Evolution in Action: Birth of New Species Witnessed by Scientists (page 4)

moshe

Suppose they again find some previously unknown species of bird, monkey, rat , fish, frog or bug in the jungle someplace. It is always written up that way, but in reality, the new species could have just recently evolved and that is why nobody noticed it until now.

TD

The problem is, the term "species" is fuzzy to begin with, you would think evolution advocates would do a better job defining terms.

Ohhhhhh c'mon. Play fair.

Taxonomy and the species designation predates modern evolutionary theory by a good long time. Some of Darwin's bitterest enemies were in fact taxonomists, like Georges Cuvier.

Even if we forget about that though, the differences between an animal, that might refuse to mate with very similar animals for what seem to be trivial reasons (e.g. Small differences in coloration or the sounds they make) and a plant, which scatters its pollen to the wind and in effect, has wild unprotected sex with anything and everything with receptors for that pollen make one single universal rule for what constitutes a species impossible.

At least biologists are upfront when a new species is recognized with the reasons why they believe it should be. Papers are submitted and subject to peer review. Critics get a chance to be heard. If those reasons are not defensible, the proposed reorganization doesn't happen.

But most importantly, the species designation is simply not important to those that accept evolution in the same way that the "Kind" definition is important to those that advocate Biblical creation, because evolutionary theory by it's very nature holds that all organisms are related to each other to varying degrees anyway.

hamilcarr

sigh

Caedes

So basically, you can claim whatever you want in the present, but we won't be around to see if you were right or wrong.

That's the way you guys get off the hook. Just stretch it out.

Yeah, if only there was an independent branch of science that we could use to look at preserved examples of previous species to see how they have changed over millions of years. Then those pesky evolutionists would have to accept that god did it.

TheClarinetist

TD: I get confused a lot... It happens. LoL.

You also have to take into account the genetics side of the equation... There is a LOT of solid research by geneticists proving evolution almost without a doubt. (I say almost because I always have a LITTLE doubt.)

sir82

So basically, you can claim whatever you want in the present, but we won't be around to see if you were right or wrong.

Ermm.....perhaps you have a faulty memory, and have forgotten about a branch of science known as paleontology?

The "stretch it out" part has been studied - but the stretch goes into the past. Fossils from a few thousand, to many millions, of years old are studied. By applying the lessons learned from small changes observed in the present day, one can see that the evolutionary pattern has been in effect for the entire history of life on earth, a history stretching back hundreds of millions of years.

It's good to be asking questions....but I am far from an expert. If you really want to learn about what evolution really is (not a distortion of what creationists would like it to be), there are dozens if not hundreds of books, in layman's terms, available.

Deputy Dog

TD

Ohhhhhh c'mon. Play fair.
Taxonomy and the species designation predates modern evolutionary theory by a good long time. Some of Darwin's bitterest enemies were in fact taxonomists, like Georges Cuvier.

I agree. Those who are advocates of modern evolutionary theory really shouldn't be using the term "species" at all. My point is "modern evolutionary theory" has the problem of redefining it.

From: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/species/

What are biological species? At first glance, this seems like an easy question to answer. Homo sapiens is a species, and so is Canis familaris (dog). Many species can be easily distinguished. When we turn to the technical literature on species, the nature of species becomes much less clear. Biologists offer a dozen definitions of the term ‘species’ (Claridge, Dawah, and Wilson 1997). These definitions are not fringe accounts of species but prominent definitions in the current biological literature. Philosophers also disagree on the nature of species. Here the concern is the ontological status of species. Some philosophers believe that species are natural kinds. Others maintain that species are particulars or individuals.

TD

DD

Those who are advocates of modern evolutionary theory really shouldn't be using the term "species" at all.

I'm confused....Why?

Those who are advocates of modern evolutionary theory include the vast majority of zoologists and botanists today.

Are you proposing that they quit their jobs and quit trying to classify plants and animals? Should Linnaean taxonomy be thrown out entirely?

My point is "modern evolutionary theory" has the problem of redefining it.

Why do you think that this is a problem unique to those who favor evolution?

Let's assume that your field is biology instead of law enforcement.

Let's assume that you are still a strict Biblical creationist.

You would still have the exact same problem with the term, "Species" that your collegues who accept evolution do and that problem has absolutely nothing to do with evolution itself.

The problem is that what constitutes a basic taxonomic group varies from one form of life to the next. As I've explained, the most striking example of this is the difference between animals and plants in what constitutes a "Species."

Animals choose their mates. Appearance, smell, sound, and behavior are all involved. With animals any one of those things can result in reproductive isolation and subsequent genetic drift. None of those things matters with plants. With plants, any hybrid that can possibly occur, will occur. As a result, classification in botany is a nightmare compared to zoology. Additional rungs on the ladder both above and below species and subspecies like tribe, subtribe, variant, subvariant hybrid and even field number are common in botany because much more variation occurs.

But that is neither here nor there as far as the original observation I made is concerned.

The strictest form of Biblical creationism, which holds that the Genesis flood story is real and that all the manifold diversity of life on earth today descended from a relatively small number of typical "Kinds" does stand or fall based on whether that term can be defined in a way that sqaures with both it's Biblical usage and the observable facts today, which is why a concrete definition of that term is particularly elusive.

If, for example a subgroup within any particular "Kind" diverges genetically to the point where true reproductive isolation occurs, and that subgroup is no longer fertile with the parent group at all, (As with many members of the Dog family) then a new "Kind" has come into existence even by the standards of those that advocate creation and that would be a problem.

I admit that this particular disparity is unfair in a way, but I'm at a loss as to why you took issue with me pointing it out.

Deputy Dog

TD

Why do you think that this is a problem unique to those who favor evolution?

Let's assume that your field is biology... OK, Problem. Is the dog, (Canis familiaris) the same "species" as the gray wolf, (Canis lupus)?

Let's assume that you are still a strict Biblical creationist... Same question. My answer, yes.

TD

Hi DD

Problem. Is the dog, (Canis familiaris) the same "species" as the gray wolf, (Canis lupus)?....My answer, yes.

Could you elaborate?

Evolution in Action: Birth of New Species Witnessed by Scientists

Share this