|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,419 Year: 3,676/9,624 Month: 547/974 Week: 160/276 Day: 34/23 Hour: 1/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1426 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Definition of Species | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2514 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
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".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13017 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 1.8 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2514 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10038 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13017 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 1.8 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2514 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
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 ***.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mazzy  Suspended Member (Idle past 4611 days) Posts: 212 From: Rural NSW, Australia Joined: |
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. Cladistics - Wikipedia 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined:
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2514 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined:
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10038 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13017 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 1.8 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Robert Byers Member (Idle past 4389 days) Posts: 640 From: Toronto,canada Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2127 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Robert Byers Member (Idle past 4389 days) Posts: 640 From: Toronto,canada Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2127 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
This creationist sees rapid diversity as a option within biblical boundaries.
And you have some real-world evidence for these claims I presume?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. 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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024