RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (6) < 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 >   
  Topic: It's all settled!...Proof God Exists!, Apparently, by asking the question does< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5379
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 07 2009,10:56   

Quote (inquiry @ Dec. 07 2009,10:05)
I could see where this may be possible. Two populations that are isolated from one another could/would go through genetic changes as they adapt to their environment. This could possibly lead to an inability for these populations to interbreed (because of geographical and genetic separation). Also smaller populations tend to genetically drift from the original genetic traits they possessed. And there is more potential in smaller populations for random genetic events. While this is okay in theory there are no known facts to support this theory.

...unless of course you know even an iota about biology.

'Unknown to you' is not the same as "no known facts". Your ignorance is easily curable.

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
Lou FCD



Posts: 5379
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 07 2009,10:58   

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Dec. 07 2009,10:15)
Quote (inquiry @ Dec. 07 2009,09:05)
But this type of speciation does not result in a new species.

Does any part of that statement seem odd to you?

lol, funniest thing I've read all week. Of course, textbooks tend to be a bit short on the humor...

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
JLT



Posts: 740
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 07 2009,11:08   

Quote (inquiry @ Dec. 07 2009,15:05)
 
Quote (JLT @ Dec. 05 2009,17:03)
I accept current evolutionary theory if that is what you're asking. That's more than just natural selection. You do realise that Darwin published his theory 150 years ago and science moved on a bit since then? Actually, for speciation to occur, natural selection wouldn’t even be strictly necessary. Genetic drift alone could, over time, lead to a build up of genetic and/or behavioural incompatibilities in geographically separated populations of a species that might result in reproductive isolation, i.e. they’d become two separate species. Of course, natural selection can contribute to or accelerate this process (once there is a geographical separation).
In plants, speciation frequently involves neo- or allopolyploidy (change in chromosome number), which can result in “instant speciation”

I could see where this may be possible. Two populations that are isolated from one another could/would go through genetic changes as they adapt to their environment. This could possibly lead to an inability for these populations to interbreed (because of geographical and genetic separation). Also smaller populations tend to genetically drift from the original genetic traits they possessed. And there is more potential in smaller populations for random genetic events. While this is okay in theory there are no known facts to support this theory.


LOL. So, you agree that this is hypothetically possible but for you it is still more likely that a supernatural entity( for which we don't have any evidence) brings new species into being (for whic we don't have any evidence) by an unknown mechanism?

But I'm sure that you'll rethink your position after you realise that we of course DO have facts to support this theory. Go to Pubmed and search for "drosophila reproductive isolation". On the right hand site you can filter your results for free full text articles.
Unfortunately I'm at work and I've got a visitor this week, so not much time to look trough the articles and do your work for you, but I skimmed a few articles and found this one that is available for free in fulltext: Sexual conflict and reproductive isolation in flies.
They found reproductive isolation after only 41 generations of Sepsid flies. But that wasn't actually the point of the article. They tested the hypothesis whether sexual conflict increases the reproductive isolation between larger populations (of flies). It is not a question anymore that reproductive isolation occurs after few generations, that is an often shown fact, the question has already shifted to the factors that might accelerate or slow down this process.

Btw, Jerry Coyne (the author of Why evolution is true) researches speciation of Drosophila in the wild. In his book he has a chapter about speciation and not surprisingly he talkes mainly about Drosophila in it. With the search terms I mentioned you can also find this article (unfortunately not open access):
INTRINSIC REPRODUCTIVE ISOLATION BETWEEN TWO SISTER SPECIES OF DROSOPHILA.
Matute DR, Coyne JA.
Evolution. 2009 Nov 5. [Epub ahead of print]

The theory of allopatric speciation generates a lot of predictions that can be tested and have been tested successfully both in the lab and in the wild.

IMO it's disingenuous to assert that there aren't any supporting facts if you've never bothered to look for them. I suggested that you go to Pubmed and search for reproductive isolation in the post you quote. Why didn't you do it if you're honestly interested in "where the evidence leads"? How do you think you'll get to know the evidence for the evolutionary theories if you never try to learn anything about it?

 
Quote
Granted the example of plants is an example of speciation. But this type of speciation does not result in a new species. In order for the current evolutionary theory to hold there has to be evidence that a species came to be by splitting off from previous species.

Where else do these new plant species come from if not from pre-existing plant species?

Interesting article in PNAS: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/08/05/0811575106.abstract
 
Quote
By combining information from the botanical community's vast cytogenetic and phylogenetic databases, we establish that 15% of angiosperm and 31% of fern speciation events are accompanied by ploidy increase. These frequency estimates are higher by a factor of four than earlier estimates and lead to a standing incidence of polyploid species within genera of 35% (n = 1,506).


So, probably one of the most important speciation mechanism in plants doesn't count because you don't like and/or understand it?

--------------
"Random mutations, if they are truly random, will affect, and potentially damage, any aspect of the organism, [...]
Thus, a realistic [computer] simulation [of evolution] would allow the program, OS, and hardware to be affected in a random fashion." GilDodgen, Frilly shirt owner

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5379
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 07 2009,11:20   

Quote (JLT @ Dec. 07 2009,12:08)
Unfortunately I'm at work and I've got a visitor this week, so not much time to look trough the articles and do your work for you, but I skimmed a few articles and found this one that is available for free in fulltext: Sexual conflict and reproductive isolation in flies.
They found reproductive isolation after only 41 generations of Sepsid flies. But that wasn't actually the point of the article. They tested the hypothesis whether sexual conflict increases the reproductive isolation between larger populations (of flies). It is not a question anymore that reproductive isolation occurs after few generations, that is an often shown fact, the question has already shifted to the factors that might accelerate or slow down this process.

Aside:

Interesting that you should mention that paper. I just came across it over last weekend while doing some research of the literature for social behavior in Pan paniscus. It was linked or referenced or something in a recent article that was also discussing a paper in PLoS ONE: Reproductive Behavior Evolves Rapidly When Intralocus Sexual Conflict Is Removed, Bedhomme, Prasad, Jiang, and Chippendale, 2008.

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
inquiry



Posts: 17
Joined: Nov. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 07 2009,11:59   

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Dec. 07 2009,09:15)
Quote (inquiry @ Dec. 07 2009,09:05)
But this type of speciation does not result in a new species.

Does any part of that statement seem odd to you?

By new species I was referring to new in nature (kind) That plants produce plants is one thing. Reproduction within a species is empirically verified. I'm not asking for proof of that.

  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 07 2009,12:07   

Quote (inquiry @ Dec. 07 2009,11:59)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Dec. 07 2009,09:15)
Quote (inquiry @ Dec. 07 2009,09:05)
But this type of speciation does not result in a new species.

Does any part of that statement seem odd to you?

By new species I was referring to new in nature (kind) That plants produce plants is one thing. Reproduction within a species is empirically verified. I'm not asking for proof of that.

Translation:  No one has ever seen a dog give birth to a cat.

--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
JohnW



Posts: 2296
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 07 2009,12:07   

Quote (inquiry @ Dec. 07 2009,09:59)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Dec. 07 2009,09:15)
Quote (inquiry @ Dec. 07 2009,09:05)
But this type of speciation does not result in a new species.

Does any part of that statement seem odd to you?

By new species I was referring to new in nature (kind) That plants produce plants is one thing. Reproduction within a species is empirically verified. I'm not asking for proof of that.

Are you claiming plants are all one species?

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it.
- Robert Byers

  
RDK



Posts: 229
Joined: Aug. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 07 2009,12:29   

Quote (inquiry @ Dec. 07 2009,11:59)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Dec. 07 2009,09:15)
 
Quote (inquiry @ Dec. 07 2009,09:05)
But this type of speciation does not result in a new species.

Does any part of that statement seem odd to you?

By new species I was referring to new in nature (kind) That plants produce plants is one thing. Reproduction within a species is empirically verified. I'm not asking for proof of that.

Inquiry, what is your scientific definition of the term species?  Perhaps after you've answered that we can get somewhere.

Thanks in advance for not answering this question and / or answering it in a vague and non-specific manner.

--------------
If you are not:
Leviathan
please Logout under Meta in the sidebar.

‘‘I was like ‘Oh my God! It’s Jesus on a banana!’’  - Lisa Swinton, Jesus-eating pagan

  
JLT



Posts: 740
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 07 2009,12:33   

[quote=Lou FCD,Dec. 07 2009,17:20]  
Quote (JLT @ Dec. 07 2009,12:08)
Unfortunately I'm at work and I've got a visitor this week, so not much time to look trough the articles and do your work for you, but I skimmed a few articles and found this one that is available for free in fulltext: Sexual conflict and reproductive isolation in flies.
They found reproductive isolation after only 41 generations of Sepsid flies. But that wasn't actually the point of the article. They tested the hypothesis whether sexual conflict increases the reproductive isolation between larger populations (of flies). It is not a question anymore that reproductive isolation occurs after few generations, that is an often shown fact, the question has already shifted to the factors that might accelerate or slow down this process.

Oups, I should've said "It is not a question anymore that reproductive isolation can occurs even after few generations..."
Quote
Aside:

Interesting that you should mention that paper. I just came across it over last weekend while doing some research of the literature for social behavior in Pan paniscus. It was linked or referenced or something in a recent article that was also discussing a paper in PLoS ONE: Reproductive Behavior Evolves Rapidly When Intralocus Sexual Conflict Is Removed, Bedhomme, Prasad, Jiang, and Chippendale, 2008.

Flies are never far away, as are articles about them  ;)

--------------
"Random mutations, if they are truly random, will affect, and potentially damage, any aspect of the organism, [...]
Thus, a realistic [computer] simulation [of evolution] would allow the program, OS, and hardware to be affected in a random fashion." GilDodgen, Frilly shirt owner

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 07 2009,12:48   

Quote
But this type of speciation does not result in a new species.


I'm dazzled.

Inquiry, you do realize that this is what you're actually saying?:

Quote
When a new species is created, it doesn't result in a new species.


--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
JohnW



Posts: 2296
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 07 2009,13:07   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Dec. 07 2009,10:48)
 
Quote
But this type of speciation does not result in a new species.


I'm dazzled.

Inquiry, you do realize that this is what you're actually saying?:

 
Quote
When a new species is created, it doesn't result in a new species.

Inquiry seems to have redefined "species" as "kingdom":
Quote
By new species I was referring to new in nature (kind) That plants produce plants is one thing. Reproduction within a species is empirically verified. I'm not asking for proof of that.

... without noticing that he's failed to redefine "speciation" in a similar way.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it.
- Robert Byers

  
Badger3k



Posts: 861
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 07 2009,13:08   

Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ Dec. 07 2009,00:14)
Quote (Badger3k @ Dec. 06 2009,18:24)
 
Quote (tsig @ Dec. 06 2009,15:41)
   
Quote (inquiry @ Dec. 05 2009,09:20)
Do you hold to Darwin’s definition of natural selection: “This preservation of favourable variations and the rejection of injurious variations, I call ‘natural selection.” Including the idea that this process eventually brings about a new species? I would agree that we see this within a species. So I appreciate that being brought up, I should have been more specific. If you believe that this accounts for new species coming into being can you give me the empirical evidence for that view?


I should have defined what I meant by supernatural since this can be a rather messy term. By supernatural I mean a being or beings that are in some sense beyond nature acting on nature that cause certain things to come into existence. I don’t think these entity/entities would have to be beyond nature in order to impact nature. Further I don’t think this being/s would necessarily interfere but could work along with natural laws. So there wouldn’t be an obstacle for arriving at generalizations. To use the example given of conducting an experiment on a cell, you as an individual transcend the cell (you’re beyond it) and act as a cause to create an effect, the cell type growing faster. So you’re manipulating matter, and you are outside of the matter you’re manipulating. But of course you’re still in the realm of the physical world with physical qualities working with natural laws.


Now I wouldn’t necessarily attribute all acts to this supernatural source, but when it comes to living organisms, do natural laws account for their existence? Or like the building, house, etc. does there have to be something beyond the natural (as defined above) that brings those things into existence? Whatever the nature of that thing is, is more of a philosophical question. But the probability of such a being/s within the universe is I think an important scientific question.

Why would this being give a big red rats ass about you.

Red-assed rats?  Nah.  I'd go with "why would this being give a big red baboons ass about you."

Jesus Loves Inquiry and so does Badger3000:


My hat is off to you, sir.

--------------
"Just think if every species had a different genetic code We would have to eat other humans to survive.." : Joe G

  
Badger3k



Posts: 861
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 07 2009,13:13   

Quote (carlsonjok @ Dec. 07 2009,12:07)
Quote (inquiry @ Dec. 07 2009,11:59)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Dec. 07 2009,09:15)
 
Quote (inquiry @ Dec. 07 2009,09:05)
But this type of speciation does not result in a new species.

Does any part of that statement seem odd to you?

By new species I was referring to new in nature (kind) That plants produce plants is one thing. Reproduction within a species is empirically verified. I'm not asking for proof of that.

Translation:  No one has ever seen a dog give birth to a cat.

Crocoducks!!!!111!!

Any odds on the "goo to you by way of the zoo" ?

--------------
"Just think if every species had a different genetic code We would have to eat other humans to survive.." : Joe G

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 07 2009,13:21   

Quote (JohnW @ Dec. 07 2009,11:07)
 
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Dec. 07 2009,10:48)
     
Quote
But this type of speciation does not result in a new species.


I'm dazzled.

Inquiry, you do realize that this is what you're actually saying?:

     
Quote
When a new species is created, it doesn't result in a new species.

Inquiry seems to have redefined "species" as "kingdom":
   
Quote
By new species I was referring to new in nature (kind) That plants produce plants is one thing. Reproduction within a species is empirically verified. I'm not asking for proof of that.

... without noticing that he's failed to redefine "speciation" in a similar way.

I think we should encourage Creationists to redefine scientific terms on whim like this. It pretty much guarantees that they'll stay marginalized forever.

So when Inquiry said:

 
Quote
But this type of speciation does not result in a new species.


He really meant:

 
Quote
But this type of speciation does not result in a new kingdom.


Oh yes, that's a much less vacuous statement.

Quote
Any odds on the "goo to you by way of the zoo" ?


I hope Dave Springer's old favorite, "mud to man" doesn't go forgotten here.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
MichaelJ



Posts: 455
Joined: June 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 07 2009,13:23   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Dec. 08 2009,03:48)
Quote
But this type of speciation does not result in a new species.


I'm dazzled.

Inquiry, you do realize that this is what you're actually saying?:

Quote
When a new species is created, it doesn't result in a new species.

I think that he means biblical 'kinds'. So, harking back to the other discussion what 'kind' is a tasmanian wolf? A Kangaroo kind or a wolf kind and please show working.

As we have quite detailed fossils of the evolution of a whale from a land beastie, what kind is a whale? Is it a cow or a fish?

What does the fact that Inquiry requiring a detailed video of a species changing 'kind' have to do with his original question. As far as I can see all he is saying is gap in knowledge == God.
The worse thing is that he seems pretty ignorant on the science, but then if he wasn't he wouldn't be a creationist.

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10312
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 07 2009,13:31   

Quote (carlsonjok @ Dec. 07 2009,12:07)
Quote (inquiry @ Dec. 07 2009,11:59)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Dec. 07 2009,09:15)
 
Quote (inquiry @ Dec. 07 2009,09:05)
But this type of speciation does not result in a new species.

Does any part of that statement seem odd to you?

By new species I was referring to new in nature (kind) That plants produce plants is one thing. Reproduction within a species is empirically verified. I'm not asking for proof of that.

Translation:  No one has ever seen a dog give birth to a cat.

I've seen them "trying for a family", though.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
JLT



Posts: 740
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 07 2009,14:37   

Quote (inquiry @ Dec. 07 2009,17:59)
 
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Dec. 07 2009,09:15)
   
Quote (inquiry @ Dec. 07 2009,09:05)
But this type of speciation does not result in a new species.

Does any part of that statement seem odd to you?

By new species I was referring to new in nature (kind) That plants produce plants is one thing. Reproduction within a species is empirically verified. I'm not asking for proof of that.

Good grief.



--------------
"Random mutations, if they are truly random, will affect, and potentially damage, any aspect of the organism, [...]
Thus, a realistic [computer] simulation [of evolution] would allow the program, OS, and hardware to be affected in a random fashion." GilDodgen, Frilly shirt owner

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2779
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 07 2009,15:48   

Quote (Lou FCD @ Dec. 07 2009,10:58)
lol, funniest thing I've read all week. Of course, textbooks tend to be a bit short on the humor...

Hey, if I wrote a textbook, I promise that there would be humor. Vitreous, perhaps...

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Lou FCD



Posts: 5379
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 07 2009,15:50   

Oh yeah, I can see that this exchange is going to be one for the books, forever preserved in the Internet Annals of Creobot Stupid Utterances.

"inquiry", I'd like to introduce you to a fella named Pastor Ray Mummert...


ETA: Anyone added this to FSTDT yet?

Edited by Lou FCD on Dec. 07 2009,16:53

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
Lou FCD



Posts: 5379
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 07 2009,15:51   

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Dec. 07 2009,16:48)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Dec. 07 2009,10:58)
lol, funniest thing I've read all week. Of course, textbooks tend to be a bit short on the humor...

Hey, if I wrote a textbook, I promise that there would be humor. Vitreous, perhaps...

Well, let's be about that then...

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
JohnW



Posts: 2296
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 07 2009,15:58   

Finally, with afdave FTK Cornelius Hunter Floyd Lee scienthuse Robert Byers inquiry, we might have reached rock bottom.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it.
- Robert Byers

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5379
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 07 2009,16:04   

Quote (JohnW @ Dec. 07 2009,16:58)
Finally, with afdave FTK Cornelius Hunter Floyd Lee scienthuse Robert Byers inquiry, we might have reached rock bottom.

You haven't encountered Barb yet, I see...

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
JohnW



Posts: 2296
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 07 2009,16:18   

Quote (Lou FCD @ Dec. 07 2009,14:04)
Quote (JohnW @ Dec. 07 2009,16:58)
Finally, with afdave FTK Cornelius Hunter Floyd Lee scienthuse Robert Byers inquiry, we might have reached rock bottom.

You haven't encountered Barb yet, I see...

True.  I just said we might have got there.  Science is provisional.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it.
- Robert Byers

  
JLT



Posts: 740
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 07 2009,18:30   

Quote (MichaelJ @ Dec. 07 2009,19:23)
 
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Dec. 08 2009,03:48)
   
Quote
But this type of speciation does not result in a new species.


I'm dazzled.

Inquiry, you do realize that this is what you're actually saying?:

   
Quote
When a new species is created, it doesn't result in a new species.

I think that he means biblical 'kinds'. So, harking back to the other discussion what 'kind' is a tasmanian wolf? A Kangaroo kind or a wolf kind and please show working.

If all plants are the same kind, then, I'm afraid, marsupials, wolfs, dinosaurs, octopi, and probably sponges all belong to one kind, too.

--------------
"Random mutations, if they are truly random, will affect, and potentially damage, any aspect of the organism, [...]
Thus, a realistic [computer] simulation [of evolution] would allow the program, OS, and hardware to be affected in a random fashion." GilDodgen, Frilly shirt owner

  
rhmc



Posts: 340
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 07 2009,21:38   

Quote (Lou FCD @ Dec. 07 2009,16:50)
ETA: Anyone added this to FSTDT yet?

thanks for the link.  :)

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 07 2009,22:37   

Quote (inquiry @ Dec. 07 2009,12:59)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Dec. 07 2009,09:15)
Quote (inquiry @ Dec. 07 2009,09:05)
But this type of speciation does not result in a new species.

Does any part of that statement seem odd to you?

By new species I was referring to new in nature (kind) That plants produce plants is one thing. Reproduction within a species is empirically verified. I'm not asking for proof of that.

bwahahahahaha

inquiry what is a species anyway?  i hear all these fancypants homo biollergist types using the word and i don't think they even know what it means.  i am pretty sure that the sort of divisiveness that this word creates is what JEsus meant when he said "I am come not to bring peace but a sword".  That's why I use a Christological species concept.  If you don't know what that means then you were never meant to understand.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1691
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 08 2009,01:58   

Quote (rhmc @ Dec. 08 2009,03:38)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Dec. 07 2009,16:50)
ETA: Anyone added this to FSTDT yet?

thanks for the link.  :)

WOW! I feel dizzy now...

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
Cubist



Posts: 352
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 08 2009,03:57   

Quote (inquiry @ Dec. 07 2009,08:56)
Science deals with probabilities so I’m not trying to flatly account or discount anything about natural laws.
I call 'bullshit' on that, inquiry. You're a Creationist (YEC? Old-Earther?), so you bloody well are trying to "discount", at the very least,  the ability of natural laws to produce living things. How about you be honest and aboveboard about your agenda, eh?
Quote
What I want to address and try to answer is the probability of living organisms coming about by way of natural laws versus a designer/s.
Good luck with that (no pun intended), inquiry. For one thing, nobody knows the specifics of how abiogenesis would work, and how the heck can you calculate the probability of a process when most-to-all of the details of that process are unknown? For another thing, the how do you calculate the probability of an unknown process? objection applies in spades, doubled and redoubled, to this "designer" thingie of which you speak. Go ahead, inquiry, educate us all: How do you calculate the probability of a "designer" having acted, in the absence of any specific information whatsoever about this "designer"?
Quote
One of those unanswered questions is how do new species originate from already existing species.

"(U)nanswered questions"? "(U)n"-bleeding-"answered questions"? Give me a flippin' break, inquiry! I can easily believe that you happen to be ignorant of the answers to these questions, but guess what? Your ignorance of those answers does not make those answers cease to exist! Since others have already given you pointers to some of the answers which you implicitly claim to be nonexistent, I see no reason to provide any more such pointers myself; you can just as easily ignore/reject any pointer I give you as you can pointers given you by someone else.
Quote
Is there anything that convinces you that there is greater probability that natural laws alone are responsible for this?
Yes: In every case where we actually do know what's responsible for a new species having arisen, "natural laws alone" are responsible for that species having arisen.

  
Cubist



Posts: 352
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 08 2009,04:03   

Quote (inquiry @ Dec. 07 2009,11:59)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Dec. 07 2009,09:15)
 
Quote (inquiry @ Dec. 07 2009,09:05)
But this type of speciation does not result in a new species.

Does any part of that statement seem odd to you?

By new species I was referring to new in nature (kind) That plants produce plants is one thing. Reproduction within a species is empirically verified. I'm not asking for proof of that.

What's a "kind", inquiry? Given two arbitrary critters, how can you tell whether said critters belong to the same "kind" or to different "kind"s? If you can't actually tell whether two arbitrary critters belong to the same "kind", how the heck would you know whether or not a new "kind" was produced?

  
MichaelJ



Posts: 455
Joined: June 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 08 2009,05:05   

What kind is tiktaalik? You could flip a coin but in any case the distance between it and a fish or it and an amphibian is smaller than the difference within some of your kinds.

  
  160 replies since Nov. 24 2009,07:46 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (6) < 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]