The End of Evolution By Means of Natural Selection

quote:

---

OK, but I am only thinking that blurring the species interferes with the speciation that is needed to fuel macroevolution. I've been puzzled all along that evolutionists can think this is OK and go on insisting on processes of addition that interfere with the development of new varieties and speciation if their theory requires the emergence of new varieties as apparently it does.

---

But that makes no sense at all. How can a genetic variation not present in the parent population interfere with speciation ? Isn't it more likely to help distinguish the incipient species from the parent population ?

quote:

---

It was intended to show only that drift alone CAN remove alleles completely.

---

No, that was a different diagram. I'm talking about the one that included mutation - or rather a mutation.

quote:

---

Because I'm hoping and assuming that you can construct it yourself from what I HAVE said.

---

I am very reluctant to try to reconstruct your thinking because too much of what you say seems nonsensical.

quote:

---

You think I don't WANT the parent and daughter population to be the same species. How odd. But I EXPECT them to be the same species. I don't believe "speciation" creates a new species (and really, I don't think evolutionists do either no matter what they say) -- it's just a term for the point at which a daughter population can no longer interbreed with others of the same species.

---

Speciation is - by definition - the formation of new species. What you are saying here is that you don't believe that new species have ever formed and neither does anybody else.Which is nuts because even many YECs accept that new species form and I've even seen the argument that YEC views demand that new species must have formed (and very quickly, too).

Thank you for that insight into your psychology.As soon as you learn that the scientific definition of macroevolution includes speciation you suddenly have to start insisting that speciation isn't speciation. I suggest that you really, really think about what you are doing, because I doubt that this is the only time you've done something like that.

quote:

---

If it describes a real event there's nothing wrong with using the term for it, and that's how I've used it, to describe what you describe as speciation.

---

If you are denying that it actually IS the event the word describes then yes, there is a problem. And that is exactly what you are doing, although you have no sensible reason for doing so.

quote:

---

It doesn't have to be a problem that you think it's macroevolution and I don't and I only felt the need to be clearer about it because of something that came up that was confusing, which I now forget, but anyway. Of course you can make a problem out of anything if it suits you, as apparently it does.

---

It is a fact that speciation is macroevolution. It's true by definition. Your statement was not a clarification, simply a denial of a fact that you didn't like. And maybe you don't think that's a problem - but if you have any intention of arguing rationally then you should consider it a problem.

quote:

---

OK since you are going to be that way, I'll call it Variation-that-can't-interbreed-with-its-kin-that-evolutionists-call-speciation.

---

Of course you are still missing the point. The point is that you can't accept that speciation is speciation or that macroevolution is macroevolution. Do you really think that that is not a problem ?

quote:

---

Definitely not a problem, Paul. What on earth do you expect of YECs who want to debate with you, that we believe evolution really even though we say we're YECs?

---

In fact many YECs DO accept that speciation occurs and if they use their own definition of macroevolution it still doesn't change the fact that the scientific definition of macroevolution includes speciation by definition.What I expect from anyone in a debate is intellectual honesty and a recognition that they do not get to dictate what is and is not true. I don't have to believe something just because you say it.

quote:

---

I really don't get it. Of course I don't see things the way evolutionists do. It's another paradigm entirely. The terminology is used differently, facts are understood within different interpretive contexts -- same facts, different interpretive context. We try to adapt to your terminology but we can only go so far.

---

Of course, if you were being intellectually honest there is no reason why you could not accept the scientific definitions. There is no good reason to secretly use private definitions at all - it can only mislead and deceive. And that's all there is here.According to the scientific definitions speciation happens and therefore macroevolution happens. And you admit that. Just introducing your own definitions - which are not even adequately defined - does nothing to deny these facts. It just makes you look like someone who absolutely refuses to accept the truth. And now you want to tell me that you really accept that speciation happens and macroevolution happens - by the scientific definitions of these words - but that you secretly switched to using private definitions you hadn't even shared with us ? That would be a very silly - and dishonest - thing to do.

quote:

---

So there is a real event that you all call speciation and I really don't have a problem with that term as such UNTIL you try to force me to accept the evolutionist interpretation of it, which is what you are doing now.

---

But I'm not trying to force an interpretation of speciation on you. Speciation is by definition the formation of a new species, and the inability to interbreed in the wild is accepted as a valid criterion for speciation. That's it. There's no special interpretation here, just definitions and scientifically accepted criteria. If you want to argue honestly the best thing you can do is accept the scientific definitions and criteria. Not refuse to accept them because you have an irrational objection to accepting that macroevolution occurs.

quote:

---

And my argument itself is intended to show that macroevolution is impossible, so to try to force that term on me is pretty underhanded.

---

Of course I'm not doing anything underhanded. If you misunderstand the meaning of the word macroevolution and if in fact your argument does not show that macroevolution as scientifically defined is impossible that is your problem - I'm not doing anything "underhanded" in pointing it out. You never intended your argument to rule out speciation - as scientifically defined - nor even macroevolution - as scientifically defined. This point doesn't affect your arguments or your intent at all. You simply misunderstood what macroevolution is.The only problem here is the one that you create for yourself. If you make a mistake - and it is your responsibility to try to avoid making mistakes - accept it and move on. Don't issue angry and incoherent denials or accuse others of dishonesty simply for pointing out a truth that you don't like. Are you really so ruled by pride and anger that you can't handle honest debate ?

quote:

---

The lack of intellectual honesty in this is on the evolutionist's side, simply definitionally making a new frog variety into a new species by terminological sleight of hand.

---

There is no terminological dishonesty here. The definitions and criteria for identifying species were not constructed to "prove" evolution. And you don't even have a competing definition to offer, let alone one that is somehow "true".

quote:

---

Exactly my position. You don't get to dictate what is and is not true, and in the case of the term speciation it's just a definitional ploy.

---

If that were true you would have to have a competing definition of species and criteria for identifying them. Ones that were somehow correct where those used by science are wrong. But you don't. All you are doing is throwing false accusations.

quote:

---

That is a lie, just a self-serving lie.

---

You are the one who claims to be using other definitions. And you haven't offered any or explained where they are to be found. How can they not be private definitions ? And you have offered no good reasons for not using the scientific definitions. No lie, but a simple truth here.

quote:

---

I admit that the event called speciation happens. It is not macroevolution and it is nothing but lying word magic to call it macroevolution.

---

There is no lying, no word magic here, just simple fact. Macroevolution is defined in science as evolution at the species level or above. Thus speciation is macroevolution according to the standard definition. If by "macroevolution" you simply mean some private definition then you are the one engaging in word-trickery. If you mean the standard definition then you are the one attempting word-magic. I am simply following the standard usage of science, no tricks, no magic, just honest fact.

quote:

---

What I look like among lying delusional evolutionists can hardly matter.

---

Yet there are no lies here, simply facts that you refuse to accept.

quote:

---

That is a self-serving lie.

---

No lie, just simple facts. You clearly reject the standard definitions. There is no such thing as objective right and wrong in definitions. So if you accept that speciation occurs according to the scientific definitions and criteria you do accept that macroevolution by the scientific definition occurs. If you do not accept that then arguing abut definitions is pointless, but it is all that you offer.

quote:

---

It's accepted by self-serving delusional evolutionists and I have a right to disagree with you all.

---

I suppose that you have the "right" to reject the truth and to falsely accuse those who disagree with you. And that is what you are doing.As I said you don't get to dictate the truth. You do not get to dictate that your private definitions are objectively right and the standard scientific usage is wrong. And telling the truth is not lying.

quote:

---

When science is simply what evolutionists call it, science is a sham.

---

And yet you offer no better science. No objective reasons to reject my points. You simply throw false accusation after false accusation.

quote:

---

Macroevolution does not occur and evolutionist insistence that what is really still the same species is a new species in the sense of macroevolution is a dishonest trick.

---

By what criteria do you decree that science is wrong and what science identifies as a new species is not a new species ? And there is no special definition of species for macroevolution as you claim - not in the standard scientific definition. There is no trick here.

quote:

---

I know what it implies and the use of the term is underhanded, tendentious and dishonest.

---

And yet you offer no reason to say that it is any of those things. Apart from the implication that everybody ought to accept your definitions as somehow objectively true - definitions you haven't even bothered to share with us. As I have said I am not using a private definition - just the standard definition used by science. I am not attempting to trick you into accepting anything beyond that. So how can it be dishonest ? I don't even know what your definitions are, I didn't even know that you were using private definitions until you said so and I was clear that I was using the scientific definitions so I don't see how your accusation can possibly stand.

quote:

---

The dishonesty here is yours. Probably also the pride and anger.

---

Your post proves otherwise.Edited by PaulK, : Fixed close quote tag

This thread served once again to demonstrate the arrogance and closed-mindedness of creationists. Refusing to learn from the original thread, Faith never tried to quantify the loss or gain of genetic diversity, not even proposing a measure or even a basis for one, although it is clear that the simplest and most obvious - a count of the differing alleles found at each locus - was no good to her.The OP should have served as a clear warning sign. Despite quoting the major counter-argument from the original thread Faith utterly failed to deal with it. Aside from apparently asserting that adding variation didn't add variation her sole attempt to deal with mutations only allowed one single mutation, begging the question. She went on to assert that it was not "a simple addition and subtraction problem" but never explained what the complications were, let alone how they actually helped her case. And this continued throughout the thread - Faith posted well over 200 posts, and never once managed to clearly address this major counter-argument from the original thread, a point that she herself acknowledged and intended to address.In fact it is quite likely that Faith did not understand what she was saying much of the time. Some of her statements were jaw-dropping, obvious falsehoods. Her argument was often vague and she was even unable to explain the relevance of points she made. I am thinking of her idea that there was some problem with mutations "blurring" the "character' of the species, which seemed to be somehow based on the idea that dog-breeders deliberately maintain the appearance of particular breeds. However, by that point it was already clear that breeders had taken advantage of at least one mutation - causing the short legs of the dachshund - so it was far from clear that mutations were automatically a problem even in dog breeding, let alone in wild species.We also saw her typical attempts to arbitrarily exclude evidence that she could not answer. In this case from bacteria. Granted it is not so bad as the time she insisted that we should only look at ONE END of a diagram because the other depicted strong evidence against her claims, but still it is pretty bad. Indeed, her excuse that bacteria have greater genetic diversity rather begs the question given that bacteria, because they evolve rapidly and reproduce asexually, should be prime candidates for the very loss of diversity that her argument demands. And if her argument doesn't apply to bacteria, why assume that it applies to anything else ?Perhaps the climax was when it became clear that Faith actually accepted macroevolution, as it was defined within the scientific community. Rather than accept that she meant something else by the word she went on to make completely unfounded accusations of dishonesty in a post that practically begged for a suspension (accusing other participants in the discussion of lying is frowned on here, even when it is justified). I wish that I could say that it was surprising, but anyone familiar with Faith's history here should have expected it. I kept silent when she returned, giving her the benefit of the doubt and not wishing to cause trouble but I did not expect her return to work out in any other way.Sad to say, perhaps the biggest question raised by this thread is "why was Faith allowed back ?"