by Perry 365 Replies latest watchtower scandals
You've misunderstood me.
I wrote: That's all evolution is, and yes, creationists do claim to deny this.
Meaning creationists deny this is all evolution is. They think it's something more, so you get the classic 'I believe in micro evolution, not macro evolution' line, when they don't get that macro evolution is just micro evolution repeated over and over.
Good point serotonin...
One can see how very small steps can cause speciation geographically by looking at 'ring species'. Obvious Creationists et. al. avoid looking at them.
Speciation in time occured the same way.
The whole 'transitional fossil' red herring employed by people of that ilk simply testifies to their deliberate lack of detailed knowledge of the subject. First of all because there are plenty of example (unless you quote from decades-old books or "Origin", a typical piece of Creationist (et. al.) deceit), and second because saying "where are the transitional fossils, there are none" is begging the question; it assumes that there would be something different about such fossils when in fact they would be virtually indistinguishable from those in generations before and after.
Given the rate of fossiliation of dead animals, the percentage of these fossils that have survived, the percentage of those that have been recovered, and the true nature of transitions, the level of evidence available is what you would expect.
serotonin_wraith: Meaning creationists deny this is all evolution is. They think it's something more, so you get the classic 'I believe in micro evolution, not macro evolution' line, when they don't get that macro evolution is just micro evolution repeated over and over.
So, are you suggesting that extra-special evolution has been scientifically proven? I was unaware of that development.
I believe in micro evolution. I believe micro evolution is self-limited by its incapacity to specially extend beyond a certain point while maintaining viability. I believe that is why horses and asses can be bred to make a mule, but a male and female mule can't breed to make another mule.
I believe the scientific community would love to be able to PROVE that extra-special evolution has occurred according to the rules of scientific discovery, but I have not discovered any instance in which it has been proved to have occurred. Argument lines regarding shared genetic similarities are now moot because we now have plethoric examples of known design in which "reusable code" is recognized as a very efficient way to produce a wide variety of similar end products which vary greatly in function from a very small base set of commands.
I would highly enjoy considering your best case example of speciation that can withstand the rigors of truly scientific analysis.
Expectantly,
AuldSoul
I don't know if this has come up in discussion of the Creo Propganda Flick;
That about covers it.
Auld_Soul
I believe micro evolution is self-limited by its incapacity to specially extend beyond a certain point while maintaining viability.
What you seem to miss is that it is not progressing in any way like a horse-mule hybrid.
Yes, if you cross a horse with a donkey you get a mule and it is normally infertile http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mule#Fertile_mules
You are taking two differentiated gene pools and mixing them.
Likewise, take a monolingual French speaker from Brussels to Lisbon in one day and they will not understand a word of Portuguese.
If a male and female from the same gene pool that is subject to selection pressure mate, then you are not mixing two differentiated gene pools. You are mixing the latest version of the current gene pool.
If someone walks 5-20 miles then stays where they are for a few months, and repeat this process, then they will pick-up the lingusitic transitions around international borders; people NEAR permiable borders speak bastardised versions of their mother tounge mixed with that of the adjacent country. It doesn't go from pure French to pure Spanish to pure Portuguese. If you progress at slow enough rate you adapt to the changes.
Without being rude, you are making an elementary mistake that illustrates you need to study the subject at far greater depth as you are insisting things cannot happen based on faulty reasoning.
Now, the differentiating factor is whether you will accept this is true (all evidence points to it being so in this case) and rectify it, or carry on regardless as per the hard core of those opposing the commonly accepted model of evolution (which they don't know enough about to oppose competently).
Auldsoul,
Changes happen in animals. Take dogs. Lots of different kinds of dogs, but all dogs. An animal splits off when it can no longer produce viable offspring - the changes accumulate so much that gene flow between them becomes hard, then impossible.
Horses and donkeys are an example of this. They've seperated further than different dogs, but they share a common ancestor. They cannot produce viable offspring, so we call them different species.
Horses can still mate with horses, and donkeys with donkeys.
Consider the different cats. Lions and tigers cannot produce viable offspring, but they can reproduce. Domestic cats cannot have offspring with lions or tigers, because the changes are too far gone. However, we can see the similarities. They are small versions of these larger cats.
With all these split offs, and new ones coming off these, what we have basically is a family tree which includes every animal. Small changes, over millions of years, leads to the diversity of life we see today. It's not 'extra special', it's just evolution. Evolution is evolution.
If you want proof, one thing that helped me was the fossil record. Not only do we see how species have changed over the years, the fossils can be dated, and they fit in with the record. For example, we'll never find a dinosaur from the same time period as a turkey, because birds evolved from dinosaurs. Google can help you on your search, but if you do get stuck I'm sure I can find things for you.
I would highly enjoy considering your best case example of speciation that can withstand the rigors of truly scientific analysis.
You may want to consider this article on observed instances of speciation.
You may want to consider this article on observed instances of speciation.
Maize!
There is no such thing as wild Maize. It is almost like the native Americans invented a new species whole cloth out of existing genetic material. That is intelligent design!
All we have are theories at this point.
Pretty amazing really, there is no other food crop like it.
Fresh sweet corn, mmmmmmm.
Burn
inrainbows: That about covers it.
I apologize for my obtusity. I couldn't find where that site addressed anything except arguments I (for one) never put forward. Perhaps you could show how that site you linked to "covers" my response. I didn't really enjoy having the well poisoned, so to speak, since I doubt I ever would have read the "Leader's Guide" but have now been exposed to some of its contents in such a way that I cannot fairly deny whether its contents are partially informing some of my viewpoints.
A horse cross-bred with an ass produces a mule. A mule cross-bred with a mule produces what? I never argued, if you examine my statement carefully, that mules are always infertile. I said, in essence, that mules are not a viable species in their own right. I daresay you would not disagree with what I said, would you?
Without being rude, you are intimating that language has some correlation to the subject under discussion instead of laying the matter firmly to rest by citing your best case of macro evolution which proves, conclusively, that extraspecial evolution has ever occurred. A poster inferred that only the uninitiated would accept micro evolution without accepting, as a logical extension, macro evolution. In terms more crude, I invited the scientifically minded on the forum to put up or shut up on the subject of macro evolution.
If it is established, prove it. That should be simple enough. Don't hypothesize it or lead by inquiry to that conclusion . . . show it. If it is real it should be an easily accomplished task.
Back to the subject of known design . . . with the advent of Object Oriented Programming, Artificial Intelligence, and Self-Modifying Code or Adaptive Code, comparisons which previously could not be effectively made between genetic code and known design can now be easily made. The great likelihood is that the more refined our known designs become in this vein of endeavor, the more closely similar examples of known design will become when compared with the sleek functionality of DNA, RNA, and mRNA.
I believe the wide variety of life that cannot mate but which shares a similar base set of code now has a very close parallel in known design. It already shows all signs of trending much more closely toward similarity with biological processes in the future. Of course, this particular arena of known design is still very much in its infancy, but earthmen have only been around for a few thousand years, geologically speaking.
Respectfully,
AuldSoul
The problem is also how to define a species:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species#Definitions_of_species
Burn
Auldsoul, all you have to do is do a google search for 'examples of speciation'. Finches, Cichlid fish, insects, there's plenty there.
