Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolutionary Theory Explains Diversity
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 16 of 160 (464850)
04-30-2008 9:07 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by RAZD
04-29-2008 8:11 PM


Re: refocus
Rather than getting into a lengthy back and forth, let me just make a couple changes and promote this to [forum=-5], then you can try to make do.
I'll change the title to Evolutionary Theory Explains Observations (dry, I know - sorry).
The thread also needs a concrete focus, an example or scenario, but doesn't have one yet, so we'll leave it fluid. But once the flow of discussion adopts a central focus, that will be the focus for the rest of the thread.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by RAZD, posted 04-29-2008 8:11 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by RAZD, posted 04-30-2008 8:47 PM Admin has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 17 of 160 (464852)
04-30-2008 9:08 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 18 of 160 (464903)
04-30-2008 8:47 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Admin
04-30-2008 9:07 AM


1st up: How much difference needed to explain diversity
The thread also needs a concrete focus, an example or scenario, but doesn't have one yet, so we'll leave it fluid.
It looks like the first question is how much difference is "dramatic" enough to explain the diversity of life we see, and the second one is how long does it take.
antiLie in message 87 of the "Fish on the Ark?" thread said:
RAZD; they closed the thread, here is my reply.
Okay the question was asked why I disagree with evolution. You said "Note that this is how science operates: take observations, develop conclusions from those observations, formulate a theory based on those conclusions, and then test the theory." I agree. The difference is your starting point. What I mean is the basis of foundation. We should follow science wherever it may lead, but we as humans have made it a medium to justify our belief in origin (this includes naturalists). My belief in origin is supernatural; begins and ends with the Massoretic and Koine scriptures. This is why I disagree with Evolution. My starting point is faith in my God, the creator and destroyer of all. Biological macroevolution requires long periods of time for dramatic changes to take effect. I am very aware of the assumptions evolutionists make about creationists not understanding how or what macroevolution is. I do know and understand it. I do not assume that one kind of animal decided to change to another kind. I understand that macroevolution is the same as microevolution just added time that diversely extends the change and result from speciation. This is my issue. I believe that we did not have the time claimed by the assumptions made by some evidences. I am not denying evidence by making this statement. I am denying the Conclusions made based on the evidence. I remember reading some one on this forum made the statement about if we deny evolution then we throw out all of the other fields of science like geology, paleontology and cosmology. I disagree. I believe that the evidence and results from study and examination from the scientific fields can be interpreted in favor of short time instead of long times. This is also a debate in hermeneutical studies as well. I could mention some of the evidences and scientific studies like gravitational time dilation and universal vs local times, radiometric dating .etc but this is another argument all together. This is the answer I give to the question about why I "disagree" with evolution. Time.
Color added for emPHAsis. I would say this one sentence sums up the basic creationist position pretty fairly.
The reason I put "dramatic" change before the length of time issue is because we need to know what needs to be done before we can talk about how long it takes.
I would also leave the question of whether there is enough time to another thread, the idea being that we generate the information that:
  • we need to show "X" amount of change to be able to explain the diversity of life, and
  • this nominally takes "Y" amount of time.
    If we establish these two answers then we can proceed to the question of how much time is available.
    I would also suggest that to qualify as sufficient difference, that some feature be evolved that did not exist before, something new. In this regard the cecal valve evolved by Podarcis sicula lizards on Pod Mrcaru, an Adriatic island, don't qualify as they exist in other lizards (albeit rare).
    Thus we could end up with a number of novel features in the fossil record, and then the various different time periods it took for that feature to evolve.
    Finally, I would like to say that we can expect a number of side issues to arise in the process of answering these questions, and I would like to request that anyone responding on this thread stick to the focus, and make new threads to deal with side issues if necessary. I would also hope we can refrain from having 3 or 4 replies to one post. It may be a vain hope, I know.
    Also please pay attention to subtitles folks.
    Enjoy.
    ps - I'm changing the title to "Evolutionary Theory Explains Diversity" to show that this is the prime focus of this thread.

    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.


    • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 16 by Admin, posted 04-30-2008 9:07 AM Admin has not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 19 by teen4christ, posted 05-01-2008 3:57 PM RAZD has replied
     Message 22 by Wumpini, posted 05-03-2008 8:24 PM RAZD has replied

      
    teen4christ
    Member (Idle past 5799 days)
    Posts: 238
    Joined: 01-15-2008


    Message 19 of 160 (464973)
    05-01-2008 3:57 PM
    Reply to: Message 18 by RAZD
    04-30-2008 8:47 PM


    Re: 1st up: How much difference needed to explain diversity
    Anti-Lie writes
    quote:
    Biological macroevolution requires long periods of time for dramatic changes to take effect.
    By using the word "dramatic", anti-lie effectively used a strawman against the theory of evolution.
    Consider the following. Suppose you walk from New York to Washington State and it takes you 2 years to walk all the way there. Would anyone in his right mind ever use the word "dramatic" to describe the shift in position of this person, especially over such a long period? The change in position of this person is very gradual and anything but dramatic.
    The word "dramatic" is typically used to describe a change that happen over a relatively short period of time. By using the word "dramatic", he implied that the theory of evolution states that creatures change from something like a dog to a monkey in a short amount of time. This is a strawman argument. As a Christian, anti-lie should know better than try to portray evolution in deceptive light.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 18 by RAZD, posted 04-30-2008 8:47 PM RAZD has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 20 by RAZD, posted 05-01-2008 5:30 PM teen4christ has replied

      
    RAZD
    Member (Idle past 1405 days)
    Posts: 20714
    From: the other end of the sidewalk
    Joined: 03-14-2004


    Message 20 of 160 (464981)
    05-01-2008 5:30 PM
    Reply to: Message 19 by teen4christ
    05-01-2008 3:57 PM


    Re: 1st up: How much difference needed to explain diversity
    I read his post to say that he agrees with microevolution as the means, the small steps from New York to Washington State, that by "dramatic" that it should show the progress from coast to (Appalachian) mountains to prairie to (Rocky) mountains -- and that he doesn't think you have enough time to get from a to b to c to d. If you only have 5 days, you can't walk very far.

    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.


    • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 19 by teen4christ, posted 05-01-2008 3:57 PM teen4christ has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 21 by teen4christ, posted 05-01-2008 6:48 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

      
    teen4christ
    Member (Idle past 5799 days)
    Posts: 238
    Joined: 01-15-2008


    Message 21 of 160 (464990)
    05-01-2008 6:48 PM
    Reply to: Message 20 by RAZD
    05-01-2008 5:30 PM


    Re: 1st up: How much difference needed to explain diversity
    But he needs to realize that evolution doesn't happen over night. The whole point is that you have more than 5 days. You have years. Just like evolution, which has hundreds of millions of years.
    The way he phrases his messages makes his argument a strawman.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 20 by RAZD, posted 05-01-2008 5:30 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

      
    Wumpini
    Member (Idle past 5763 days)
    Posts: 229
    From: Ghana West Africa
    Joined: 04-23-2008


    Message 22 of 160 (465172)
    05-03-2008 8:24 PM
    Reply to: Message 18 by RAZD
    04-30-2008 8:47 PM


    I am not sure I understand what you are trying to do
    RAZD writes:
    we need to show "X" amount of change to be able to explain the diversity of life, and
    this nominally takes "Y" amount of time.
    If we establish these two answers then we can proceed to the question of how much time is available.
    How much difference is needed to explain diversity? I am not sure I understand this question. Are you talking about looking at one single change, and then calculating how long that change would take, and then attempting to interpolate that into all of the changes since the formation of life? If so, it seems it would be impossible, and it would prove nothing in the end.
    Doesn't the ToE already have charts or studies that examine all of the changes from the time of a one cell organism to the present time? Maybe it would be better to look at these studies and either falsify them or prove them to be true.

    "There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 18 by RAZD, posted 04-30-2008 8:47 PM RAZD has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 23 by RAZD, posted 05-03-2008 10:10 PM Wumpini has not replied

      
    RAZD
    Member (Idle past 1405 days)
    Posts: 20714
    From: the other end of the sidewalk
    Joined: 03-14-2004


    Message 23 of 160 (465183)
    05-03-2008 10:10 PM
    Reply to: Message 22 by Wumpini
    05-03-2008 8:24 PM


    Re: I am not sure I understand what you are trying to do
    ... or prove them to be true.
    Not one single scientific theory is ever proven true. It's like proving a negative.
    Are you talking about looking at one single change, and then calculating how long that change would take ...?
    Not really. We can demonstrate all kinds of changes in just generations, changes that have been observed. The problem is that creationists generally claim that such changes are not ("dramatic," to use antiLie's term) enough to demonstrate diversity: the question is what kind of change would be enough.
    Doesn't the ToE already have charts or studies that examine all of the changes from the time of a one cell organism to the present time? Maybe it would be better to look at these studies and either falsify them ...
    Yep, and they have yet to be falsified in spite of years of attempts. When evolution was introduced the idea met stiff skepticism, but its ability to explain taxonomic relationships by common ancestry was testable against the fossil record. It not only passed that test but proved able to suggest where and when to look for additional evidence: Tiktaalik roseae was found because of just that kind of prediction.
    When genetics came along it provided the biggest test of evolution: would the genetic information match that developed from natural history and morphological phylogenies, or would it be something entirely different.
    The match is astonishing. Just like DNA testing for parenthood in humans, the DNA comparison between species shows their relationship from common ancestry -- and this genetic phylogeny matched that previously developed from the fossil record.
    How much difference is needed to explain diversity? I am not sure I understand this question.
    Why do birds and mammals share several traits not shared with other animals?
    We can demonstrate evolution - the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation - and we can demonstrate speciation - the separation of a parent population into two or more daughter populations that don't interbreed due to an accumulation of differences such that they don't recognize each other as mates - but creationists are always wanting to see more change, more difference.
    The problem is like making an animation out of a bunch of still pictures in the corner of a pad that you can fan to show gradual change adding up to something "dramatic" -- but first you need to define what "dramatic" means in this context.
    Enjoy.

    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.


    • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 22 by Wumpini, posted 05-03-2008 8:24 PM Wumpini has not replied

      
    Beretta
    Member (Idle past 5597 days)
    Posts: 422
    From: South Africa
    Joined: 10-29-2007


    Message 24 of 160 (465241)
    05-04-2008 9:55 AM
    Reply to: Message 12 by RAZD
    04-27-2008 9:18 PM


    Deism?
    Consider that life was created, but it was simple single cells: what prevents evolution from occurring after this point?
    Are you saying that intelligence may have created the first cells rather than natural processes and then mutation and selection took over from there? Some form of deism?? You have to have life reproducing before mutation and selection can get going, so are you suggesting a mix of ID and evolution?
    We can even consider that the universe was created in a way that life would develop naturally.
    Like some kind of biochemical predestination following natural laws?
    Practically speaking all fossils are transitional, as they all show features intermediate between ancestor species and daughter species.
    What about the sudden biological big bang in the Cambrian explosion - no links between all those phyla that appeared and even the few multicellular organisms present precambrian have no connection to the kinds of creatures found in the Cambrian -why? You have to presume that only natural causes can be used to explain these things and then presume that all the many many intermediates that must have been around all happened not to fossilize giving the distinct impression that these organisms occurred suddenly as though created.
    Do you know how many different kinds of eyes exist that show intermediate forms from light sensitive patches of skin to eyes capable of seeing 6 primary colors and focusing on mice from hundreds of feet in the air?
    Well there again, there's no clear transition only the assumption that one led eventually to the other by natural causes and only because of an a priori decision by 'science' that design can't be the answer to any question.So by the definition of 'science' it is already decided that only natural causes and chance can have anything to do with it.What proof do we have that random changes can lead to these incredibly complex systems purely by random chance mutations and natural selection? We don't but it has already been decided, before one piece of evidence was presented, at the level of the definition of 'science'. Instead of defining science as the search for natural causes, we should start with a different definition that science should be the search for the true causes behind all this diversity and not a priori leave out the other possible option -design.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 12 by RAZD, posted 04-27-2008 9:18 PM RAZD has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 25 by RAZD, posted 05-04-2008 1:12 PM Beretta has not replied

      
    RAZD
    Member (Idle past 1405 days)
    Posts: 20714
    From: the other end of the sidewalk
    Joined: 03-14-2004


    Message 25 of 160 (465248)
    05-04-2008 1:12 PM
    Reply to: Message 24 by Beretta
    05-04-2008 9:55 AM


    Re: Deism?
    Welcome back Beretta, care to take up where we left off on the Dogs will be Dogs will be ????
    Are you saying that intelligence may have created the first cells rather than natural processes and then mutation and selection took over from there? Some form of deism?? You have to have life reproducing before mutation and selection can get going, so are you suggesting a mix of ID and evolution?
    Like some kind of biochemical predestination following natural laws?
    Well I am a Deist, although I do believe that life developed "naturally" on earth - it is just that "naturally" was originally designed, and the universe was primed for life to develop. See RAZD - Building Blocks of Life for some ways that the universe may have been primed.
    What about the sudden biological big bang in the Cambrian explosion - no links between all those phyla that appeared and even the few multicellular organisms present precambrian have no connection to the kinds of creatures found in the Cambrian -why? You have to presume that only natural causes can be used to explain these things and then presume that all the many many intermediates that must have been around all happened not to fossilize giving the distinct impression that these organisms occurred suddenly as though created.
    Let's start a new thread on the Cambrian "explosion" (that occurred over millions of years ...), as it is worth a topic on its own (it comes up often enough).
    Well there again, there's no clear transition only the assumption that one led eventually to the other by natural causes and only because of an a priori decision by 'science' that design can't be the answer to any question.So by the definition of 'science' it is already decided that only natural causes and chance can have anything to do with it.What proof do we have that random changes can lead to these incredibly complex systems purely by random chance mutations and natural selection? We don't but it has already been decided, before one piece of evidence was presented, at the level of the definition of 'science'. Instead of defining science as the search for natural causes, we should start with a different definition that science should be the search for the true causes behind all this diversity and not a priori leave out the other possible option -design.
    Again, care to take up where we left off on the Dogs will be Dogs will be ???? If I am going to consider the "design option" then it needs to be done completely - see Is ID properly pursued?. If you want to talk about scientific presuppositions then we should start a new thread.
    This thread is about how evolutionary theory explains diversity. The two basic mechanisms are:
    (1) evolution - the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation, and
    (2) speciation - the reproductive isolations of daughter populations from parent or other daughter populations
    Both of these are observed phenomena, and the question is whether or not this is sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it, from the world around us, natural history, historical record, the fossil record and genetics.
    Enjoy.

    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.


    • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 24 by Beretta, posted 05-04-2008 9:55 AM Beretta has not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 26 by IamJoseph, posted 05-06-2008 10:18 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

      
    IamJoseph
    Member (Idle past 3668 days)
    Posts: 2822
    Joined: 06-30-2007


    Message 26 of 160 (465403)
    05-06-2008 10:18 AM
    Reply to: Message 25 by RAZD
    05-04-2008 1:12 PM


    Re: Deism?
    quote:
    I do believe that life developed "naturally" on earth - it is just that "naturally" was originally designed, and the universe was primed for life to develop.
    A most interesting comment and statement. I fully agree with this, and it ultimately lies behind all beliefs and scientific faculties. Many people assume the laws they call natural laws, are a counter to the source of a belief system and to creationism. I see them as totally alligned and that it cannot be otherwise. Having said that, ultimately, there is no such thing as 'nature' - many forget that too.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 25 by RAZD, posted 05-04-2008 1:12 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

      
    Marcosll
    Junior Member (Idle past 5778 days)
    Posts: 25
    From: Estepona, Spain
    Joined: 02-14-2008


    Message 27 of 160 (465568)
    05-08-2008 6:42 AM
    Reply to: Message 12 by RAZD
    04-27-2008 9:18 PM


    Re: looking at the big picture
    Sorry RAZD but you state
    "Practically speaking all fossils are transitional, as they all show features intermediate between ancestor species and daughter species."
    But since many (if not most) forms of life become extinct prior to evolving it can also be inferred that most fossils represent extinct species that did not transition.
    I also have a serious problem with the Warbler link you post. Just in line 2 it reads "In central Siberia, two distinct forms of greenish warbler coexist without interbreeding, and therefore these forms can be considered distinct species."
    By that logic, if a group of humans go live on some Island and don't interbreed with others in the rest of the world then they are a distinct species?
    So pre Columbus, humans living in The Americas were a different species to those in the rest of the "known" world?
    I can't take any article that makes these "distinctions" seriously.
    I understand that you make no distinction between species since you assume/infer that each species is currently in a state of evolution. However, I think this is exactly the heart of the debate.
    You make no distinction between micro and macro evolution and you state that the only difference is time. I think we have been observing life for enough time where we should see ver distinct new forms of life appearing at some point. We havn't seen that yet in nature.
    Number of Species - The Physics Factbook
    Taz also makes an interesting point with the passanger pigeon. There were hundreds of millions and they dominated the skies and yet they are extinct now, leaving neither fossils nor an evolved species. It's a bit strange that a species so well adapted to life, that dominated the skies, with so much chance for random mutation to lead to adaptation would become extinct without evolving and taking the "next step".
    What can we say for we who dominate the earth? At least we have already left fossils in our "step". But with such a large population will we all evolve into something else? Do we have to isolate some of us and if so for how long?
    1 million+ species on the planet, age of the earth 4 billion, that's 1 totally new species per 4k years (being ultra conservative since logically more species now should evolve at a faster rate than a billion years ago).
    With all this being said, I'm not saying microevolution isn't observed and that it can't lead to macroevolution, what I am trying to point out is that the process is far from being "simple" as you claim.
    If it was so simple, everyone on the planet would grasp is like 2+2=4 and no one would ever question it. The fact it can't be grasped as easily means it's not simple.

    Estepona Apartments - Apartments for sale and rent in Estepona, Spain

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 12 by RAZD, posted 04-27-2008 9:18 PM RAZD has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 28 by Larni, posted 05-08-2008 7:59 AM Marcosll has not replied
     Message 29 by Wounded King, posted 05-08-2008 8:37 AM Marcosll has replied
     Message 34 by RAZD, posted 05-17-2008 8:45 AM Marcosll has not replied

      
    Larni
    Member (Idle past 164 days)
    Posts: 4000
    From: Liverpool
    Joined: 09-16-2005


    Message 28 of 160 (465573)
    05-08-2008 7:59 AM
    Reply to: Message 27 by Marcosll
    05-08-2008 6:42 AM


    Re: looking at the big picture
    Marcosll writes:
    But since many (if not most) forms of life become extinct prior to evolving it can also be inferred that most fossils represent extinct species that did not transition.
    This does not make sense: at what point does an organism evolve? You imply here (correct me if I'm wrong) that an organism must evolve before it dies for evolution to take place.
    This is wrong: simply put the organism needs to breed before it dies to be able to pass on it's genetic information which is different from it's parent.
    There is no point at whic the organism 'evolves'.
    Allele frequency changes occure in the population not the individual. If the population is wiped out by some catastrophy then the populations genetic information cannot propogate through time and this is often picked up in fossil records and genetic bottle necks.
    Sorry to pick on this point but individual organisms do not evolve at a certain point in their life.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 27 by Marcosll, posted 05-08-2008 6:42 AM Marcosll has not replied

      
    Wounded King
    Member
    Posts: 4149
    From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Joined: 04-09-2003


    Message 29 of 160 (465575)
    05-08-2008 8:37 AM
    Reply to: Message 27 by Marcosll
    05-08-2008 6:42 AM


    Re: looking at the big picture
    I also have a serious problem with the Warbler link you post. Just in line 2 it reads "In central Siberia, two distinct forms of greenish warbler coexist without interbreeding, and therefore these forms can be considered distinct species."
    By that logic, if a group of humans go live on some Island and don't interbreed with others in the rest of the world then they are a distinct species?
    So pre Columbus, humans living in The Americas were a different species to those in the rest of the "known" world?
    This doesn't follow, those in the America's were not coexisting with the 'known' world.
    I agree that it is somewhat arbitrary to consider 2 coexisting populations which simply 'choose' not to interbreed as distinct species but it is a perfectly common definition under the Biological Species Concept (BSC).
    There has always been a spectrum of definitions for species encompassing highly stringent definitions, relying on post-mating reproductive isolation such as genetic incompatibility, through gross morphological barriers to mating all the way to behavioural pre-mating barriers as in the Greenish Warbler example.
    In the same way if there were behavioural traits which lead to there being no interbreeding between 2 populations of humans on an island then under the BSC they would be considered distinct species.
    I can't take any article that makes these "distinctions" seriously.
    That would mean you basically don't take any modern population genetics or behaviorally based studies of speciation seriously, nothing in fact not based on the most stringent criteria for defining species.
    If it was so simple, everyone on the planet would grasp is like 2+2=4 and no one would ever question it. The fact it can't be grasped as easily means it's not simple.
    Have you never heard of the Flat Earth Society?
    TTFN,
    WK

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 27 by Marcosll, posted 05-08-2008 6:42 AM Marcosll has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 30 by Marcosll, posted 05-09-2008 4:35 AM Wounded King has replied

      
    Marcosll
    Junior Member (Idle past 5778 days)
    Posts: 25
    From: Estepona, Spain
    Joined: 02-14-2008


    Message 30 of 160 (465672)
    05-09-2008 4:35 AM
    Reply to: Message 29 by Wounded King
    05-08-2008 8:37 AM


    Re: looking at the big picture
    "That would mean you basically don't take any modern population genetics or behaviorally based studies of speciation seriously, nothing in fact not based on the most stringent criteria for defining species."
    No, I'm just saying that in that particular article, their definition of "distinct species" doesn't convince me. 2 populations side by side of one species who don't interbreed in "human observed" time does not, in my opinion, constitute a different species. We have cases of humans living nearby but not interbreeding and we don't consider them a different species.
    I'll cite an example. Darwin, having studied the finches in the Galapagos, had concluded that they were different species, also based on the fact he didn't observe them interbreeding. Well, guess what, so many years later, it is known that they do in fact interbreed after more humans have observed them more closely.
    When the definition of something is loose, it really bothers me when you see that definition being used to draw strict conclusions about something. In this case, species.
    By the way, Flat Earth Society makes no sense at all. But it is a good example of how, if you stack up enough scientifical jargon and get really technical, you can confuse people.
    This is why I'm a big fan of simplicity. At every level, exact science makes simple logical sense, only when our explanation of an event is incomplete/incorrect do things get very hard to follow.
    When I hear that life evolves over time through "random mutations" it makes me cringe because I know for sure there's a simpler answer out there no one's thought of or been able to explain yet.
    "Random mutation" sounds complex and strange and I would place it in the same box as The Flat Earth Society.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 29 by Wounded King, posted 05-08-2008 8:37 AM Wounded King has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 31 by Wounded King, posted 05-09-2008 5:23 AM Marcosll has replied
     Message 92 by pandion, posted 07-25-2009 2:47 AM Marcosll has not replied

      
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.2
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024