That's right. And, how do we know that it's not being mistaken as speciation?
Furthermore, do we know for a fact that whenever a new strain gets "far" enough away from its species of origin so as to become sexually isolated, that speciation has taken place?
Because it fits the definition of speciation as used by evolutionary biologists.
Again this goes to the argument in
Definitions, Daffynitions, Delusions, Logic and Critical Thinking.quote:
If you are addressing the validity of a science then you use the terms as defined in the science.
If you don't use the terms as defined in the science then you are not addressing the science.
All you need is a competing explanation to rule out that certainty.
Here, let me just make one up for you (as if it's difficult at all).
Just making up a hypothesis from thin air is NOT the same as making a scientific theory.
Criteria for a scientific theory are (1) that it explain ALL the existing data at least as well as the current theory, and (2) that it leads directly and rationally to new views of existing data that then pose a test for the concept: if {A} happens then theory {NEW} explains things better than theory {OLD} and if {A} does NOT happen then theory {NEW} is invalid.
Let's say there's a feature that's coded into the very syllables of genetic sequencing that eliminates the possibility of taking a line of "aggressive" hybridization too far away from its original species.
Let's look at the genetic level: any mutation that causes any change within a species is a change to the basic structure of DNA, likewise any change that causes speciation. There is no fundamental difference between one level of change within species and change that results in speciation.
Likewise, once speciation has occurred, there is no way to mix changes that occur in population {A} and population {B} that are now seperated by the species barrier, yet changes within each species is still just a change to the basic structure of DNA, and again so is any further change that causes any subsequent speciation.
There is no mechanism for there to be a limit or restriction on what these changes to the basic structure of DNA can be -- other than that for the changes to propogate the individual carriers must survive and reproduce (which applies at all levels leading to this point as well).
Thus to just
ad hoc posit a barrier is no good scientifically, when there is NO evidence of such a barrier.
... I'm going to arbitrarily concede to the shot-in-the-dark known as "speciation" myself, in the interest of advancing my own idea. The core of my theory doesn't rely on the absence of speciation, anyway.
That screeching sound was the sound of moving goalposts, accompanied by the screams of denial.
So, now that we have eliminated speciation as a test for your hypothesis, what are you left with from your original test? What was it again?
Message 94Now RAZD, what we can do to test a clear distinction between this and evolution is as follows:
We can try to make a single new animal species, on our own, through artificial selection.
Now that speciation is not an issue this test is void.
I repeat: do you have another test? or are we into rampant denial and the moving of goalposts to dance around the issue instead of admitting that the "test" was run and the concept was invalidated, or that the "test" was ill-considered and inadequate as a true test of the concept?
Enjoy.
Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
™ Version 4.2
