Why does evolutionary science seem to be

Then be the original, the first, and define "kinds". I mean a serious and workable definition/delineation....not some "I'll wait until you give me two organisms and then let you know if by my own little eyes I think they are of the same kind".

quote:

---

You know I think it is funny how different species can copulate. Yet to me defining a species that can copulate and conceive of one another is kind of like lying. How do we define species that can not copulate or produce offspring of one another? You’d think that’s what species means

---

The only barrier to evolution is the creation of a new species. Speciation occurs when two populations that were previously able to produce fertile offspring are no longer able to. This has been observed. This isolates each of the populations genetic makeup and allows them to diverge. I see no other barrier to evolution, except for physical extremes (1,000 degree magma chambers for example). I have yet to see any creationist show how speciation can occur without the consequence of wildly divergent species over time. Creationist try to say their is a barrier, at the Kind Level, without ever defining what the kinds are. To say there is a barrier, or a bound, seems to be an assumption with nothing to back it up. An empty assertion. I see it a lot around here, and seem to be hypersensitive to it lately(keep feeding those trolls ). But anyway, just my whole view on the "genetic barrier" thing. The evidence is just to strong for me to ignore, no matter what my pride wants me to believe.

The biological species concept says that a species is a population (or group of populations) that have the potential to interbreed and produce viable, fertile offspring. (Campbell's Biology 5th ed.)The biological species concept is not applicable in all situations, such as when dealing with asexual organisms. Some different species can mate and create fertile and non-fertile hybrids. Mules are non-fertile. Many fish species can hybridize within the same genus. Wolf and dog and coyote orgies, oh my! The biological species concept seems to break down in many situations, doesn't it?However, one thing that no one that I know of mentioned was that reproductive isolation isn't just at the genetic level. It also involves habitat isolation, temporal isolation, behavioral isolation, mechanical isolation and gametic isolation. (Campbell)Some organisms don't normally meet (lions and tigers) in the wild.Species can also be isolated based on when they mate.Some species are also just not attracted to other species, or they see the other species as food or competition.Sometimes the parts just don't fit!Sometimes the gametes, even if they are in the same general area (water, uterus), just aren't attracted (chemically) to each other.The species that we see producing viable hybrids have either had their normal environmental barriers broken down or are just not that far away from their common ancestry with another species.The "discrepencies" in the biological species concept, however, do not strengthen the case against speciation nor show that "kinds" actually might mean something.

quote:

---

I don't like the methods we use to break down species. Why we could use the same methods on man, well we do in a sense with the term race, but whats keeping science from breaking man down like they have the finch?

---

The barriers between the finches, I would say, would most likely be behavioral. Each finch has a specialized beak for its specific food. Also, habitat isolation would also probably play a part.The bahavioral and habitat barriers that exist for the finches do not exist for humans.

Is science not at a point to determine the barriers with which a species is not able to breed with another. I think that is where you start. Keep the species as they are but isolate them in catagories to show where the boundries lie in the reproductive process. Is that too much to ask?

Typical. Hitchy gave you a very good run down of the species concept, then you ignore him and keep harping about your barriers and boundaries.The theory of common descent argues that we should expect that the likelihood of two organisms being able to reproduce is inversely proportional to the amount of generations between them and their most recent common ancestor. Is this or is this not what we observe in nature? Do you have any better explanation for the reproductive 'boundaries' you seem so fond of but cannot define?

---

The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

Whats typical is getting a watered down reply to my request. Why can't we catagorize creatures who are able to reproduce with each other with those who can't. Genetic barriers exist. Now answer the question how hard would it be to define the different species that exist within those barriers. What is the big deal? Is that too much to ask? Does it hurt evolutionary science to pull this off?[This message has been edited by Jagz Beach, 02-11-2004]

You may not have received the answer you wanted, but that doesn't make it a bad answer. The only difference between interfertile organisms and those who cannot reproduce with one another is the amount of genetic change that has taken place since the organisms' last common ancestor lived. Evidently you can't tell me whether this is what we observe in nature or not.The fact that modern species are derived from previous populations makes it by definition completely arbitrary to draw a magic Jagz Beach line separating the 'old' species from the 'new' one. This is the difference between Darwinism and creationism. You, my friend, want us to believe there are magic barriers and boundaries, but you can't tell us what they are or why they're there.Come on, Jagz, you tell us why we're wrong about this common descent thing. We're waiting.

---

The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

Do we not know and understand that all men and women evolved from one woman and woman? And that we are not kin to the Neanderthal. Now does this fact you stipulate to result from something that can be tested? Verified? Repeated? Falsified?[This message has been edited by Jagz Beach, 02-11-2004]

Jagz,Answer my questions. We've all taken turns explaining things to you, now you explain yourself. What do you propose to explain species, and what useful theory do you have to explain the relationships among organisms?

---

The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

We can sit here and theororize the issue until we are blue in the face. That’s not what I am here to do. I want answers not theories. IMO Theories can act more like questions to facts that exist, than they do answers. We are taking pieces of realities puzzle, and are using theories to arrange them to suit the will of our imagination. Thats just not good enough for me. Whats wrong with wanting to see the edges of realities pieces? I prefer to keep the facts seperate from the theories.This place reminds me of a football message board. Forget about about what team we are all on. Let's keep our eye on the ball, and the ball in this game is the facts.[This message has been edited by Jagz Beach, 02-12-2004]

No. And No.For the first I imagine you are misinterpreting the mitochondrial eve research. This shows we all have one common female ancestor, not that she was the only woman alive at that time.We are 'kin' to the Neanderthal, although we do not seem to be directly descended from them.

Jagz,Fine, then what are the facts as you see them? What is your explanation for the relationships among species? Tell me what the scientific facts tell you.{edited to add:}
Since we're talking facts, I repeat: the theory of common descent argues that we should expect that the likelihood of two organisms being able to reproduce is inversely proportional to the amount of generations between them and their most recent common ancestor. Is this or is this not what we observe in nature?[This message has been edited by MrHambre, 02-12-2004]

---

The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

you just used hell and damning in a sentence to demean God.

quote:

---

We can sit here and theororize the issue until we are blue in the face. That’s not what I am here to do. I want answers not theories

---

A theory is an explanation of the facts/observations. They are answers. You a making a common mistake by using the colloquial definition of theory in a scientific debate.

quote:

---

We are taking pieces of realities puzzle, and are using theories to arrange them to suit the will of our imagination.

---

We are looking at the puzzle of reality, but the theories exist b/c of the observations/facts of nature and natural phenomena, not vice-versa. I like the puzzle analogy. However, it would be correct to say that theories are the explanations to why the pieces fit togehter the way they do. Theories don't produce/make the evidence. Theories explain what is already there.

quote:

---

Forget about about what team we are all on. Let's keep our eye on the ball, and the ball in this game is the facts.

---

Actually, facts really don't mean much and aren't very useful w/o an explanation. As a teacher, I don't care if my students can just spit out facts. I try to get them to synthesize, analyze, and apply information. Thinking critically is more important than mere fact.(added by edit)I am sorry if my 'attempted' explanation of pre-zygotic 'barriers' to hybridization was not up to snuff and a little watered down. I'll try better next time jagz. Sorry if I offended your "scientific sensibilities".[This message has been edited by hitchy, 02-12-2004]

Stop Jacking me around with your smoke and mirror act.I don't know what your definition of 'Kin' is but mine is 'of the same nature, or of the same kind'. So your wrong there for saying no, for Neanderthal is not the same kind. And your also wrong about saying no redarding one woman when by your own admission you practivcally said the same exact thing but used the term female rather than woman. Why you had to throw that she wasn't the only woman is beyond me as if it even had any baering on the argument. How do we know if a theory is right or wrong? We don't, until it is considered a fact there will always be a question that's why we call it science. Let's keep things in perspective; if an answer can neither be verified right or wrong, then is not that answer more of a question than an answer? Granted I will aknowledge the reality of theories to be explanations, but an answer hardly. To me theories are just another question to be answered. I have to keep things in their proper perspective regarding keeping the scientific method sound. Therefore to me a theory is not an answer, but rather a question or an explanation that can not be regarded as fact. I am after the facts. ROFLMAO get a grip what the what the what.