Irreduceable Complexity

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?

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

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

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?

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?