Teenage Mutant Ninjas

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
A new species was detected, and no one with any knowledge of biology knows what you're talking about when you babble about "types".

O. gigas is quite fertile. Don't make stuff up. It was described as "self-fertile".

[b] there is no indication of taxa-related speciation

What does that mean?

I recommend you look at this thread:
...[text shortened]... guys throw these made up words around but refuse to clarify what exactly you mean by them.[/b]

Notice how nobody was able to provide scientifically rigorous definitions for many terms used by creationists/IDers. You guys throw these made up words around but refuse to clarify what exactly you mean by them.
Given that scientists of all stripes are pretty much in the same boat, with respect to determining what makes a thing a thing, your 'you guys' cuts a very broad swatch.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]Notice how nobody was able to provide scientifically rigorous definitions for many terms used by creationists/IDers. You guys throw these made up words around but refuse to clarify what exactly you mean by them.
Given that scientists of all stripes are pretty much in the same boat, with respect to determining what makes a thing a thing, your 'you guys' cuts a very broad swatch.[/b]

Species has a scientific definition which clearly you don't know.

Originally posted by XanthosNZ
Species has a scientific definition which clearly you don't know.

Clearly you have a difficult time keeping up with the conversation. I will respectfully type the following as slowly as possible for your benefit:

"A discussion of speciation requires a definition of what constitutes a species. This is a topic of considerable debate within the biological community."

The above quote is from the source previously cited in support of evolution on this thread, a few pages past.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]Notice how nobody was able to provide scientifically rigorous definitions for many terms used by creationists/IDers. You guys throw these made up words around but refuse to clarify what exactly you mean by them.
Given that scientists of all stripes are pretty much in the same boat, with respect to determining what makes a thing a thing, your 'you guys' cuts a very broad swatch.[/b]

Given that scientists of all stripes are pretty much in the same boat,

Please explain. What terms are used in science which are not clearly and rigorously defined? I was very clear about which terms I wanted explained.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Clearly you have a difficult time keeping up with the conversation. I will respectfully type the following as slowly as possible for your benefit:

"A discussion of speciation requires a definition of what constitutes a species. This is a topic of considerable debate within the biological community."

The above quote is from the source previously cited in support of evolution on this thread, a few pages past.

Species is indeed a vague term. The concept of speciation does not perfectly model reality.

However this shouldn't be an issue, because I don't recall any evolutionists saying anything like "it's possible for varieties to diverge from a parent population but these varieties cannot become species". Such a statement would require a clear distinction between "varieties" and "species". Similarly, when IDers say "functional complexity cannot increase without intelligent input" they imply that they have a mathematical proof and method of quantifying "functional complexity" in a mathematically rigorous way.

Scientists do not generally use the word species in such a way as to require rigorous definition. However, I agree; it is a vaguely defined term.

Now you are saying something about "types within types" - these are not terms used scientifically at all, and I've never seen any attempt to define what a "type" is. There are several different definitions of species; one of which is that different species cannot interbreed to produce fertile offspring but are fertile with organisms of their own species. This was the definition - which is quite rigorous - I was using when I described the speciation event.

What definition of "species" are you using and what definition of "types within types" such that you can show that this event is not speciation?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Here's a query for consideration. Can random mutation result in coherent and intelligble information?
...
http://www.randommutation.com/index.php

Of course, that's not how evolution works. It's not random mutation on top of random mutation until something works out. A more realistic example of this would be after each failed mutation the sentence is reset to the original starting sentence and the mutation occurring again. Once a mutation results in something that succeeds, we now have TWO "species" of sentence.

Originally posted by Sickboy
Of course, that's not how evolution works. It's not random mutation on top of random mutation until something works out. A more realistic example of this would be after each failed mutation the sentence is reset to the original starting sentence and the mutation occurring again. Once a mutation results in something that succeeds, we now have TWO "species" of sentence.

And as we all know, nothing succeeds like success! Again, terms such as 'intended results' come into play, rendering this 'process' with powers unseen, undetectable, unprovable... indeed, very unscientific.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Species is indeed a vague term. The concept of speciation does not perfectly model reality.

However this shouldn't be an issue, because I don't recall any evolutionists saying anything like "it's possible for varieties to diverge from a parent population but these varieties cannot become species". Such a statement would require a clear distinction ...[text shortened]... es within types" such that you can show that this event is not speciation?

Methinks thou protesth too much.

Now you are saying something about "types within types" - these are not terms used scientifically at all, and I've never seen any attempt to define what a "type" is.
One wonders what could be made out of this nonsense, found in a commonly-used dictionary by simply typing (get it? typing) the word "type" into the word window and pressing the 'enter' button on my computer:

c : a lower taxonomic category selected as a standard of reference for a higher category; also : a specimen or series of specimens on which a taxonomic species or subspecies is actually based.

What's that all about, anyway?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
It is just this type of assertion that the die-hard evolutionist...just can't seem to get his opposable thumbs around. In a trial-and-error system, only error is truly known. That which works simply works right now, and there can be no preference without a results-oriented intelligence entering the picture. This type of forward-thinking eliminates accomodating language such as 'preference,' 'selection,' or etc.

I'm having trouble finding your objection, and I think the problem is in your understanding of the
definitions of the terms in the discussion. The trial-and-error system is merely survival (success)
and death (failure). An organism which is stronger than another organism is more likely to survive
(and consequently pass on its 'strong genes'😉 than a weaker one in an environment where strength
is a relevant criterion. Better eyesight at the bottom of the ocean where there is no or little
light is not a relevant criterion, for example.

That is all that is meant by 'preference;' no one does the preferring, so to speak. That is all that
is meant by 'environmental pressure'; at the bottom of the ocean, there is no pressure to be
selected for better eyesight or against poor eyesight.

Nemesio

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Methinks thou protesth too much.

[b]Now you are saying something about "types within types" - these are not terms used scientifically at all, and I've never seen any attempt to define what a "type" is.
One wonders what could be made out of this nonsense, found in a commonly-used dictionary by simply typing (get it? typing) the word "type" in ...[text shortened]... a taxonomic species or subspecies is actually based.

What's that all about, anyway?[/b]

To be honest, I've never come across that definition! Thank you for clarifying it. I'll look at your argument again now that you've provided this definition. I didn't bother to look for it since I studied biochemistry in school and never was exposed to this term.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Methinks thou protesth too much.

[b]Now you are saying something about "types within types" - these are not terms used scientifically at all, and I've never seen any attempt to define what a "type" is.
One wonders what could be made out of this nonsense, found in a commonly-used dictionary by simply typing (get it? typing) the word "type" in ...[text shortened]... a taxonomic species or subspecies is actually based.

What's that all about, anyway?[/b]

It's not a scientific term anyway. We might use "variety", or "genotype", or perhaps even "strain", but I've never heard of anyone describing "types" of organism.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
It's not a scientific term anyway. We might use "variety", or "genotype", or perhaps even "strain", but I've never heard of anyone describing "types" of organism.

Whether or not it enjoys currency within your circle of exposure is irrelevant; it has been shown quite clearly to be a term used within any number of branches of science. Let's set aside the semantics and move forward, shall we?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Whether or not it enjoys currency within your circle of exposure is irrelevant; it has been shown quite clearly to be a term used within any number of branches of science. Let's set aside the semantics and move forward, shall we?

No. It is not a term that evolutionary biologists currently use.

Apparently, a "type" is an example which is used as a reference to show what a species or other taxonomic name refers to. For example,

the type specimen for the species Homo neanderthalensis was the specimen "Neanderthal-1" discovered by Johann Karl Fuhlrott in 1856 at Feldhofer in the Neander Valley in Germany, consisting of a skullcap, thigh bones, part of a pelvis, some ribs, and some arm and shoulder bones.

So now we know what a "type" is. What are "types within types"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_%28zoology%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_type

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Apparently, a "type" is an example which is used as a reference to show what a species or other taxonomic name refers to. For example,

[b]the type specimen for the species Homo neanderthalensis was the specimen "Neanderthal-1" discovered by Johann Karl Fuhlrott in 1856 at Feldhofer in the Neander Valley in Germany, consisting of a skullcap, thigh b ...[text shortened]... //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_%28zoology%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_type

Okay a "type specimen" I can live with, but that refers to a single, individual organism.