of speciation, organisms that are no longer closely related.

He goes on to list the other concepts but only briefly and without mention of criticism.

The literature on observed speciations events is not well organized.
Why is there such a seeming lack of interest in reporting observations of speciation events?
...four things account for this lack of interest. First, it appears that the biological community considers this a settled question. Many researchers feel that there are already ample reports in the literature.

He just said that there is a seeming lack of interest in reporting observations of speciation, but then concludes that many researchers feel that there are already ample reports in the literature. His conclusion doesn't follow. Whos wrong? The researchers or the author?

Few of these folks have actually looked closely. To test this idea, I asked about two dozen graduate students and faculty members in the department where I'm a student whether there were examples where speciation had been observed in the literature. Everyone said that they were sure that there were. Next I asked them for citings or descriptions. Only eight of the people I talked to could give an example, only three could give more than one. But everyone was sure that there were papers in the literature.

Lol, yet the author goes on to do the exact same thing; Perpetuating the false belief that there are numerous and verified claims of observed speciation in the scientific literature.

This is not the time or place to go into his actual citations of speciation but suffice it to say, none of his examples are valid cases of speciation. He first waters down the definition of speciation, then uses a concept to judge speciation called, by other scientists, theoretically invalid and of no practical utility.

What I find most telling is the authors concession that few of the people advancing observed cases of speciation have actually looked closely. I'm willing to bet that tkubok has done the same thing. He has lifted this poorly written and shabbily researched article with the pre-conceived belief that it is correct and that all the claims of speciation in it are true.

They aren't.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2014 4:47:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/15/2014 3:09:03 PM, ethang5 wrote:
Really? Talk origins? That is your evidence of speciation?

Allow me a few selective quotes.

Well, theres the first problem. But lets keep going.

Part 4 looks at the question, "How can we tell when a speciation event has occurred?"

Speciation event. Hmm. What is that?

Well its a good thing hes discussing it, isnt it?

A discussion of speciation requires a definition of what constitutes a species. This is a topic of considerable debate within the biological community.

Now notice that the author himself, when talking about the definition of speciation, mentions the biological community. Ok, onwards.

Okay.

Again he mentions the concepts in use by biologists. And lists some of these concepts. Then amazingly, he says,

In the interest of brevity, I'll only discuss four of these -- folk, biological, morphological and phylogenetic.

He will not discuss the genetic concept in the interest of brevity! This after twice noting biologists in his comments about what species are!

I dont remember biologists being only geneticists. But okay, maybe youre trying to make a point, ill keep going to see what happens.

The BSC has undergone a number of changes over the years.

He's telling you this because he is about to change the BSC once again so that the citations he list later will qualify under his new definition. So he catalogs the changes.

Ready now? After he has sufficiently diverted the reader, he drops the next telling bit of evidence,

Oh man, it sounds like youre about to prove me wrong...

The BSC is most strongly accepted among vertebrate zoologists and entomologists.

But not biologists. He gives what he thinks is the reason why, but that does not explain why he focused on the biological community in the beginning of the article. I will show you why shortly.

...And then it doesnt.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

There are many types of biologists. Some work on microorganisms while others study multicellular organisms. There is much overlap between different fields of biology such as botany, zoology, microbiology, genetics and evolutionary biology, and it is often hard to classify a biologist as only one of them.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Zoology"/zoA0;G2;;4;lədA8;i/, or animal biology, is the branch of biology that relates to the animal kingdom, including the structure, embryology, evolution,classification, habits, and distribution of all animals, both living and extinct.

Ive bolded the relevant parts. But man, that was embarrasing. For you I mean.

He tweaks it slightly here and says botanists instead of biologists, but he feels he is now covered enough in the "fairly pointing out the criticisms" department.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

So now Botany isnt a part of biology? Okay.

There is an abundance of asexual populations that this definition just doesn't apply to (Budd and Mishler 1990). Examples of taxa which are obligately asexual include bdelloid rotifers, euglenoid flagellates, some members of the Oocystaceae (coccoid green algae), chloromonad flagellates and some araphid pennate diatoms. Asexual forms of normally sexual organisms are known. Obligately asexual populations of Daphnia are found in some arctic lakes. The BSD can be of no help in delimiting species in these groups.

Now, reading the above, guess which species still pepper his claims of observed speciation? I'll give you 3 guesses and we'll throw out the first 2.

I dont understand what you mean by this. Are you saying that the author of this article is using asexually reproducing organisms as examples?


One popular microbiology text doesn't even mention the BSC (Brock and Madigan 1988).

Gee. I wonder why? Guess which concept of speciation Brock and Madigan DOES mention? You guessed it, the genetic. The one our author dropped for the sake of brevity.

A more serious criticism is that the BSC is inapplicable in practice. This charge asserts that, in most cases, the BSC cannot be practically applied to delimit species.

Wow. More serious than a considerable criticism of the theoretical validity and practical utility of the BSC?

Uh, Whether the BSC can be practically applied to delimit species, IS a criticism of the practical utility of BSC.

Another criticism of the BSC comes from the cladistic school of taxonomy (e.g. Donoghue 1985). The cladists argue that sexual compatibility is a primitive trait. Organisms that are no longer closely related may have retained the ability for genetic recombination with each other through sex. This is not a derived characteristic. Because of this it is invalid for defining monophyletic taxa.

Dispite the above, the author uses as evidence of speciation, organisms that are no longer closely related.

Sure. Do you know what species definition Cladistics utilizes? Phylogenetic Species concept. I thought you considered people who didnt use the genetic conept, as somehow non-biologists?

He goes on to list the other concepts but only briefly and without mention of criticism.

...Mostly because he doesnt use those concepts. The main concept he uses is the BSC, which is why he took the time to list most of the criticisms against it.


He just said that there is a seeming lack of interest in reporting observations of speciation, but then concludes that many researchers feel that there are already ample reports in the literature. His conclusion doesn't follow. Whos wrong? The researchers or the author?

Seeming lack of interest in reporting observations of speciation, does not mean utter lack of examples of reporting observations of speciation.

Lol, yet the author goes on to do the exact same thing; Perpetuating the false belief that there are numerous and verified claims of observed speciation in the scientific literature.

This is not the time or place to go into his actual citations of speciation but suffice it to say, none of his examples are valid cases of speciation. He first waters down the definition of speciation, then uses a concept to judge speciation called, by other scientists, theoretically invalid and of no practical utility.

Really. How did he water down the definition of speciation?

What I find most telling is the authors concession that few of the people advancing observed cases of speciation have actually looked closely. I'm willing to bet that tkubok has done the same thing. He has lifted this poorly written and shabbily researched article with the pre-conceived belief that it is correct and that all the claims of speciation in it are true.

They aren't.

Id probably be inclined to trust your claims more if you hadnt made the really really puzzling claim of distinguishing Zoologists and Botanists from biologists...

Since you never actually addressed any of the examples, though, maybe we should start from there...?
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2014 6:17:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/12/2014 11:38:14 AM, monty1 wrote:
Chimpanzees, which are our nearest relative have been taught how to communicate with people quite well.

"Quite well" might be an exaggeration: "The chimpanzee Nim Chimpsky was taught to communicate using sign language in studies led by Herbert S. Terrace. In 44 months, Nim Chimpsky learned 125 signs. However, linguistic analysis of Nim's communications demonstrated that Nim's use was symbolic, and lacked grammar, or rules, of the kind that humans use in communicating via language. This constitutes a chimpanzee vocabulary learning rate of roughly 0.1 words per day. This rate is not comparable to the average college-educated English-speaking human who learns roughly 14 words per day between ages 2 and 22." ~ Wiki
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2014 6:19:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/12/2014 11:45:08 AM, philochristos wrote:
Given an infinite number of universes, the odds are that a duck will type something coherent at one point or another.

Yeah, and an infinite number of monkeys will eventually type the complete works of William Shakespeare. :)
Fanath
Posts: 830
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2014 6:29:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/12/2014 11:31:55 AM, Pitbull15 wrote:
How can I, a mere duck, type these words on a keyboard?

Checkmate atheists.

The odds of a duck smashing word into a keyboard infinitely and actually typing something noteworthy are extremely high...
Dude... Stop...
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2014 10:48:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/17/2014 6:19:07 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 4/12/2014 11:45:08 AM, philochristos wrote:
Given an infinite number of universes, the odds are that a duck will type something coherent at one point or another.

Yeah, and an infinite number of monkeys will eventually type the complete works of William Shakespeare. :)

And there's somebody out there just like me except that he's Batman.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
ethang5
Posts: 4,117
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2014 11:49:38 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/17/2014 6:29:02 PM, Fanath wrote:
At 4/12/2014 11:31:55 AM, Pitbull15 wrote:
How can I, a mere duck, type these words on a keyboard?

Checkmate atheists.

The odds of a duck smashing word into a keyboard infinitely and actually typing something noteworthy are extremely high...

How about, instead of a duck, we use a platypus? Would that increase the odds of something noteworthy being typed?
Fanath
Posts: 830
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2014 12:29:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/22/2014 11:49:38 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 4/17/2014 6:29:02 PM, Fanath wrote:
At 4/12/2014 11:31:55 AM, Pitbull15 wrote:
How can I, a mere duck, type these words on a keyboard?

Checkmate atheists.

The odds of a duck smashing word into a keyboard infinitely and actually typing something noteworthy are extremely high...

How about, instead of a duck, we use a platypus? Would that increase the odds of something noteworthy being typed?

He said he was a duck. lol
Dude... Stop...