|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: intelligent design, right and wrong | |||||||||||||||||||||||
biglfty Inactive Member |
ok, was there something in the process between the apes today and the people today. call it what you will, what you call something doesnt change what it is.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
call it what you will, what you call something doesnt change what it is. True enough. Reality chugs on, woefully uncaring about our models of it. The thing is, the words one uses to refer to things often colors their perceptions. So sometimes it's really important to be agreeing on the usage in order to have a constructive discussion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5820 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
peter writes: What elements of ID theory would a biblicalliteralist need to reject? They must reject elements of ID which specify that biblical passages do not constitute evidence for any particular scientific theory, and that scientific evidence must be taken as superior to strict biblical interpretations. ID theorists have openly rejected YEC, and in some instances admitted that evolution may have been the major force for speciation (though never abiogenesis). These are all rejections of literal interpretations of Biblical creation. Dembski himself, in Intelligent Design: Bridge between Science and Theology, suggests that scientific evidence must take precedence in interpreting scripture. The biggest example for this necessity being Xtianity's dismal failure when it crushed astronomy centuries ago in order to impose the "reality" of biblical descriptions of the universe. You can always check out their discovery.org website to see how they separate themselves from creationists, and strict literal interpretations. ------------------holmes
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5820 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
biglifty writes: "Sometimes there isn't anything in between. At low levels, speciation happens in jumps." interesting, this varies from nearly every evolutionist i've heard, but ok, i'll ask a question. if we just jumped from apes to humans, then what happened at that time? did regular apes, just breed regular humans? I had a feeling crashfrog's comment was going to cause some problems. First of all "punctuated equilibirium" does not suggest in the slightest (or at least nothing that I have ever read) that one species suddenly gives birth to a new species. It only suggests that species remain stable with relatively small physical variations over very long periods of time, until a major environmental change comes along. After the environmental event, selection effects result in permanent changes rather than back and forth changes within a boundary, gradually producing new species. The surprise is that this gradual change is much faster than was held by original evolutionary theorists, but it is not instantaneous. Perhaps crashfrog was talking about very small organisms, like bacteria. Changes can be seen within a single bacteria's lifespan, much less between generations. There is a whole other debate raging within evo circles on what this means. Some suggest that bacterial life does not contain species at all, and that speciation is only a property of multicellular life. But to re-answer biglifty's question. Humans did not come from apes. Neither did humans suddenly come from something between apes and humans. Members of a species relatively unlike both splintered into separate breeding populations (due to location or what is unknown) and gradual changes in both populations (not to mention many more splinterings) have resulted in what we see today. There are apes and there are humans. Perhaps we could be called a type of ape, certainly we are all primates. But that is all based on how we choose to classify each "type" of organism. In the end the chain of which organism changed through generations of breeding to become what would remain the same. ------------------holmes
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
Here's another scenario. I don't have references so take it for what it's worth without.
A genetic difference bewteen us and the chimp is that we have fewer chromosomes. When these are examined it is obvious that there was a fusion of their's to produce ours. When I first heard this I wondered how it could possibly result in something which could breed with the original population. However, I was forgetting that the genes can be read out whereever the chromosome boundaries are. In addtion, humans have odd thing happen to their chromosomes now. These produce various defects but not all fatal. And these individuals can apparaently breed with the typical humans. The idea is that some fused chromosome individual occured in a population after we separated (or at the time) from main primate branch. The indiduals could still breed with the main population though. Over time some of these fused individuals either within the population or geographically isolated acquired enough mutations to no longer be able to breed back and had speciated. Interesting. No?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
According to my field guide (1992) the Lesser Black-backed Gull (Larus fuscus) is described as a seperate species from the Herring Gull (Larus argentaus)
While in principle the classification could have been revised, I would expect that I would have heard about it unless it was very recent. The fact that both groups are found together without interbreeding would tend to reinforce that classification. (And yes, I have indeed seen both species in the same location, just last week).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1479 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
So ID is more attractive to the evolutionary creationist
or the OEC who believes that God has put the 'information' in place and perhaps tinkers with organisms on occasions ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
biglfty Inactive Member |
"The thing is, the words one uses to refer to things often colors their perceptions. So sometimes it's really important to be agreeing on the usage in order to have a constructive discussion."
ok, well, that still doesnt answer the question i asked you. was there something between apes and men? some for form that was more along than the apes but not as far along as what we would call humans today.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
If a geographic rings species has different species on the ends then dogs might be a size "ring" species. We need a dog breeder (hmmm I know one i might ask) to see if the experiment has been done.
I shudder to think about it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5872 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
The Great Dane / Chihuahua cross boggles the mind, don't it? Talk about reproductive barrier...
Remember, the biological species concept merely states that there is some reproductive barrier that exists between populations that prevents them from interbreeding in the wild when given the opportunity. So - theoretically at least - chihuahuas and great danes are different species 'cause I can't IMAGINE them backcrossing to some medium sized dog.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5820 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
peter writes: So ID is more attractive to the evolutionary creationistor the OEC who believes that God has put the 'information' in place and perhaps tinkers with organisms on occasions ? Exactly, with the further addition that he may not have had to directly tinker with organisms from time to time. If he set up the original info, then he could have put "time-release" or "situation-release" info into the systems. But then again I have seen some Trojan YEC Theorists within the ID camp. Some argue that once you have proven that something has been designed, and so there must have been a designer, and so it could have been a God... all bets are off. That means He could have simply created the world to look as old as it is, because a God can do anything. Of course why God would forget to erase his work in biology (as he did in the rest of the world) is left unanswered, as is the question of if God wanted us to believe the world is old--- and went to all that trouble to make it look that way--- shouldn't we believe it? I notice that "official" ID websites don't knock these trojan IDers and their websites at all. One would think they should spend even more time trying to refute creationists riding their coattails and making them look bad, than evos who they claim share a bond in scientific methodology. ------------------holmes
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5196 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Quetzal,
Even though populations of Great Danes & Chihuahuas can't directly mate, gene flow between populations is possible. If a dog larger than a Chihuahua mates with a Chihuahua, a dog smaller than a Great Dane mates with a Great Danes. The offspring can potentially interbreed, "fusing" Chihahua & Great Dane genes (you know what I mean). Hence, gene flow is possible. Admittedly, the important part of your post was in the wild. Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5820 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
biglifty writes: ok, well, that still doesnt answer the question i asked you. was there something between apes and men? some for form that was more along than the apes but not as far along as what we would call humans today. I have answered your question in more than one post. At the very least check post 79. But here is a recap: THERE IS NOTHING BETWEEN APES AND MEN. APES AND MEN EVOLVED FROM SEPARATE SPECIES, WHICH EVOLVED FROM SEPARATE BUT CLOSER RELATED SPECIES, etc etc traced back to a species unlike both apes and men. It was that original species which spawned different branches through isolation of breeding populations. Is there some reason you are ignoring my posts and restating the same error you made initially? ------------------holmes
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
But can't gene flow occur in the chain of gull ring species? That was why I wanted to know if they are called separate species at the extreme ends.
I don't see why the same reasoning can't be applied to dogs. Also I would count "in the wild" as just left to themselves without artificial insemination. Makes sense?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5196 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Nosyned,
Good point, er, I just got called away from the computer, Quetz can you help? Quetzal, Am I wrong about Great Dames & Chihuahuas? Must all members of a population be able to be fertile with all other members in order for that population to be called a species? Thereby allowing ring species to be exactly that under the BSC? It seems an exception, though, since gene flow is possible between one end of the ring & the other. Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024