Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 156 (8099 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-28-2014 12:14 AM
186 online now:
AZPaul3, Coyote, dwise1, Faith, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), Pressie (6 members, 180 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: yudi
Upcoming Birthdays: MFFJM2
Post Volume:
Total: 733,319 Year: 19,160/28,606 Month: 2,431/2,305 Week: 73/563 Day: 0/73 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
25262728
29
30Next
Author Topic:   Definition of Species
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 690 days)
Posts: 2962
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 421 of 450 (625733)
07-25-2011 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 415 by Admin
07-25-2011 10:06 AM


Re: Moderator Advisory
Accusations that someone is *** are uncivil. In my experience people are almost always mistaken or misinformed and are honestly stating what they believe to be true.

In my experience the opposite is true. Especially when it comes to Creationists.

They are even citing websites (AIG for example) that flat out admit that they are willing to change the facts to fit what they believe.

The goal of the Creationist is to convert. Honestly plays no role in their tactics whatsoever.

Saying it's "uncivil" to call someone out on their tactics basically is telling the entire science side of the debate to go home.

Every post in every debate will be reduced to "Creationist says X" and we're not allowed to confront them on it for fear of being "uncivil".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 415 by Admin, posted 07-25-2011 10:06 AM Admin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 422 by Admin, posted 07-25-2011 11:15 AM Nuggin has responded

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 11412
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 422 of 450 (625735)
07-25-2011 11:15 AM
Reply to: Message 421 by Nuggin
07-25-2011 10:55 AM


Re: Moderator Advisory
Nuggin writes:

Saying it's "uncivil" to call someone out on their tactics basically is telling the entire science side of the debate to go home.

I hope not many on the science side think that pasting derogatory labels on things proves anything or that motivation is relevant to whether a position is right or wrong. Motivation can be a short cut for detecting underhanded tactics, but it isn't evidence.

The science side should stick to the facts they claim support their position and negate the other side's position. The science side should focus on the support or lack thereof of a position and not on their perceived foibles of the person promoting the position.

Actually, that's good advice for both sides.

If you'd like to discuss creationist tactics then there's a couple appropriate threads still open:

Or you could propose a new thread over at Proposed New Topics, but leave your opinions about the other side out of this discussion because they're irrelevant and not science.

I'm not kidding myself that I can convince you your view is wrong, but perhaps I can convince you that I *will* enforce the Forum Guidelines as I see them, and I wrote them.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 421 by Nuggin, posted 07-25-2011 10:55 AM Nuggin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 423 by Nuggin, posted 07-25-2011 11:41 AM Admin has responded

    
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 690 days)
Posts: 2962
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 423 of 450 (625740)
07-25-2011 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 422 by Admin
07-25-2011 11:15 AM


Re: Moderator Advisory
I'm not kidding myself that I can convince you your view is wrong, but perhaps I can convince you that I *will* enforce the Forum Guidelines as I see them, and I wrote them.

So long as you enforce them equally.

I'm still waiting to see you delete some of Joseph's posts the way you delete mine.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 422 by Admin, posted 07-25-2011 11:15 AM Admin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 425 by Admin, posted 07-25-2011 12:13 PM Nuggin has responded

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 5139
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 424 of 450 (625744)
07-25-2011 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 412 by IamJoseph
07-25-2011 9:53 AM


Re: Bible
I say that every aspect of Darwin's notions of species is already contained in Genesis, and more comprehensively and scientifically posited.

Darwin was fighting the idea that Genesis posited a fixation of species. Darwin was suggesting that species were mutable, and that all animals from different kinds shared a common ancestor contrary to what Genesis claims.

Also, the definition of species has changed since Darwin's time. With the advent of the Modern Synthesis in the 1930's we now describe speciation with respect to genetic flow instead of Linnaean groupings.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 412 by IamJoseph, posted 07-25-2011 9:53 AM IamJoseph has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 427 by Mazzy, posted 07-25-2011 4:35 PM Taq has responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 11412
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 425 of 450 (625747)
07-25-2011 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 423 by Nuggin
07-25-2011 11:41 AM


Re: Moderator Advisory
Nuggin writes:

I'm still waiting to see you delete some of Joseph's posts the way you delete mine.

We almost never delete messages here at EvC Forum. The only exception these days are the Dennis Markuze threads.

Your message isn't deleted, only hidden. If you like you can click the edit button, bring it into comformance with the Forum Guidelines, then unhide it.

I don't think you really want me to treat you the same way I treated IamJoseph. All I did was hide the text of one of your posts. IamJoseph I suspended.

Whatever faults IamJoseph had, incivility is not among them, and I find that incivility is the main cause of threads spiraling out of control as more and more participants begin engaging in a verbal fisticuffs contest of one-upmanship instead of discussing the topic. The Forum Guidelines request that participant try to maintain a dispassionate tone.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 423 by Nuggin, posted 07-25-2011 11:41 AM Nuggin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 426 by Nuggin, posted 07-25-2011 12:23 PM Admin has acknowledged this reply

    
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 690 days)
Posts: 2962
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 426 of 450 (625749)
07-25-2011 12:23 PM
Reply to: Message 425 by Admin
07-25-2011 12:13 PM


Re: Moderator Advisory
Whatever faults IamJoseph had, incivility is not among them, and I find that incivility is the main cause of threads spiraling out of control as more and more participants begin engaging in a verbal fisticuffs contest of one-upmanship instead of discussing the topic. The Forum Guidelines request that participant try to maintain a dispassionate tone.

But really, what's more rude than simply *** and ignoring the other person?

How is this thread any different than the "why are their no apes alive today" thread?

In both cases it's a Creationist making a blanket statement about the definition of a word which exists only in their own reality. No amount of reasoning or evidence assails that position in the slightest.

Why not just lock down threads at post 2.

Post 1: "The bible says that kind is a species"
Post 2: "No, that's factually incorrect."

End of thread.

Post 1: "There are no apes alive today"
Post 2: "No, that's factually incorrect."

End of thread.

Look, if Creationists are going to insist on being dishonest, you have to allow us to mix it up. If we're forced to treat them with respect they don't deserve, you are rewarding them for bad behavior. There's no motivation for them to stop ***.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 425 by Admin, posted 07-25-2011 12:13 PM Admin has acknowledged this reply

    
Mazzy 
Suspended Member (Idle past 968 days)
Posts: 212
From: Rural NSW, Australia
Joined: 06-09-2011


Message 427 of 450 (625772)
07-25-2011 4:35 PM
Reply to: Message 424 by Taq
07-25-2011 11:53 AM


Re: Bible
Taq writes:

IamJoseph writes:

I say that every aspect of Darwin's notions of species is already contained in Genesis, and more comprehensively and scientifically posited.

Darwin was fighting the idea that Genesis posited a fixation of species. Darwin was suggesting that species were mutable, and that all animals from different kinds shared a common ancestor contrary to what Genesis claims.

Also, the definition of species has changed since Darwin's time. With the advent of the Modern Synthesis in the 1930's we now describe speciation with respect to genetic flow instead of Linnaean groupings.

I think what creationsts see re Darwins finches, are still finches with different beaks. More importantly they are still of the bird kind. 'Kinds' are broader than species. Creationists have common ancestors of sorts in that the wolf or wolf-like creature may well be the ancestor of all dog kinds today. Some creationists, including me, see a kind pegged at around the family rank level meaning common ancestors are there to a degree. It is just that the ancestors were created as their kind and variation is limited. Here is some evidence to back this up. The link below speaks to an organism ceasing to adapt while mutations continue to accrue.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2009/11/091102171726.htm

The example of finches changing beak size, changes in colour in moths, changing alleles in bacteria is meant to be an observation that repeated many times will lead to a dinosaur evolving into a bird. This is the bit that creationists deny.

A bird changing beak size is an adaptation. These birds have adapted to their diet. It is a clever design that prevents two similar birds sucessfully breeding apart from geographic isolation. One reason may be the progeny may not be best suited to either environment.

There are evolutionary researchers that contest the bird to dino theory. Below is a link that speaks to it.

"The weight of the evidence is now suggesting that not only did birds not descend from dinosaurs, Ruben said, but that some species now believed to be dinosaurs may have descended from birds."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2010/02/100209183335.htm

It is hard to change ones beliefs re creation given your researchers do not appear agreed on what other kind they are meant to have evolved from. It is hard to see species as any more than names given to in-kind variation, as opposed to support for common descent.

I also see that your cladistics get confusing and is in dispute around birds and lizards and mammals, with birds and mammals both being warm blooded, which of course Lizards are not. The link also has examples of the pluses and minuses for phylogenic and Linnaean classifications. The link below speaks to it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apomorph#apomorphy

I think that evolutionary evidence that any change or variation in a species, given a different name, is simply supplying a name for each in kind variation not dissimilar to naming humans different races. These are all human, just a little different from each other.

It will always be difficult to come up with a definition of species that is robust. If Neanderthal and human can mate and share 99.5% variability they meet all definitions of being human and have not speciated. Many even believe a chimp and human may reproduce viable offspring or sterile offspring. If this is the case then I guess one is also proposing speciation has not fully occured.

The same goes for other species that can sucessfully interbreed and belong to a different genus or family. They have not speciated sufficiently to produce a species barrier.

I think the definition of species is going to be problematic for some time to come. It is a concept that has no defining lines, obviously, so the blur from species to species, will always be vague, I expect.

Edited by Mazzy, : No reason given.

Edited by Admin, : Fix quote.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 424 by Taq, posted 07-25-2011 11:53 AM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 428 by Wounded King, posted 07-25-2011 5:00 PM Mazzy has not yet responded
 Message 429 by Nuggin, posted 07-25-2011 9:18 PM Mazzy has not yet responded
 Message 430 by Taq, posted 07-25-2011 10:39 PM Mazzy has not yet responded

    
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 473 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


(1)
Message 428 of 450 (625775)
07-25-2011 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 427 by Mazzy
07-25-2011 4:35 PM


Limits to variation
It is just that the ancestors were created as their kind and variation is limited. Here is some evidence to back this up. The link below speaks to an organism ceasing to adapt while mutations continue to accrue.

That is an interesting article, but I fail to see how it supports your point. OK, if we stipulate that all modern species are close to their optimum of adaptation and that when the original kind ancestors were created, or got off the Ark, they were very sub-optimally adapted for a wide variety of environments then there is some framework for how this could apply. But there isn't a single shred of evidence supporting such a narrative, and whole lot that contradicts it, such as the genetic commonalities across supposedly discretely created kinds.

But as to it showing that variation is limited, it doesn't, at best it shows that there are limits to adaptive variation in a long term multi generation stable environment.

Many even believe a chimp and human may reproduce viable offspring or sterile offspring. If this is the case then I guess one is also proposing speciation has not fully occured.

If the offspring were sterile then this would be full speciation under the biological species concept as it would be an absolute barrier to gene flow between the two populations.

TTFN,

WK

Edited by Wounded King, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 427 by Mazzy, posted 07-25-2011 4:35 PM Mazzy has not yet responded

    
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 690 days)
Posts: 2962
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


(4)
Message 429 of 450 (625822)
07-25-2011 9:18 PM
Reply to: Message 427 by Mazzy
07-25-2011 4:35 PM


More advanced understanding is required

I think the definition of species is going to be problematic for some time to come. It is a concept that has no defining lines, obviously, so the blur from species to species, will always be vague, I expect.

That's why we don't really use "species" all that much any more. It's sort of the "child's version" of biology. It's the dumbed down version to help people who don't have enough education.

Clades are more accurate and better represent what's going on in the real world. But, you can't start out someone's education with clades.

When educating children, we are forced to dumb things down and teach in layers.

In the States, very young children learn about "Thanksgiving" - a holiday in which the friendly Indians and the friendly Puritans got together and shared their food.

Is that real? In only the most basic sense. But a 3rd graders isn't sophisticated enough to go into the politics of cultural contact, or the fact that the settlers were starving to death.

Later, they learn a little more.

Then later still they learn even more.

Layers.

You are starting to grasp the basic concept of species. Time for you to get a look at the next level of education.

There is no such thing as "species". It doesn't exist. It's not real. It's a completely made up term invented by humans to facilitate communication between humans.

Without this made up term and the made up rules that surround it, every conversation would have to describe in detail the animal involved.

"Hey I saw one of those flying things that has feathers that are black on the head and it is about the size of my fist"

vs

"Hey, I saw a chickadee".

Nature doesn't have "species".

Nature has different animals which are more or less related genetically. Nature has gene flow between populations of similarly related animals.

Animals which are not closely related have no gene flow.
Animals which are closely related have some gene flow.
Animals which are very closely related have a lot of gene flow.

So, asking whether or not Neanderthals were Homo Sapiens or Homo Neanderthalensis or Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis is missing the point.

Here's the reality:
They were a population which was closely related to our population. There was some, but not much, gene flow between the two populations shortly after our population left Africa.

Any discussion about how they should be classified is just a discussion between two humans about which socks go in which drawer. It has no bearing on reality in any way.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 427 by Mazzy, posted 07-25-2011 4:35 PM Mazzy has not yet responded

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 5139
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.0


(1)
Message 430 of 450 (625832)
07-25-2011 10:39 PM
Reply to: Message 427 by Mazzy
07-25-2011 4:35 PM


Re: Bible
I think what creationsts see re Darwins finches, are still finches with different beaks.

They are still different species of finch, are they not? How do you get separate populations of finches with species specific features? How is Genesis useful for understanding genetic flow, lineage specific mutations, and natural selection? Where can I read peer reviewed papers on the mechanism of speciation that is based on Genesis?

I also see that your cladistics get confusing and is in dispute around birds and lizards and mammals, with birds and mammals both being warm blooded, which of course Lizards are not.

How does this help us define what a species is?

If you want to discuss cladistics and how it is done I would be happy to discuss it in another thread.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 427 by Mazzy, posted 07-25-2011 4:35 PM Mazzy has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 11412
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 431 of 450 (625873)
07-26-2011 5:55 AM


Moderator Comment (edited)
AbE: When I originally composed this message I confused this thread with the Why are there no human apes alive today? thread. I have corrected this error. --Admin

Mazzy has done an excellent job describing the creationist position on kinds, but most notably she makes this comment about species:

Mazzy writes:

I think the definition of species is going to be problematic for some time to come.

Nuggin posted an equally excellent reply noting that Mazzy has come to the precise same conclusion as science. The real world is a messy place and resists the human need to place things in neat categories. The commonly understood concept of species of clearly demarcated animal types is a human construct, and scientists understand that reality is much more nuanced.

Species is nearly the lowest rung of our classification ladder (it's not necessarily the lowest because of subspecies or races), and perhaps reaching a mutual understanding on the definition of species and how vague it can sometimes be will be helpful in understanding why science places humans, chimps and gorillas in the same classification category, which should be helpful in the Why are there no human apes alive today? thread.

Edited by Admin, : Typo.

Edited by Admin, : Grammar.

Edited by Admin, : AbE.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

    
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 746 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 432 of 450 (626077)
07-27-2011 1:31 AM


Classification I always read in pro-evolution material is open to change. tHey fight all the time.
Likewise creationists disagree.
I see kinds as very flexible and few.
I insist there is no divisions like mammals or reptilese etc. All there is IS minor like features for like needs among unrelated creatures.
The bible just says there are kinds. It does say there are birds or fowl of the air and so birdkind is not a kind. There are types of original birds.
on the ark there was a dove and a crow, I think,.
After the fall there was clean and unclean kinds.

so the creationist has only these boundaries.
So this creationist makes kinds more inclusive.
I say bears, dogs, seals etc are from the same pair off the ark.
Same shaped creatures are the same or close shaped creatures also.
All snakes are from the same pair and yet quite diverse.

Species is just a minor adaptation and probably in a fimpoverished world it sticks around more then it would of in a wealthy world.
I don't think species is a real boundary in biology.
Just adding my two cents to what creationists think on these things.


Replies to this message:
 Message 433 by Coyote, posted 07-27-2011 1:43 AM Robert Byers has responded

    
Coyote
Member
Posts: 4645
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.5


(1)
Message 433 of 450 (626084)
07-27-2011 1:43 AM
Reply to: Message 432 by Robert Byers
07-27-2011 1:31 AM


Hyperspeciation?
I say bears, dogs, seals etc are from the same pair off the ark.

So these critters all evolved from a common ancestor in less than 4,350 years?

Or actually in less than 2,000, as we have decent records starting by then.

Creationists generally deny evolution occurs at all, now you are proposing evolution thousands of times faster than any scientist has ever done.

Do you see the inconsistency in this?


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 432 by Robert Byers, posted 07-27-2011 1:31 AM Robert Byers has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 434 by Robert Byers, posted 07-27-2011 1:55 AM Coyote has responded

  
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 746 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 434 of 450 (626087)
07-27-2011 1:55 AM
Reply to: Message 433 by Coyote
07-27-2011 1:43 AM


Re: Hyperspeciation?
Nope. This creationist sees rapid diversity as a option within biblical boundaries.
I don't see years being needed but rather triggers in the bodies allowing the kids to be quite different from the parents.
I see all post flood diversity, a great deal, as done within a few centuries at most.
people changed just as quick.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 433 by Coyote, posted 07-27-2011 1:43 AM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 435 by Coyote, posted 07-27-2011 9:45 AM Robert Byers has not yet responded
 Message 436 by Taq, posted 07-27-2011 11:35 AM Robert Byers has not yet responded

    
Coyote
Member
Posts: 4645
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 435 of 450 (626117)
07-27-2011 9:45 AM
Reply to: Message 434 by Robert Byers
07-27-2011 1:55 AM


Re: Hyperspeciation?
This creationist sees rapid diversity as a option within biblical boundaries.
I don't see years being needed but rather triggers in the bodies allowing the kids to be quite different from the parents.
I see all post flood diversity, a great deal, as done within a few centuries at most.
people changed just as quick.

And you have some real-world evidence for these claims I presume?

What you are claiming is that species were static for thousands of years but suddenly underwent massive evolution for a short period, then became static again.

Surely you must have evidence for this hyperspeciation? Something in the fossil record maybe? In the genomes? And surely you can point to dating evidence to support this claim?

If not, remember that scientists can point to real-world evidence for their view of speciation and the change of species through time.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 434 by Robert Byers, posted 07-27-2011 1:55 AM Robert Byers has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
25262728
29
30Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2014 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2014