Irreduceable Complexity

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mozambu:
You can "see" electrons because you see their effects wich can be measured. You can also "see" gravity because you can feel it. But you cant see the gradual process of speciation by natural selection just like you can't see a designer. There are no empirical proof of that. It's more speculation than science.

---

In the sense that you are using it, isn't it speculation
that electrons exist?We see some effects which can be measured, and speculate that
they are caused by electrically charged sub-atomic particles.I don't see the difference.We see changes in populations, and propose a theory as to how
this may have come about.The vast majority of evidence supports the theory.What's the problem?{Edited to change the formatting -- Oops }[This message has been edited by Peter, 01-08-2003]

quote:

---

The example you gave is "quantum speciation" through polyploidy. It's not a gradual process. A gradual process takes thousands of years. There is not empirical proof of that, just speculation.

---

Ah, classic "moving of the goalposts".You said we had not observed speciation, I gave an example of observed speciation, and now you say that it doesn't qualify.Tell me, what is your definition of speciation? I don't think that you have the same definition that most scientists use, but we shall see.[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 01-08-2003]

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:

quote:

---

The example you gave is "quantum speciation" through polyploidy. It's not a gradual process. A gradual process takes thousands of years. There is not empirical proof of that, just speculation.

---

​

Ah, classic "moving of the goalposts".

​

You said we had not observed speciation, I gave an example of observed speciation, and now you say that it doesn't qualify.

​

Tell me, what is your definition of speciation? I don't think that you have the same definition that most scientists use, but we shall see.

​

[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 01-08-2003]

---

Man, i'm talking about gradualism. There are many observed examples of speciation in Drosophila, for example, through the founder flush effect. But there is no empirical evidence that speciation is the accumulation of microevolutionary change through time. Many scientists say that before speciation there is a period of "stasis" followed by a period of quick speciation. This is what the fossil record shows.
I doubt that evolution is a darwinian process. Doubt is a good thing, right. But if you are satisfied with Darwinism, that's your problem. History demonstrates that a theory is a sure thing to die. Just a step to something better. To believe in a theory, is no different than believing in a particular religion or political ideology.

Hi everyone!Schraf:

quote:

---

Ah, classic "moving of the goalposts".

​

You said we had not observed speciation, I gave an example of observed speciation, and now you say that it doesn't qualify.

---

I don't see this as a "classic moving of the goal posts".Your example of speciation was polyploidy. It was a change within a species based on environmental conditions. He (Mozambu) was correct by saying that that was a form of speciation that occurs WITHIN a species. Based on your claim, I conclude that you are saying this is an example of the beginnings of long-term speciation from one species to another.Long-term speciation cannot be proven unless you have a time machine. Since you don't have a time machine, it appears that you are speculating.

quote:

---

Tell me, what is your definition of speciation? I don't think that you have the same definition that most scientists use, but we shall see.

---

speciation"The evolutionary formation of new biological species, usually by the division of a single species into two or more genetically distinct ones."Source: http://www.dictionary.comBased on this definition, I'd conclude that your example wasn't speciation at all.If I am incorrect, by all means enlighten me. Forgive me for being critical of a "widely-accepted" scientific theory, but I enjoy critical thinking.------------------
What is intelligence without wisdom?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mozambu:
Man, i'm talking about gradualism.

---

It is not clear that you were talking about gradualism.And you do seem to be moving the goalposts, mostly via manipulating definitions. For example, defining gradual evolution as taking place over thousands of years is deceptive. The important factor is generations, not years. Some bacteria go through several generations per hour while the aspen pine apparently, by some estimates anyway, hasn't had a new generation since the last ice age.

quote:

---

There are many observed examples of speciation in Drosophila, for example, through the founder flush effect.

---

And? This is the result of reproductive isolation. Why does this not qualify?

quote:

---

But there is no empirical evidence that speciation is the accumulation of microevolutionary change through time.

---

The founder effect depends upon variation, yes? And that variation is due to imperfect genetic transmission-- mutation-- which, since genes are transmitted generation to generation, must accumulate over time.

quote:

---

Many scientists say that before speciation there is a period of "stasis" followed by a period of quick speciation. This is what the fossil record shows.

---

Ok.

quote:

---

I doubt that evolution is a darwinian process.

---

The alternative being.... ? If you are arguing against strict Darwinism you are wasting your time. The ToE is now significantly different from Darwins model.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com[This message has been edited by John, 01-09-2003]

John:Thanks for clearing up the definition somewhat, according to the scientific community.------------------
What is intelligence without wisdom?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Satcomm:
John:

​

Thanks for clearing up the definition somewhat, according to the scientific community.

​

---

Don't confuse me with the scientific community. No one person can take that role. This fact is often forgotten. I do my best to be accurate. That is all.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Satcomm:
Hi everyone!

​

Schraf:

​

quote:

---

Ah, classic "moving of the goalposts".

​

You said we had not observed speciation, I gave an example of observed speciation, and now you say that it doesn't qualify.

---

​

I don't see this as a "classic moving of the goal posts".

​

Your example of speciation was polyploidy. It was a change within a species based on environmental conditions. He (Mozambu) was correct by saying that that was a form of speciation that occurs WITHIN a species. Based on your claim, I conclude that you are saying this is an example of the beginnings of long-term speciation from one species to another.

​

Long-term speciation cannot be proven unless you have a time machine. Since you don't have a time machine, it appears that you are speculating.

​

quote:

---

Tell me, what is your definition of speciation? I don't think that you have the same definition that most scientists use, but we shall see.

---

​

speciation

​

"The evolutionary formation of new biological species, usually by the division of a single species into two or more genetically distinct ones."

​

Source: http://www.dictionary.com

​

Based on this definition, I'd conclude that your example wasn't speciation at all.

​

If I am incorrect, by all means enlighten me.

​

Forgive me for being critical of a "widely-accepted" scientific theory, but I enjoy critical thinking.

​

---

Your definition of "speciation" is not adequate, as most dictionary definitions are not adequate. It does not define what is meant by the various parties when "species" is used.I will be clearer:How do we tell the difference between one species and another?There are several definitions of "species" that scientists use, but a pretty widely-agreed upon definition is that an "offspring" species cannot breed with the "parent" species it came from.How does the goatsbeard example not constitute speciation if the offspring species, while able to reproduce itself (not a hybrid), is not able to reproduce with the parent species?

John and Schraf:Interesting. I will research this.Thanks again.------------------
What is intelligence without wisdom?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Satcomm:

Long-term speciation cannot be proven unless you have a time machine. Since you don't have a time machine, it appears that you are speculating.

---

It's not speculation, it's extrapolation ... which is acceptable
in science isn't it?You are also implying here that any evidence presented would
be meaningless because we haven't seen it happen.

quote:

---

It's not speculation, it's extrapolation ... which is acceptable in science isn't it?

---

Absolutely. Extrapolation is a vital part of science. Otherwise, how can we develope theories?

quote:

---

You are also implying here that any evidence presented would
be meaningless because we haven't seen it happen.

---

I don't think that "any evidence presented would be meaningless because we haven't seen it". I was merely implying that much of the evidence provided for long-term speciation thus far has been inconclusive and somewhat subjective. Hence the many debates I read on these forums. That may or may not change as science progresses. There are still many unknown variables. There also seems to be evidence to the contrary.I'm sure you can categorize my answer to your post as subjective. Like I said, I'll research this more and analyze more of the facts and evidence provided for both sides of the coin. I find this all very fascinating.------------------
What is intelligence without wisdom?

How does:

quote:

---

I don't think that "any evidence presented would be meaningless because we haven't seen it". I was merely implying that much of the evidence provided for long-term speciation thus far has been inconclusive and somewhat subjective

---

which says that evidence could exist but doesn't, tie-in with:

quote:

---

Long-term speciation cannot be proven unless you have a time machine. Since you don't have a time machine, it appears that you are speculating

---

?PE

quote:

---

Originally posted by Primordial Egg:
How does:

​

quote:

---

I don't think that "any evidence presented would be meaningless because we haven't seen it". I was merely implying that much of the evidence provided for long-term speciation thus far has been inconclusive and somewhat subjective

---

​

which says that evidence could exist but doesn't, tie-in with:

​

quote:

---

Long-term speciation cannot be proven unless you have a time machine. Since you don't have a time machine, it appears that you are speculating

---

​

?

​

PE

---

I was attempting to answer Peter's question with an explanation to my reasoning. I was corrected by Schraf and John about the definitions of speciation. With that correction, and Peter's statement, I realized that I should have worded my first statement differently. Rather than saying that it cannot be proven, I thought it was more accurate to say that it hasn't been proven yet, and may or may not ever be proven. Things are proven true or false based on evidence.------------------
What is intelligence without wisdom?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mozambu:
But there is no empirical evidence that speciation is the accumulation of microevolutionary change through time.

---

There is actually quite alot of good epirical evidence that evolutionary adaption to a specific environment results in reproductive isolation between two populations of the same species. This process is called ecological speciation and is probably one of the commonest forms of speciation.see:"The ecological hypothesis of speciation is that reproductive isolation evolves ultimately as a consequence of divergent natural selection on traits between environments.""I review the mechanisms that give rise to new species by divergent selection"Dolph Schluter. Ecology and the origin of species. TRENDS in Ecology & Evolution Vol.16 No.7 July 2001."new findings that characters affecting reproductive isolation can diverge rapidly in sympatry as a result of natural selection. Recent studies combining research on phylogeny and ecology of natural populations cast new light on patterns, timescales and mechanisms, and emphasize the role of ecological factors in speciation. Studies of parallel speciation provide a strong case for sympatric speciation and for natural selection generating reproductive barriers."Kerstin Johannesson. Parallel speciation: a key to sympatric divergence. TRENDS in Ecology & Evolution Vol.16 No.3 March 2001.Jim mallet has done alot of work on speciation and several of his papers can be downloaded here: Jim Mallet home pagefor example: IGOR EMELIANOV, MICHELE DRES, WERNER BALTENSWEILER, AND JAMES MALLET. HOST-INDUCED ASSORTATIVE MATING IN HOST RACES OF THE LARCH BUDMOTH. Evolution, 55(10), 2001, pp. 2002—2010.

It, I think the "point" is that one can not go to a web site and view a EXCEL spread sheet that shows the actual biometry of the biological change proposed for reproductive isolation for any taxon execpt perhaps in the specialists WORKING DATA BASE. The point is if evolution were known to occur in ONE way it would be taught monophyletically but because there are differnt kinds there may be different ways the bio-change occurs. You two are simply talking past each other.For instance from a slightly different angle one might READ "accumulation of microevolutionary change over time" as biochange after the kind; in which case ecological speciation could be a subset if objected for the taxa underconsideration.I, in particular was very intent on determing modes of speciation in salamanders but because of failure to find evolutionary biologists in accord about data collection to even address speciation issues it was impossible EVEN knowing as much as any body on salamanders. Bishop was from Rochester NY and I read this book as 9 year old in my grandfather basement in Fredonia NY and decided there and then on catching a Spring Salamander that I could uNDerstand the salamanders of NY and NJ and yet the OBSERVATIONS that Bishop cites I was not able to use at the elite CORNELL because they were only arguing the most elite aspects of the theory. I had "seen" in nature what WAS called in the literature "concerted evolution" but once I was trying to explain what I understood by this evolution in detail each and every biologist wanted there own say just like much of what goes on on this board. I wish we could all learn to get out of the way and let the evidence dictate interaction but I even find that I am talking past people too."good emprical evidence" and "accumulation of"'evidence' are not the same thing even if the contexts are the same. Obviously it can not be that the contents actually differ. There may be learning to be done by posters and it is always my intent to be here to learn so in good faith some better communication (should) be possible. I dont see how "divergent natural selection on traits" is a single thought.