Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The egg came first
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 106 of 111 (245030)
09-19-2005 9:29 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by bkelly
09-19-2005 7:38 PM


Re: Et al
Did I miss-uderstand this from messsage 96:
If you understood it to mean that I was saying that new species couldn't come from old ones, then indeed you did misunderstand me. My apologies; I'll try to be clearer.
Let me try to sum up succinctly what I believe speciation looks like - a subpopulation of organisms is set apart and begins to accrue mutations that will eventually separate it permanently from the "parent" population; a population of (for instance) red junglefowl gathers phenotypical changes, until the species as determined by morphology becomes more ambigously "red junglefowl", until it can't be determined precisely if they're the same species or not, it becomes less ambiguous that they're not of the "red junglefow" species, until it's so unambiguous that the new species "chicken" is coined and described and published in the literature.
There's a sort of "fuzzy" period in the middle where we're not sure we have a new species or not; you belive that there's a line that is crossed somewhere in there and I believe that no such line could exist; there's only differing opinions about what species these organisms belong to, until there's little ambiguity that they're not red junglefowl anymore.
I keep saying that evolution in the sense for individuals occurs when the sperm and egg meaning the one cell unfertilized entity in the female) meet. Based on that, the egg (meaning the laid spheriod) deserved the name chicked before an adult did.
I don't think it's possible to name an individual a certain species without naming that individual's entire population a species. That's my view but perhaps not the only one. I guess this is why this is such a contentious issue among biologists.
Regardless, this thread has gone on long enough. Thanks for some good thoughts.
Thank you, and likewise. Allow me to welcome your prodigious intellect to EvC if I haven't already.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by bkelly, posted 09-19-2005 7:38 PM bkelly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by bkelly, posted 09-20-2005 8:42 PM crashfrog has replied

  
bkelly
Inactive Member


Message 107 of 111 (245351)
09-20-2005 8:42 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by crashfrog
09-19-2005 9:29 PM


Re: Et al
I am not particularily comfortable with the prodigious part of that, but I do thank you for the compliment. The conversation with you has been enjoyable and you presented more than a few thoughts new to me.
I made a comment in another thread that was widely ignored and posted it in the proposed threads under the title "A proof against ID and Creationism" The first reviewer was not at all impressed. The concept seems rather powerful to me. Considering the lack of any response, there is obviously something I have missed. Would you be so kind as to take a look there and give me a critique.
Thank you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by crashfrog, posted 09-19-2005 9:29 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by crashfrog, posted 09-20-2005 9:34 PM bkelly has replied

  
bkelly
Inactive Member


Message 108 of 111 (245356)
09-20-2005 9:03 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by NosyNed
09-19-2005 8:12 PM


Re: Confusion about species giving raise to others...
quote:
Have I helped at all?
Yes. After reading that I ocassioned on a nice summary. Refering to my 1000 generations with a red jungle fowl and one end and a chicken at the other: Put a pair of brackets around the left end that is called red jungle fowl, and another pair on the other end around the chicken on the right end. Then stretch the species definition of each enough to move the inside brackets together until the limits for fowl and chicken meet somewhere, but do not cross.
Yes, it is indeed a stretch, but sometimes things get stretched to make a point. At that point, there is an egg laid by the jungle fowl that hatches and is a chicken.
That stated I agree that in reality a red jungle fowl never laid an egg that was a chicken, but I was after a point. The,..., well, let's consider it said and move on.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by NosyNed, posted 09-19-2005 8:12 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 109 of 111 (245363)
09-20-2005 9:34 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by bkelly
09-20-2005 8:42 PM


Re: Et al
Would you be so kind as to take a look there and give me a critique.
I think the admins have been wrong to reject it; threads have begun on much much less. And I think you suffer a bit from too much verbiage; your argument could have been summed up by pointing out that ID proponents advance an argument that is self-refuting, essentially a sort of "first cause" argument:
1) Complex things are too complex to evolve; they need to be designed by something even more complex.
Therefore:
2) Life on Earth must have been designed by God, who was not himself designed by anybody.
Arguments where the conclusion contradicts one of the premises are "proofs by contradiction", and they disprove one of the initial assumptions; in this case, the idea that all complex things necessitate an intelligent designer. Proven false by the rules of logic.
I'm not sure what response is possible, but I think ID's proponents deserve a chance to respond to what must be the most obvious and commonly-heard refutation of their complexity arguments.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by bkelly, posted 09-20-2005 8:42 PM bkelly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by crashfrog, posted 09-20-2005 9:50 PM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 111 by bkelly, posted 09-21-2005 8:38 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 110 of 111 (245371)
09-20-2005 9:50 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by crashfrog
09-20-2005 9:34 PM


Re: Et al
What a surprise, too, to see Jar arguing from admin mode in your thread. The thread approval process doesn't mandate that admins promote arguments that are "likely to come up", and you're under no obligation to respond to them until such time as your thread is promoted for discussion.
Opening posts need merely lay out an opening argument, not anticipate objections to it. That's what the discussion is for.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by crashfrog, posted 09-20-2005 9:34 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
bkelly
Inactive Member


Message 111 of 111 (245580)
09-21-2005 8:38 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by crashfrog
09-20-2005 9:34 PM


Re: Et al
Crashfrog,
I have a resonse to your comment, but my proposal was posted in
EvC Forum ’ All Forums ’ Science Forums ’ Intelligent Design ’ A proof against ID and Creationism
I will respond there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by crashfrog, posted 09-20-2005 9:34 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024