RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (25) < ... 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 19 ... >   
  Topic: Jerry Don Bauer's Thread, Lather, Rinse, Repeat< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Jerry Don Bauer



Posts: 135
Joined: Nov. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2012,12:47   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 04 2012,11:38)
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 04 2012,11:22)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 04 2012,11:19)
You really don't understand do you?

Have you looked up "cline" yet?  It would really help you understand this.

Why haven't you looked this concept up?  Oh yeah, you want me to spoon feed it to you.  Then you can argue about it.  Nope, sorry.

It's pretty obvious to everyone here that you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

Just trolling with the rest of 'em now? Ya gotta love it... :)

No, I'm asking a legitimate question.  I've provided you some information to help you understand you error three times now.

You're failure to even consider any information except what's already in your on head is a flaw in your thinking ability.

It's not trolling, it's the truth.

If you understood the concept of a cline (sometimes called a ring species), then you would understand why your declarations of one specific individual being speciated is mistaken.

Although, it does happen frequently in plants and it is actually possible to point to the point where speciation occurred.  Curiously, do you know what we find?  No design.  In plants, the most common cause of speciation is chromosome duplication.  But you don't care because it doesn't support you chosen notions.

I ALREADY know what a cline is...why would I need to look it up? You haven't brought any arguments using that word, why on earth do you think I would need to address them?

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3285
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2012,12:55   

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 04 2012,12:47)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 04 2012,11:38)
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 04 2012,11:22)
 
Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 04 2012,11:19)
You really don't understand do you?

Have you looked up "cline" yet?  It would really help you understand this.

Why haven't you looked this concept up?  Oh yeah, you want me to spoon feed it to you.  Then you can argue about it.  Nope, sorry.

It's pretty obvious to everyone here that you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

Just trolling with the rest of 'em now? Ya gotta love it... :)

No, I'm asking a legitimate question.  I've provided you some information to help you understand you error three times now.

You're failure to even consider any information except what's already in your on head is a flaw in your thinking ability.

It's not trolling, it's the truth.

If you understood the concept of a cline (sometimes called a ring species), then you would understand why your declarations of one specific individual being speciated is mistaken.

Although, it does happen frequently in plants and it is actually possible to point to the point where speciation occurred.  Curiously, do you know what we find?  No design.  In plants, the most common cause of speciation is chromosome duplication.  But you don't care because it doesn't support you chosen notions.

I ALREADY know what a cline is...why would I need to look it up? You haven't brought any arguments using that word, why on earth do you think I would need to address them?

If you think that the concept of a cline doesn't refute your understanding of speciation, then you actually don't know what a cline is.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2012,13:06   

"understanding"

--------------
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

  
Henry J



Posts: 4048
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2012,13:34   

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 04 2012,10:16)
Are you really saying that there is not ONE individual that speciates when an entire population does?

Yes, I am saying that.

Outside of some special cases like the one somebody else just mentioned, it goes something like this:

A species can accumulated changes over generations, these changes can add up.

Over a large number of generations, these changes can add up to enough to call it a different species, different than what it was many generations previously.

There is no point in which an individual is not in the same species as its recent ancestors.

It typically takes a lot of generations to accumulate enough change to justify calling it a new species.

If different subsets of a species evolve separately, i.e., without a significant amount of interbreeding, they can become different enough to call them separate species.

In the normal case there simply isn't a sharp boundary that might be jumped over in an instant. The observed boundaries between species are there because those species have been diverging for a long time, and have accumulated a lot of differences.

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3285
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2012,14:01   

Quote (Henry J @ Dec. 04 2012,13:34)
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 04 2012,10:16)
Are you really saying that there is not ONE individual that speciates when an entire population does?

Yes, I am saying that.

Outside of some special cases like the one somebody else just mentioned, it goes something like this:

A species can accumulated changes over generations, these changes can add up.

Over a large number of generations, these changes can add up to enough to call it a different species, different than what it was many generations previously.

There is no point in which an individual is not in the same species as its recent ancestors.

It typically takes a lot of generations to accumulate enough change to justify calling it a new species.

If different subsets of a species evolve separately, i.e., without a significant amount of interbreeding, they can become different enough to call them separate species.

In the normal case there simply isn't a sharp boundary that might be jumped over in an instant. The observed boundaries between species are there because those species have been diverging for a long time, and have accumulated a lot of differences.

Yep.  And keep in mind that "species" is an artificial concept anyway... one that doesn't lend itself to reality very well anymore.

The Biological Species Concept suggests that two organisms that can't interbreed (without help from outside of what is considered 'nature', like zoos and human influence).  Yet, there are many, many instances of two different, but closely related species interbreeding and having reproductively successful offspring.  (Lions and tigers, for example)

There are also cases where two individuals within the same nominal species can't/don't interbreed and have successful offspring.  (Greenish Warbler of the Himalayas for example).

So, it really depends on how you define a species.  But since the result depends on the definition, then it's obviously not a real world concept.

As Henry has said, it's a long series of tiny changes.  I would suggest you review the types of speciation in your Biology textbook for help on understanding this.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2012,14:14   

YEAH WELL HOMO I DONT FIND INUIT WOMEN SEXY WHAT SAYEST THOU NOW EARNST MAYERS

/dt

--------------
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

  
Jerry Don Bauer



Posts: 135
Joined: Nov. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2012,15:13   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 04 2012,12:55)
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 04 2012,12:47)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 04 2012,11:38)
 
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 04 2012,11:22)
 
Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 04 2012,11:19)
You really don't understand do you?

Have you looked up "cline" yet?  It would really help you understand this.

Why haven't you looked this concept up?  Oh yeah, you want me to spoon feed it to you.  Then you can argue about it.  Nope, sorry.

It's pretty obvious to everyone here that you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

Just trolling with the rest of 'em now? Ya gotta love it... :)

No, I'm asking a legitimate question.  I've provided you some information to help you understand you error three times now.

You're failure to even consider any information except what's already in your on head is a flaw in your thinking ability.

It's not trolling, it's the truth.

If you understood the concept of a cline (sometimes called a ring species), then you would understand why your declarations of one specific individual being speciated is mistaken.

Although, it does happen frequently in plants and it is actually possible to point to the point where speciation occurred.  Curiously, do you know what we find?  No design.  In plants, the most common cause of speciation is chromosome duplication.  But you don't care because it doesn't support you chosen notions.

I ALREADY know what a cline is...why would I need to look it up? You haven't brought any arguments using that word, why on earth do you think I would need to address them?

If you think that the concept of a cline doesn't refute your understanding of speciation, then you actually don't know what a cline is.

A concept of something doesn't refute ANYTHING in argument...only another argument does...

Now, if I can get you to BRING an argument in something....ANYTHING....maybe we can heat up this thread with some good point, counterpoint, it will probably go viral, you and I will be famous and Wesley will make a LOT of MONEY...Do you see how everybody's happy here.....  :p

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3285
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2012,15:34   

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 04 2012,15:13)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 04 2012,12:55)
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 04 2012,12:47)
 
Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 04 2012,11:38)
 
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 04 2012,11:22)
   
Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 04 2012,11:19)
You really don't understand do you?

Have you looked up "cline" yet?  It would really help you understand this.

Why haven't you looked this concept up?  Oh yeah, you want me to spoon feed it to you.  Then you can argue about it.  Nope, sorry.

It's pretty obvious to everyone here that you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

Just trolling with the rest of 'em now? Ya gotta love it... :)

No, I'm asking a legitimate question.  I've provided you some information to help you understand you error three times now.

You're failure to even consider any information except what's already in your on head is a flaw in your thinking ability.

It's not trolling, it's the truth.

If you understood the concept of a cline (sometimes called a ring species), then you would understand why your declarations of one specific individual being speciated is mistaken.

Although, it does happen frequently in plants and it is actually possible to point to the point where speciation occurred.  Curiously, do you know what we find?  No design.  In plants, the most common cause of speciation is chromosome duplication.  But you don't care because it doesn't support you chosen notions.

I ALREADY know what a cline is...why would I need to look it up? You haven't brought any arguments using that word, why on earth do you think I would need to address them?

If you think that the concept of a cline doesn't refute your understanding of speciation, then you actually don't know what a cline is.

A concept of something doesn't refute ANYTHING in argument...only another argument does...

Now, if I can get you to BRING an argument in something....ANYTHING....maybe we can heat up this thread with some good point, counterpoint, it will probably go viral, you and I will be famous and Wesley will make a LOT of MONEY...Do you see how everybody's happy here.....  :p

I've already stated it. Henry has already stated it. Hell, 'ras has already stated it.

You choose to ignore it.  Not my problem.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2012,15:46   

Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Dec. 04 2012,12:05)
Billy Bob,

Can you point out the exact spot where yellow becomes green?

Jerrignore,

You should really address this.  It is the point you keep ignoring...no, keep insisting that no one has brought up.  Try it.

*edit for salutation

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
Jerry Don Bauer



Posts: 135
Joined: Nov. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2012,15:55   

Quote (Henry J @ Dec. 04 2012,13:34)
 
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 04 2012,10:16)
Are you really saying that there is not ONE individual that speciates when an entire population does?

Yes, I am saying that.

Outside of some special cases like the one somebody else just mentioned, it goes something like this:

A species can accumulated changes over generations, these changes can add up.

Over a large number of generations, these changes can add up to enough to call it a different species, different than what it was many generations previously.

There is no point in which an individual is not in the same species as its recent ancestors.

It typically takes a lot of generations to accumulate enough change to justify calling it a new species.

If different subsets of a species evolve separately, i.e., without a significant amount of interbreeding, they can become different enough to call them separate species.

In the normal case there simply isn't a sharp boundary that might be jumped over in an instant. The observed boundaries between species are there because those species have been diverging for a long time, and have accumulated a lot of differences.

Horse hockey.....

Where on earth did you GET this?

Let's start at the bottom....what does the word speciation mean:

"Speciation is the evolutionary process by which new biological species arise."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......ciation

Stop right there as we need not complicate it any further at this point.

So, when does this new biological species arise? It arises when the definition of Earnt Mayr's (did I spell it right this time?) definition FOR a given sexual species is met:

organisms which can interbreed and produce viable, fertile offspring.

"Scientists have a pretty good handle on what constitutes a species for sexually reproducing animals: the biological-species concept. According to this concept, a species is a group of organisms that can interbreed and produce viable and fertile offspring."

http://www.dummies.com/how-to.....on.html

AS LONG as the group we THINK are speciating can still interbreed with the population as a whole and meet the above definition with the old population, NOTHING has speciated........

And there is nothing mystical about it...the moment the new species can no longer viably interbreed with the old population, it becomes a new species.....NOT a minute before.

There you have it...it's not hard to wrap our heads around.

But there is a slight problem here....if our definition for a sexual species is correct.....it DOES NOT HAPPEN.....Experimentation shows that when a hybred IS produced that might meet the criteria, the offspring is ALWAY non-viable (it doesn't live) or it is infertile like mules and ligars.

So it would have been impossible for our little scenario to ever occur in the first place.

Second.....there MUST be individuals that number among this new, pretend population, or we don't have a population at all...How do you think it logically possible to have a population of organisms that are a new species, yet not to have ANY individuals comprising that population who have speciated? That's just nuts.

THIS KIND of illogical thinking is EXACTLY why you people are Darwinists.

No disrespect meant toward any one person, but considering you people as a group, as Voltaire once commented, "common sense is not so common.”

  
Ptaylor



Posts: 883
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2012,16:01   

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 05 2012,08:55)
It arises when the definition of Earnt Mayr's (did I spell it right this time?)

No you didn't. Show some respect and while you're at it do a modicum of research - it isn't difficult.

--------------
“To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature, and it remains premature today.” - Isaac Asimov

"Grow up, assface" - Joe G., grown up ID spokesperson, Sandwalk, April 2014

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2012,16:04   

Did you miss the part where you were told that there is no point at which an individual is a different species than its immediate ancestors?  Of course you did.  Try the color question....

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
Jerry Don Bauer



Posts: 135
Joined: Nov. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2012,16:06   

Quote (Ptaylor @ Dec. 04 2012,16:01)
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 05 2012,08:55)
It arises when the definition of Earnt Mayr's (did I spell it right this time?)

No you didn't. Show some respect and while you're at it do a modicum of research - it isn't difficult.

I can assure you that I have no disrespect for a scientist as nobel as Earnst Mayrs.......

  
Jerry Don Bauer



Posts: 135
Joined: Nov. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2012,16:10   

Quote (blipey @ Dec. 04 2012,16:04)
Did you miss the part where you were told that there is no point at which an individual is a different species than its immediate ancestors?  Of course you did.  Try the color question....

No......But it isn't true considering our pretend population...If it were true it could NOT be a new species and therefore nothing speciated to begin with....How can you not see this?

Can you not also see how non-scientific, illogical and arbitrary this all is? You guys just make it up as you go, it seems.

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2012,16:13   

So, your argument is that speciation occurs in an individual.  Just say it.  That's fine.  It's wrong, but fine.

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
OgreMkV



Posts: 3285
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2012,16:15   

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 04 2012,15:55)
Quote (Henry J @ Dec. 04 2012,13:34)
 
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 04 2012,10:16)
Are you really saying that there is not ONE individual that speciates when an entire population does?

Yes, I am saying that.

Outside of some special cases like the one somebody else just mentioned, it goes something like this:

A species can accumulated changes over generations, these changes can add up.

Over a large number of generations, these changes can add up to enough to call it a different species, different than what it was many generations previously.

There is no point in which an individual is not in the same species as its recent ancestors.

It typically takes a lot of generations to accumulate enough change to justify calling it a new species.

If different subsets of a species evolve separately, i.e., without a significant amount of interbreeding, they can become different enough to call them separate species.

In the normal case there simply isn't a sharp boundary that might be jumped over in an instant. The observed boundaries between species are there because those species have been diverging for a long time, and have accumulated a lot of differences.

Horse hockey.....

Where on earth did you GET this?

Let's start at the bottom....what does the word speciation mean:

"Speciation is the evolutionary process by which new biological species arise."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......ciation

Stop right there as we need not complicate it any further at this point.

So, when does this new biological species arise? It arises when the definition of Earnt Mayr's (did I spell it right this time?) definition FOR a given sexual species is met:

organisms which can interbreed and produce viable, fertile offspring.

"Scientists have a pretty good handle on what constitutes a species for sexually reproducing animals: the biological-species concept. According to this concept, a species is a group of organisms that can interbreed and produce viable and fertile offspring."

http://www.dummies.com/how-to.....on.html

AS LONG as the group we THINK are speciating can still interbreed with the population as a whole and meet the above definition with the old population, NOTHING has speciated........

And there is nothing mystical about it...the moment the new species can no longer viably interbreed with the old population, it becomes a new species.....NOT a minute before.

There you have it...it's not hard to wrap our heads around.

But there is a slight problem here....if our definition for a sexual species is correct.....it DOES NOT HAPPEN.....Experimentation shows that when a hybred IS produced that might meet the criteria, the offspring is ALWAY non-viable (it doesn't live) or it is infertile like mules and ligars.

So it would have been impossible for our little scenario to ever occur in the first place.

Second.....there MUST be individuals that number among this new, pretend population, or we don't have a population at all...How do you think it logically possible to have a population of organisms that are a new species, yet not to have ANY individuals comprising that population who have speciated? That's just nuts.

THIS KIND of illogical thinking is EXACTLY why you people are Darwinists.

No disrespect meant toward any one person, but considering you people as a group, as Voltaire once commented, "common sense is not so common.”

So to  you Jerry, Lions and Tigers are the same species.  Right?

Because they can mate.  They can have offspring and those offspring are fertile.

You are wrong.  Ligers are fertile.


Quote
According to Wild Cats of the World (1975) by C. A. W. Guggisberg, ligers and tigons were long thought to be sterile: in 1943, a fifteen-year-old hybrid between a lion and an 'Island' tiger was successfully mated with a lion at the Munich Hellabrunn Zoo. The female cub, though of delicate health, was raised to adulthood.[10]

In September 2012, the Russian Novosibirsk Zoo announced the birth of a “liliger”, which is the offspring of a liger mother and a lion father. The cub was named Kiara.[11]

10^ Guggisberg, C. A. W. "Wild Cats of the World." (1975).
11^ Katia Andreassi (21 September 2012). ""Liliger" Born in Russia No Boon for Big Cats". National Geographic.


Further

Quote
At the Alipore Zoo in India, a female tiglon named Rudrani, born in 1971, was successfully mated to an Asiatic Lion named Debabrata. The rare, second generation hybrid was called a litigon (/?la??ta???n/). Rudhrani produced seven litigons in her lifetime. Some of these reached impressive sizes—a litigon named Cubanacan (died 1991) weighed at least 363 kilograms (800 lb), stood 1.32 metres (4.3 ft) at the shoulder, and was 3.5 metres (11 ft) in total length.

Reports also exist of the similar titigon (/?ta??ta???n/), resulting from the cross between a female tiglon and a male tiger. Titigons resemble golden tigers but with less contrast in their markings. A female tiglon born in 1978, named Noelle, shared an enclosure in the Shambala Preserve with a male Siberian Tiger called Anton, due to the keepers' belief that she was sterile. In 1983 Noelle produced a titigon named Nathaniel. As Nathaniel was three-quarters tiger, he had darker stripes than Noelle and vocalized more like a tiger, rather than with the mix of sounds used by his mother. Being only about quarter-lion, Nathaniel did not grow a mane. Nathaniel died of cancer at the age of eight or nine years. Noelle also developed cancer and died soon after.


So where's your species now?

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2012,16:17   

Think about it this way, Jerry (I apologize, you might have to have JoeG explain the creepiness).  If your argument is correct:

1) Mom A and Dad A have a daughter B
2) Daughter B speciates
3) Dad A and Daughter B cannot mate.

Is this your argument?

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
JohnW



Posts: 2228
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2012,16:20   

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 04 2012,13:55)
Quote (Henry J @ Dec. 04 2012,13:34)
   
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 04 2012,10:16)
Are you really saying that there is not ONE individual that speciates when an entire population does?

Yes, I am saying that.

Outside of some special cases like the one somebody else just mentioned, it goes something like this:

A species can accumulated changes over generations, these changes can add up.

Over a large number of generations, these changes can add up to enough to call it a different species, different than what it was many generations previously.

There is no point in which an individual is not in the same species as its recent ancestors.

It typically takes a lot of generations to accumulate enough change to justify calling it a new species.

If different subsets of a species evolve separately, i.e., without a significant amount of interbreeding, they can become different enough to call them separate species.

In the normal case there simply isn't a sharp boundary that might be jumped over in an instant. The observed boundaries between species are there because those species have been diverging for a long time, and have accumulated a lot of differences.

Horse hockey.....

Where on earth did you GET this?

Let's start at the bottom....what does the word speciation mean:

"Speciation is the evolutionary process by which new biological species arise."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......ciation

Stop right there as we need not complicate it any further at this point.

So, when does this new biological species arise? It arises when the definition of Earnt Mayr's (did I spell it right this time?) definition FOR a given sexual species is met:

organisms which can interbreed and produce viable, fertile offspring.

"Scientists have a pretty good handle on what constitutes a species for sexually reproducing animals: the biological-species concept. According to this concept, a species is a group of organisms that can interbreed and produce viable and fertile offspring."

http://www.dummies.com/how-to.....on.html

AS LONG as the group we THINK are speciating can still interbreed with the population as a whole and meet the above definition with the old population, NOTHING has speciated........

And there is nothing mystical about it...the moment the new species can no longer viably interbreed with the old population, it becomes a new species.....NOT a minute before.

There you have it...it's not hard to wrap our heads around.

But there is a slight problem here....if our definition for a sexual species is correct.....it DOES NOT HAPPEN.....Experimentation shows that when a hybred IS produced that might meet the criteria, the offspring is ALWAY non-viable (it doesn't live) or it is infertile like mules and ligars.

So it would have been impossible for our little scenario to ever occur in the first place.

Second.....there MUST be individuals that number among this new, pretend population, or we don't have a population at all...How do you think it logically possible to have a population of organisms that are a new species, yet not to have ANY individuals comprising that population who have speciated? That's just nuts.

THIS KIND of illogical thinking is EXACTLY why you people are Darwinists.

No disrespect meant toward any one person, but considering you people as a group, as Voltaire once commented, "common sense is not so common.”

"Species" is a word invented by humans, who like to put things in categories.  It's (understatement ahoy!) a useful concept in biology, but the does not mean every organism can be unambiguously given a single species name, with no fuzziness.  The rigid demarcation implied by the term "species" doesn't always apply.

If you really knew about ring species and weren't bluffing, you'd already know this.  But anyway (adapted from Wikipedia):

The European Herring Gull (Larus argentatus argenteus), can interbreed with the American Herring Gull (L. smithsonianus), which can interbreed with the Vega or East Siberian Herring Gull (L. vegae), which can interbreed with Heuglin's gull (L. heuglini), which can interbreed with the Lesser Black-backed Gull (L. fuscus).  But the Lesser Black-Backed Gull can't interbreed with the Herring Gull.

So how many species of gull do we have here, Jerry?  Six?  Two?  One?

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

  
Jerry Don Bauer



Posts: 135
Joined: Nov. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2012,16:37   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 04 2012,16:15)
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 04 2012,15:55)
Quote (Henry J @ Dec. 04 2012,13:34)
   
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 04 2012,10:16)
Are you really saying that there is not ONE individual that speciates when an entire population does?

Yes, I am saying that.

Outside of some special cases like the one somebody else just mentioned, it goes something like this:

A species can accumulated changes over generations, these changes can add up.

Over a large number of generations, these changes can add up to enough to call it a different species, different than what it was many generations previously.

There is no point in which an individual is not in the same species as its recent ancestors.

It typically takes a lot of generations to accumulate enough change to justify calling it a new species.

If different subsets of a species evolve separately, i.e., without a significant amount of interbreeding, they can become different enough to call them separate species.

In the normal case there simply isn't a sharp boundary that might be jumped over in an instant. The observed boundaries between species are there because those species have been diverging for a long time, and have accumulated a lot of differences.

Horse hockey.....

Where on earth did you GET this?

Let's start at the bottom....what does the word speciation mean:

"Speciation is the evolutionary process by which new biological species arise."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......ciation

Stop right there as we need not complicate it any further at this point.

So, when does this new biological species arise? It arises when the definition of Earnt Mayr's (did I spell it right this time?) definition FOR a given sexual species is met:

organisms which can interbreed and produce viable, fertile offspring.

"Scientists have a pretty good handle on what constitutes a species for sexually reproducing animals: the biological-species concept. According to this concept, a species is a group of organisms that can interbreed and produce viable and fertile offspring."

http://www.dummies.com/how-to.....on.html

AS LONG as the group we THINK are speciating can still interbreed with the population as a whole and meet the above definition with the old population, NOTHING has speciated........

And there is nothing mystical about it...the moment the new species can no longer viably interbreed with the old population, it becomes a new species.....NOT a minute before.

There you have it...it's not hard to wrap our heads around.

But there is a slight problem here....if our definition for a sexual species is correct.....it DOES NOT HAPPEN.....Experimentation shows that when a hybred IS produced that might meet the criteria, the offspring is ALWAY non-viable (it doesn't live) or it is infertile like mules and ligars.

So it would have been impossible for our little scenario to ever occur in the first place.

Second.....there MUST be individuals that number among this new, pretend population, or we don't have a population at all...How do you think it logically possible to have a population of organisms that are a new species, yet not to have ANY individuals comprising that population who have speciated? That's just nuts.

THIS KIND of illogical thinking is EXACTLY why you people are Darwinists.

No disrespect meant toward any one person, but considering you people as a group, as Voltaire once commented, "common sense is not so common.”

So to  you Jerry, Lions and Tigers are the same species.  Right?

Because they can mate.  They can have offspring and those offspring are fertile.

You are wrong.  Ligers are fertile.


Quote
According to Wild Cats of the World (1975) by C. A. W. Guggisberg, ligers and tigons were long thought to be sterile: in 1943, a fifteen-year-old hybrid between a lion and an 'Island' tiger was successfully mated with a lion at the Munich Hellabrunn Zoo. The female cub, though of delicate health, was raised to adulthood.[10]

In September 2012, the Russian Novosibirsk Zoo announced the birth of a “liliger”, which is the offspring of a liger mother and a lion father. The cub was named Kiara.[11]

10^ Guggisberg, C. A. W. "Wild Cats of the World." (1975).
11^ Katia Andreassi (21 September 2012). ""Liliger" Born in Russia No Boon for Big Cats". National Geographic.


Further

Quote
At the Alipore Zoo in India, a female tiglon named Rudrani, born in 1971, was successfully mated to an Asiatic Lion named Debabrata. The rare, second generation hybrid was called a litigon (/?la??ta???n/). Rudhrani produced seven litigons in her lifetime. Some of these reached impressive sizes—a litigon named Cubanacan (died 1991) weighed at least 363 kilograms (800 lb), stood 1.32 metres (4.3 ft) at the shoulder, and was 3.5 metres (11 ft) in total length.

Reports also exist of the similar titigon (/?ta??ta???n/), resulting from the cross between a female tiglon and a male tiger. Titigons resemble golden tigers but with less contrast in their markings. A female tiglon born in 1978, named Noelle, shared an enclosure in the Shambala Preserve with a male Siberian Tiger called Anton, due to the keepers' belief that she was sterile. In 1983 Noelle produced a titigon named Nathaniel. As Nathaniel was three-quarters tiger, he had darker stripes than Noelle and vocalized more like a tiger, rather than with the mix of sounds used by his mother. Being only about quarter-lion, Nathaniel did not grow a mane. Nathaniel died of cancer at the age of eight or nine years. Noelle also developed cancer and died soon after.


So where's your species now?

I swear, the more I get to know you, the more I come to think that you are on here to INTENTIONALLY mislead and dupe the readers.

Ligars CANNOT have viable, fertile offpring with one another to propagate a species because MALE ligars do not have sperm.

But you already knew that, didn't you ... :O

"Male ligers do not produce viable sperm, but females can be fertile"

http://courses.washington.edu/gs453....c24.pdf

Of course, female ligars can be bred back, but certainly not in ANY MANNER that would propagate a new species with the male ligars.

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2012,16:42   

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 04 2012,16:55)
Horse hockey.....

Where on earth did you GET this?

Let's start at the bottom....what does the word speciation mean:

"Speciation is the evolutionary process by which new biological species arise."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......ciation

Stop right there as we need not complicate it any further at this point.

So, when does this new biological species arise? It arises when the definition of Earnt Mayr's (did I spell it right this time?) definition FOR a given sexual species is met:

organisms which can interbreed and produce viable, fertile offspring.

"Scientists have a pretty good handle on what constitutes a species for sexually reproducing animals: the biological-species concept. According to this concept, a species is a group of organisms that can interbreed and produce viable and fertile offspring."

http://www.dummies.com/how-to.....on.html

AS LONG as the group we THINK are speciating can still interbreed with the population as a whole and meet the above definition with the old population, NOTHING has speciated........

And there is nothing mystical about it...the moment the new species can no longer viably interbreed with the old population, it becomes a new species.....NOT a minute before.

There you have it...it's not hard to wrap our heads around.

But there is a slight problem here....if our definition for a sexual species is correct.....it DOES NOT HAPPEN.....Experimentation shows that when a hybred IS produced that might meet the criteria, the offspring is ALWAY non-viable (it doesn't live) or it is infertile like mules and ligars.

So it would have been impossible for our little scenario to ever occur in the first place.

Second.....there MUST be individuals that number among this new, pretend population, or we don't have a population at all...How do you think it logically possible to have a population of organisms that are a new species, yet not to have ANY individuals comprising that population who have speciated? That's just nuts.

THIS KIND of illogical thinking is EXACTLY why you people are Darwinists.

No disrespect meant toward any one person, but considering you people as a group, as Voltaire once commented, "common sense is not so common.”

The only way you can say shit this stupid is if

1) You don't actually know WTF you are are talking about

2)  You are trolling

3)  some combination of 1 and 2

This is how stupid you are



--------------
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

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3285
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2012,16:43   

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 04 2012,16:10)
Quote (blipey @ Dec. 04 2012,16:04)
Did you miss the part where you were told that there is no point at which an individual is a different species than its immediate ancestors?  Of course you did.  Try the color question....

No......But it isn't true considering our pretend population...If it were true it could NOT be a new species and therefore nothing speciated to begin with....How can you not see this?

Can you not also see how non-scientific, illogical and arbitrary this all is? You guys just make it up as you go, it seems.

For the color spectrum

Blue is 450-495 nanometers in wavelength.
Green is 495-570 nanometers in wavelength.

Is it your contention that light of 494 nanometers is 100% with no green appearance at all?

We don't make it up.  But AS I SAID ALREADY, the distinctions between species/colors/anything that is a continuum is ARBITRARY.

Perhaps you could ask Lou about the mass confusion in the birding world right now because the entire lineage of birds is undergoing massive changes as more and more data becomes available.  

Yes, we see how illogical it is.  But there's no other way to do it.  There is no other way to declare where blue ends and green begins except to say "Here".  There is no way to say where species A ends and closely related species 2 begins (provided that they are so closely related that they are still interbreeding at least occasionally).

Welcome to the real world.  You've just figured out what the scientific community has known since BEFORE Darwin.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2012,16:44   

OMG THEIR IS ONLY WON SPECIES OF BRIM AND MAYBE LIKE THREE OR TWO SPESHEIS OF SICKLIDS

PRAISING JESUS, MAKING WES MONEY, MINSTRELING TO THE HOMELESS, DEBUNKING EVILUTION, JUST ANOTHER DAY IN THE LIFE OF BILLY BOB

Edited by Erasmus, FCD on Dec. 04 2012,17:45

--------------
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

  
Jerry Don Bauer



Posts: 135
Joined: Nov. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2012,16:48   

Quote (blipey @ Dec. 04 2012,16:17)
Think about it this way, Jerry (I apologize, you might have to have JoeG explain the creepiness).  If your argument is correct:

1) Mom A and Dad A have a daughter B
2) Daughter B speciates
3) Dad A and Daughter B cannot mate.

Is this your argument?

It's pretty creepy unless you live in Arkansas, I guess.

And....it's VERY simplified as you are REALLY honing in more on the individual than my intentions were initially...lol

But if we were viewing a new population that daughter B is a member of (population B), and if Dad A is not a member of that that population and is still a member of population A, AND if population B has ACTUALLY speciated according to the definition of a species:

Then, yup....dad and daughter can no longer interbreed and have viable, fertile offspring.

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3285
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2012,16:53   

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 04 2012,16:37)
Of course, female ligars can be bred back, but certainly not in ANY MANNER that would propagate a new species with the male ligars.

No one said anything about "new species", so nice strawman argument.

We're talking about how species are defined.  There is no definition of species, of which I am aware (and I seem to have been following this discussion a lot more than you) that does not have exceptions.  

You can say I'm wrong all you want, but until you refute the actual EVIDENCE, then you're just blowing wind.

Let me give you an example.

You say that ligers and tigons were long thought to be sterile.  This was true (thought to be sterile) until 1943 when a liger/lion hybrid was born.

In September 2012, the Russian Novosibirsk Zoo announced the birth of a “liliger”, which is the offspring of a liger mother and a lion father. The cub was named Kiara.

At the Alipore Zoo in India, a female tiglon named Rudrani, born in 1971, was successfully mated to an Asiatic Lion named Debabrata. The rare, second generation hybrid was called a litigon (/?la??ta???n/).

A female tiglon born in 1978, named Noelle, shared an enclosure in the Shambala Preserve with a male Siberian Tiger called Anton, due to the keepers' belief that she was sterile. In 1983 Noelle produced a titigon named Nathaniel.

So what if was the female hybrid... still fertile enough to to have offspring.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
JohnW



Posts: 2228
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2012,16:54   

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 04 2012,14:48)
Quote (blipey @ Dec. 04 2012,16:17)
Think about it this way, Jerry (I apologize, you might have to have JoeG explain the creepiness).  If your argument is correct:

1) Mom A and Dad A have a daughter B
2) Daughter B speciates
3) Dad A and Daughter B cannot mate.

Is this your argument?

It's pretty creepy unless you live in Arkansas, I guess.

And....it's VERY simplified as you are REALLY honing in more on the individual than my intentions were initially...lol

But if we were viewing a new population that daughter B is a member of (population B), and if Dad A is not a member of that that population and is still a member of population A, AND if population B has ACTUALLY speciated according to the definition of a species:

Then, yup....dad and daughter can no longer interbreed and have viable, fertile offspring.

Assuming that you weren't just bluffing about having taken a "second year bio class entitled Genetics and Evolution", you might want to check out the school's refund policy.  Because you learned bugger all.

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

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2012,19:07   

i guess all those fishery managers who enforce catch limits on walleyes and saugers are just being assholes. since they can interbreed, according to Jimmy Ray Humpsniff, they aren't different species after all.  and he has obviously never met a fucking botanist

Tell me Cletus why haven't you straightened all these poor deluded people out, since you obviously know more about speciation than the people who wrote the damned book?

--------------
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

  
Doc Bill



Posts: 1005
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2012,22:01   

Well, well, our Dunning-Kruger poster child, FtK impersonator, cross-dressing, hairy-palmed, lubed up  JerryBillyBobBettyLouLou has not only jumped the shark but jumped the shark ON a shark!

HillbillyJerryBilly blew past stupid and ignorant, right through fantasy and into his very own Creationist Sociopath Land where dinosaurs build arks and Noah has 72 virgin wives.

Amazing!

Well, JerryBillyBob, it's not surprising that you didn't answer my only straight question about Gaussian distributions because it's something you'd have to actually understand rather than look up on Google.  Bet you got raw fingers working that one out, but I'm sure your fingers are well-saturated with Jerkins lotion that it's not a problem.

As for "QM" as you call it, you know, dumb fuck, "QM" is a framework, like the calculus, not a process.  So, you saying that "QM" is the "intelligence of the universe" is like saying "calculus is the intelligence of the universe."  It's a stoopid thing to say, but not if your are FUCKING STOOPID.  Maybe you sound smart to your dumb shit friends but you certainly are a chew-toy, hoot for us!  You really could be an FtK-JoeG with a little practice.

So, slow clap for you, JerryBillyStoopidBob.  Does it hurt to be so stupid and clueless that you think you are a fucking Einstein?  Know what ah mean, ya fuckwit, lol, lol, LOL, smiley face?

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2012,22:27   

species essentialists are functionally retarded

--------------
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

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2012,23:53   

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 04 2012,16:48)
Quote (blipey @ Dec. 04 2012,16:17)
Think about it this way, Jerry (I apologize, you might have to have JoeG explain the creepiness).  If your argument is correct:

1) Mom A and Dad A have a daughter B
2) Daughter B speciates
3) Dad A and Daughter B cannot mate.

Is this your argument?

It's pretty creepy unless you live in Arkansas, I guess.

And....it's VERY simplified as you are REALLY honing in more on the individual than my intentions were initially...lol

But if we were viewing a new population that daughter B is a member of (population B), and if Dad A is not a member of that that population and is still a member of population A, AND if population B has ACTUALLY speciated according to the definition of a species:

Then, yup....dad and daughter can no longer interbreed and have viable, fertile offspring.

No, Jerry.  This is your argument.  This is what you are claiming has happened.  Could you point out an instance where a father and a daughter cannot breed?  It would really help your case if you could.

My post was not rhetorical.  It was an explanation of your argument.  You are claiming that individuals speciate.  This is the logical conclusion of that statement.

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
Southstar



Posts: 150
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2012,01:21   

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 04 2012,09:03)
Quote (Southstar @ Dec. 04 2012,01:12)
[/quote]
Quote


Wrong, entanglement effects only quantum states and information.


Well Gee.......we ARE discussing QM...you really think there is some remote possibility that I WASN'T talking about quantum states and information since particles ARE information?


 
Quote


Only with regards to its quantum state. You cannot remotely move particles through the air.  


Oh stop. Do you think I could REALLY place a particle on Mars...lol


Wasn't it enough to just bullshit biologists you had to go and bullshit physics too.. [/quote]

This is a personal attack that has nothing to do with the discussion. It shows you have no logical comeback.

Your posts have been civil up until now, however, if you start, I will simply relegate your posts to the the cheap seats...those don't get read in my threads..Be nice if you wanna play..*wink*

Great then since you have it all figured out please tell us in detail how quantum entanglement can be used to make a t-rex population. Please feel free to post your equations that show how vectors and energy is transferred between quantum states.
(this would be a fundamental breakthrough for energy transmission!)

Concerning your fossil ideas: Do you consider every person you met a poofed in individual? Here's how your logic pans out:
Jerry is at a bar and talks to the barman.
Jerry: you know you just got created, poofed in!
Barman: Ahem what?
Jerry: Yes I know cause that's what my theory says.
Barman: Now now, look on that board there, see those photos, I grew up here I didn't just appear.
Jerry: What I see just different people in those photos.
Barman: What?! Look see that's me when I was 6 months, that's me when I was 2 years, that's me when I was 7 and again look other photos of me when I was 14, 20 and 35.
Jerry: See that's proof that these are all different individuals! Look at this one 6 months doesn't resemble at all the one of 2 years. This is conclusive proof that they are separate individuals that were created suddenly due to quantum entanglement.
Gary (sitting alone in some table near-by): Quantum intelligence, yes my intelligent theory explains just that, with Dover and all 'cause you know that mooses, when they make choices they have been proven in my intelligent code about to be printed and will go straight to school ‘cause it has all that is needed.
Barman: ahem right... now look here Jerry, I happen to have a bone condition and look I've taken a bunch of x-rays, my whole life, see look here notice how the extra bone in my foot shows up in all the x-rays since I was 5.
Jerry: that doesn't prove anything actually it just goes to show that the designer used a similar design for this lot of separate individuals.
Barman: and I haven't even served you alcohol!
------------------
Jerry do you understand why pointing to single fossils and assuming that they poofed in without any further evidence is plain silly??

--------------
"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

  
  740 replies since Nov. 21 2012,08:55 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (25) < ... 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 19 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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