Originally posted by The CougarWhat are the necessary conditions two organisms must meet in order to be of differing forms? I ask this because I'm familiar with biological notions of speciation, which utilize the Biological Species Concept, but in debates I often find antagonists towards evolutionary theory adverting to some notion of a natural kind or form of life that is never well defined. Please enlighten us as to the nature of this notion you're employing.
No, actually the process that is fueling the spread of MRSA is called natural selection, not evolution, unless you further divide the term, "evolution" into macro- and micro-evolution. Some use the term "microevolution" when they actually mean natural selection. Natural selection is when a particular form of organism that is more adapted to it's enviro ...[text shortened]... ake these new organisms, which could never happen by chance, random processes, and time.
Originally posted by The Cougar"the additions of totally new, functional, traits arising in an organism from new code, does not happen, unless, as I have stated previously, some creative individual puts it there."
Ah, dog breeding. Actually, a Dane and a Chihuahua *can* interbreed. You would be surprised at the crosses that have been made, currently called Designer Dogs. Now, those two particular breeds may have to be artificially inseminated (AI), but that can not be used as an excuse that they are not the same species, because then you would have to say that a ...[text shortened]... . This is *not* macroevolution.
And it's ark, not arc. That is a geometric shape. 🙂
So different breeds of dogs do not have new, functional traits? Or are you suggesting that dog breeders are somehow directly inserting new genetic code into their dogs?
So what, exactly, is your definition of a species? The dictionary defines it as animals that can interbreed. AKC bulldogs cannot, but they are still commonly considered part of the dog species. Horses and donkeys, on the other hand, while being able to naturally interbreed, are commonly considered to be separate species. Because the genetics of animals is always changing through natural selection (i.e. evolution), the catagory of "species" does not always divide organisms into hard and fast groups. They are, instead, on a continuum, which is why the telephone analagy works.
Originally posted by XanthosNZXanth, I stopped because I'm not getting anywhere. I'm tired of putting up with your inane, stupid, unbelievable crap and name-calling anger. If it were possible for you to be open-minded enough to at least listen to what I wrote, you MIGHT see the truth. But I know your not, since your only interested in posting crap an nonsense.
And Acemaster, you're a retard. You stopped answering questions in this thread long ago when you couldn't find any good answers. Remember how you claimed that the Sun was shrinking at some ridiculous rate? This thread would have died if it hadn't been from a new retard stepping into the fray despite having on idea about the most basic concepts.[/b]
This unsuspecting new guy is not a retard. He just knows what he's talking about, and want's you to hear it, WITHOUT all your flare-ups and stupidity.
Originally posted by scottishinnz
It's possible you are the dumbest person to ever live.
Takes one to know one, Scotty.
Originally posted by XanthosNZOriginally posted by XanthosNZ
They're selected against by being unable to breed with another hybrid to produce more of them?
> Macro and micro evolution are meaingless definitions people attempt to use to allow for the disbelief of evolution on a large scale while allowing the evolution that we see every single day. <
I did not originate these terms, I am merely using them according to their previously, and commonly, accepted interpretations. I must agree with your premise that the use of the two different variations of the word evolution is not optimal. It would be much more accurate and less confusing if people just called natural selection by that name, and stuck with evolution to mean what people commonly think of, which is what some have called 'macroevolution'.
Originally posted by XanthosNZ
> They're selected against by being unable to breed with another hybrid to produce more of them? <
Well, not always. While this web site is evolutionary, and I do not agree with that aspect:
http://members.aol.com/darwinpage/mayrspecies.htm
I quote it, and agree with this statement:
> "The biological meaning of species is thus quite apparent: "The segregation of the total genetic variability of nature into discrete packages, so called species, which are separated from each other by reproductive barriers, prevents the production of too great a number of disharmonious incompatible gene combinations. This is the basic biological meaning of species and this is the reason why there are discontinuities between sympatric species. We do know that genotypes are extremely complex epigenetic systems. There are severe limits to the amount of genetic variability that can be accommodated in a single gene pool without producing too many incompatible gene combinations" (Mayr 1969, 316). The validity of this argument is substantiated by the fact that hybrids between species, particularly in animals, are almost always of inferior viability and more extreme hybrids are usually even sterile. "Almost always" means that there are species interpreted to be the result of hybridization, particularly among plants, but except for the special case of allopolyploidy, such cases are rare."
Originally posted by scottishinnzOriginally posted by scottishinnz :
I'll ask you for empirical proof for everything you state in your post at this point. Let's start with an easy one. Empirical proof for the existence of Adam and Eve.
> I'll ask you for empirical proof for everything you state in your post at this point. Let's start with an easy one. Empirical proof for the existence of Adam and Eve. <
Well, there are many, many websites that are available via a simple Google search that would address many of your questions, and also many, many books. Personally, I particularly like C.S. Lewis, and a good starter book is his, "Mere Christianity", but all his books are fascinating, and many are educational, as well. I will answer this one, though - empirical proof for the existence of Adam and Eve would be...the existence of you, and me, and all the other people on this earth. 🙂
Originally posted by bbarrOriginally posted by bbarr
What are the necessary conditions two organisms must meet in order to be of differing forms? I ask this because I'm familiar with biological notions of speciation, which utilize the Biological Species Concept, but in debates I often find antagonists towards evolutionary theory adverting to some notion of a natural kind or form of life that is never well defined. Please enlighten us as to the nature of this notion you're employing.
> What are the necessary conditions two organisms must meet in order to be of differing forms? I ask this because I'm familiar with biological notions of speciation, which utilize the Biological Species Concept, but in debates I often find antagonists towards evolutionary theory adverting to some notion of a natural kind or form of life that is never well defined. Please enlighten us as to the nature of this notion you're employing. <
Ah, this is, indeed, an excellent question, and one which I am sure that you know exists, and not just in little debates in cyberspace forums, but in the scientific community itself. I defer to the experts to eventually come up with a totally accurate definition of "species", if one will ever exist. This is called, as I am sure you are aware, "The species problem." I did not create this name, obviously, and I refer you to this web site, that, while I do not agree with the evolutionary parts of it, I find most interesting, and an excellent summary, though somewhat lengthy, of the problems associated with the definition of species:
http://members.aol.com/darwinpage/mayrspecies.htm
The four quotes below are from the above website:
> "(2) The species category. Here the word 'species' indicates the rank in the Linnaean hierarchy. The species category is the class that contains all taxa of species rank. It articulates the concept of the biological species and is defined by the species definition. The principal use of the species definition is to facilitate a decision on the ranking of species level populations, that is, to answer the question about an isolated population: "Is it a full species or a subspecies?" The answer to this question has to be based on inference (the criteria on the basis of which such a decision is made are listed in the technical taxonomical literature, e.g., in Mayr and Ashlock 1991, 100-105). A complication is produced by the fact that in the Linnaean hierarchy asexual "species" are also ranked in the species category, even though they do not represent the BSC. "
> "The literature traditionally has referred to the "species problem." However, it is now quite clear that there are two different sets of species problems, one being the problem of how to define the species (what species concept to adopt), and the other being how to apply this concept in the demarcation of species taxa. It is necessary to discuss these two sets of problems separately. "
> "The basic message which emerges from this account of the numerous difficulties of the species problem is that the definition of the biological species must be based on its biological significance, which is the maintenance of the integrity of well balanced, harmonious gene pools. The actual demarcation of species taxa uses morphological, geographical, ecological, behavioral, and molecular information to infer the rank of isolated populations. "
> "What is often the basic problem is an insufficiency of needed information. This is why the decision about the status of isolated populations has to be based on inference, it is not given directly by the available data."
Originally posted by whiteroseOriginally posted by whiterose:
"the additions of totally new, functional, traits arising in an organism from new code, does not happen, unless, as I have stated previously, some creative individual puts it there."
So different breeds of dogs do not have new, functional traits? Or are you suggesting that dog breeders are somehow directly inserting new genetic code into their dogs?
...[text shortened]... nd fast groups. They are, instead, on a continuum, which is why the telephone analagy works.
> So what, exactly, is your definition of a species? The dictionary defines it as animals that can interbreed. AKC bulldogs cannot, but they are still commonly considered part of the dog species. Horses and donkeys, on the other hand, while being able to naturally interbreed, are commonly considered to be separate species. Because the genetics of animals is always changing through natural selection (i.e. evolution), the catagory of "species" does not always divide organisms into hard and fast groups. They are, instead, on a continuum, which is why the telephone analagy works. <
I have already addressed the telephone analogy, so I will not repeat that here; natural selection and the commonly understood term of 'evolution' are not the same, as I have already stated; dog genetics are discussed below; and I refer you to my response to bbarr for discussion of the definition of species.
Originally posted by The Cougar:
> "the additions of totally new, functional, traits arising in an organism from new code, does not happen, unless, as I have stated previously, some creative individual puts it there."
Response by - whiterose:
> So different breeds of dogs do not have new, functional traits? Or are you suggesting that dog breeders are somehow directly inserting new genetic code into their dogs? <
You are misunderstanding my statement, as I said "totally *new*, functional, traits arising in an organism from *new* code..."
The traits that can be achieved in the offspring of a breeding between two dissimilar dogs, let us use a theoretical breeding between an AKC Schnauzer x an AKC shorthaired, piebald (white with spots of color) Dachshund as an example, will indeed, be different than either of the parents. The F1 offspring will all have a wire type of coat (because wirehair is dominant over shorthair), inherited from the Schnauzer; and they probably will have a somewhat elongated body structure, inherited from the Dachshund; and they will probably be shorter legged than the Schnauzer parent, but taller than the Dachshund parent. Also, they will all probably be solid black, or grayish, in color, as Schnauzers generally are what is called, "Salt and Pepper", although some do come in white.
If the F1's are mated together, they will produce, in the F2 generation, a wide variety of offspring, with some being shorthaired, as well as the dominant wirehair; some will be solid color, while others will be piebald (I could give you all the gene names for the colors, but this information is not needed here); and the variation of leg length will run the gamut from short legged to long legged. If you are interested in reading further on dog genetics, there are many excellent books on the subject, one of which is rather dated and out of print, but which still contains much useful information, by Malcolm Willis, "Genetics of the Dog".
However, none of these features is a "totally new" trait, as both the Schnauzer and the Dachshund have hair, and they both have backs, and they both have legs, and they both have pigment. The genes that are coding for these traits are various alleles of genes already present in the organism, not, as I stated, "new code".
By "new code", I meant just that, as say, to use the same example that I used in my previous post, when mice have genes from either jellyfish or fireflies inserted that cause them to exhibit, as I previously stated, "totally new, functional, traits", which in this particular case, is fluorescence, which mice do not do without the addition of this new code. As I stated previously, this is the reason that evolution, in the common understanding of the word, (not natural selection, which happens all the time), can not be logically accepted. Since DNA is the language that controls the heritable traits in living beings, whether plant or animal, the statistical unlikelihood of the possibility of quantities of positive mutations all getting together simultaneously to produce a viable change in a necessary life function, like a lung change for example, or a totally new trait, like glow in the dark mice, precludes the logical acceptance of the possibility of evolution.
1 edit
Originally posted by The CougarRight, so here is the problem with your answer:
Originally posted by bbarr
> What are the necessary conditions two organisms must meet in order to be of differing forms? I ask this because I'm familiar with biological notions of speciation, which utilize the Biological Species Concept, but in debates I often find antagonists towards evolutionary theory adverting to some notion of a natural kind or fo to be based on inference, it is not given directly by the available data."
You distinguish between microevolution and macroevolution. You claim the former is observed and the latter has not been. Yet you will count as evidence for the occurrence of the latter only instances of one form evolving into another form. So, your argument against evolution is predicated upon your ability to rule out cases of one form evolving into another form. But if you are unable to tell us what constitutes 'forms' or 'kinds', then your claim that macroevolution hasnt' been observed is unfalsifiable.
So, again, what constitutes a 'form' or a 'kind'?
Edit: Mayr doesn't talk in terms of forms or kinds, he uses the B.S.C, which distinguishes between species on the basis of natural barriers to reproduction (and not, for instance, on the basis of the ability to produce viable offspring). If you are utilizing Mayr's notion of species, then there are many observed cases of speciation and, hence, macroevolution.
Originally posted by The CougarI don't know where you learned your logic, but according to it, we would equally be proof of any number of mutually exclusive beliefs too.
Originally posted by scottishinnz :
> I'll ask you for empirical proof for everything you state in your post at this point. Let's start with an easy one. Empirical proof for the existence of Adam and Eve. <
Well, there are many, many websites that are available via a simple Google search that would address many of your questions, and also many, many b ...[text shortened]... and Eve would be...the existence of you, and me, and all the other people on this earth. 🙂
You may be proof of Adam and Eve, but that's okay, I'm proof of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Originally posted by AcemasterMy last post before you stopped responding regarded your claim that the dust (or lack thereof) on the Moon was proof a young universe. I posted a rebuttal which showed that even creationists have given up on that argument because it's incorrect. And you never returned. You claim that you left because I'm not open-minded enough, I claim that you left because you didn't have a good answer as to why you are attempting to use previously discredited "evidence". I wonder which view everyone else in the thread took?
Xanth, I stopped because I'm not getting anywhere. I'm tired of putting up with your inane, stupid, unbelievable crap and name-calling anger. If it were possible for you to be open-minded enough to at least listen to what I wrote, you MIGHT see the truth. But I know your not, since your only interested in posting crap an nonsense.
This unsuspecting new ...[text shortened]... t's possible you are the dumbest person to ever live.
Takes one to know one, Scotty.[/b]
Originally posted by The CougarHow is a dog having a different coat, or hair color, or leg length than any dog bred before it not a totally new, functional trait? Every animal that is born has "new" code, as no animal's genetic code is the same as any other(except, of course, for identical twins). So why shouldn't the "new"(i.e.never existed before) code of any animal not give it a trait that is functional? Perhaps it is a dog that is smaller than all other dogs before it. Perhaps it can burrow down rat holes easily and feed itself better than other dogs, and is thus naturally selected for.
Originally posted by whiterose:
> So what, exactly, is your definition of a species? The dictionary defines it as animals that can interbreed. AKC bulldogs cannot, but they are still commonly considered part of the dog species. Horses and donkeys, on the other hand, while being able to naturally interbreed, are commonly considered to be separate species. ...[text shortened]... ark mice, precludes the logical acceptance of the possibility of evolution.
As for evolution vs natural selection, from the website that you quoted:
Natural selection. The differential survival and reproduc-
tion of organisms with genetic characteristics that enable
them to better utilize environmental resources.
Evolution. The long-term process through which a population
of organisms accumulats genetic changes that enable its
members to successfully adapt to environmental conditions
and to better exploit food resources.
So you believe that certain genetic characteristics will be selected for, but not that this will change the genetics of the population over time? That makes no sense.
Originally posted by XanthosNZBump because apparently Acemaster forgot about this thread when confronted with actual facts. Again.
My last post before you stopped responding regarded your claim that the dust (or lack thereof) on the Moon was proof a young universe. I posted a rebuttal which showed that even creationists have given up on that argument because it's incorrect. And you never returned. You claim that you left because I'm not open-minded enough, I claim that you left becaus ...[text shortened]... se previously discredited "evidence". I wonder which view everyone else in the thread took?