Microevolution & Macroevolution

[DeletedUser30834]

Rather than argue the facts presented in the reports and studies provided, you once again use another fallacy in trying to discredit the hosting site of three of the reports/studies I linked.

First, Talkorigins is not a site dedicated to pushing anything. It's a site providing facts and evidence and focuses heavily on providing facts/evidence directed at all the "Intelligent Design" crap being spewed out by fundamentalists.

I posted what they said on their website. I have reviewed most if not all of the items presented there. I was actually a member of the newsgroup at one point in time and viewed most of it before the site was ever created. The bottom line is that all events claimed to have resulted in a new species in science today took either unnatural manipulation from humans or require semantics to support the speciation event which does not jive with any of the accepted definitions of species. It is sad when you change the definition of species just to claim a new species was created and therefor your idea or concept proves something else wrong..lol If you do not like it, then find a real speciation event that fits the common definition of species.

There really is no point in bogging down this discussion with repeatedly responding to Sumdumass' continued efforts at posing fallacious arguments (rather than what he should be doing, which is to present facts and evidence in support of his posturings), I'll merely reiterate that Sumdumass hasn't presented any evidence in this thread (in fact, I can't recall him "ever" presenting evidence in "any" discussion).

You would have a short memory. and the reason I didn't provide any evidence is because you provided all for me. Nothing you listed or linked to provided anything other then what I have said. Go ahead and show where it does. You cannot and I doubt you have even read half of it. It all relies on semantics with a pick and choose which part of what definition of species to ignore in order to make the claims.

And we are left with Sumdumass (and WillyPete) using excerpts from a book, of less than 775,000 words, to pose fallacious arguments in an effort to discredit tens of thousands of scientific researchers, each with at least one doctoral degree, a requisite of at least 8 years of indepth study each, constituting an absolute minimum of 80,000 years of educational mass.

Kinda silly when you put it into perspective...​

​

I'm not sure what you are talking about. I have never said creation was the real answer or the bible is correct over evolutions. I said evolution is not what you are making out to be and parts of it has not been proven irrefutably yet.

In contrast you are claiming creation is wrong when you have no proof it is. I'm sorry to tell you this, but even if Speciation through evolution was real and I missed on real new species, it does not disprove any other way natural or divine. Finding a way to do something in science does not shut down any other way.

Btw, you shameless pagan, you took that passage completely out of context. It was in reference to idolizing and worship of other gods, particularly in reference to the sin of such actions according to the Old Testament.

Wow.. you are really stooping so low to try and insult someone over their religious affiliation. This is the strength of your argument, so sad.

Actually, the more they (scientists) realize you (ignorant masses) don't know. At least they're bothering to get an education. You're still busy hiding behind text written by primitive sheepherders from the bronze age to bother to obtain an education and instead blaspheme the very people who devised means to save lives, created technologies to house, to transport, to feed, and discovered how to manage electricity so you can bother us with your inane ramblings via the internetz.

Interesting choice of words there. Blaspheme Are you saying science is your religion or is this another continuation of your attempts at personal insults?

 

[DeletedUser]

You would have a short memory. and the reason I didn't provide any evidence is because you provided all for me. Nothing you listed or linked to provided anything other then what I have said. Go ahead and show where it does. You cannot and I doubt you have even read half of it. It all relies on semantics with a pick and choose which part of what definition of species to ignore in order to make the claims.

so your evidence is that our evidence is faulty? can you not provide any evidence of your own?

In contrast you are claiming creation is wrong when you have no proof it is.

what, apart from a wealth of scientific evidence accumulated over the centuries?

Are you saying science is your religion or is this another continuation of your attempts at personal insults?

and your point is...? you choose to ignore the key point of HS's statement. come on, try harder.

 

[DeletedUser]

and your point is...? you choose to ignore the key point of HS's statement. come on, try harder.

Indeed, that was a paltry effort on Sumdumass' part, but I'm not surprised. His present argument is, "I haven't read any of the information, links, references, citations provided, and I don't think you have either, so they don't exist."

 

[DeletedUser30834]

so your evidence is that our evidence is faulty? can you not provide any evidence of your own?

My evidence of what? What claim have I made here? Tell me what type of evidence I would need to prove it. I'm betting that you are not even bothering with what I write rather then holding something you assume. If you doubt my claim that all known claims of speciation are semantics games that do not jive with the definition of species, all you have to is look at what hellstrom presented then look up species.

what, apart from a wealth of scientific evidence accumulated over the centuries?

Yes, what part of that shows creation to be wrong? We create things all the time, we even have artificial life in which all or portions of the DNA is artificial. If all the scientific data collected over the centuries say it is impossible to create something, they why are we doing it right now? You see, the science does not say creation is incorrect, it is you reading the science and incorrectly interpreting it.

and your point is...? you choose to ignore the key point of HS's statement. come on, try harder.

Of course I'm ignoring keys parts of his statement, they are not what he or they are claiming without some sort of manipulation of definitions and word play. But it would make sense if evolution is his religion as he seems to be pushing it harder then any born again fundamentalist christian I have ever met.

Indeed, that was a paltry effort on Sumdumass' part, but I'm not surprised. His present argument is, "I haven't read any of the information, links, references, citations provided, and I don't think you have either, so they don't exist."

That would be where your imagination got the best of you. The present argument is that the links do not say what you think they say, they try to say it but need to manipulate definitions to reach that goal. It is simply a fact that there has been no observed new species of animal from a previous species that does not rely on word games.

 

[DeletedUser]

We create things all the time, we even have artificial life in which all or portions of the DNA is artificial. If all the scientific data collected over the centuries say it is impossible to create something, they why are we doing it right now? You see, the science does not say creation is incorrect, it is you reading the science and incorrectly interpreting it.

Now, now, I daresay he was using "creation" to mean, roughly "Creationism". It's unreasonable to expect forensic exactitude in these forums but with a little patience the sense is usually understood. It's better than wilfully miscontruing and then blowing a gasket.

On a side-note: I have always understood "species" to refer to any inter-fertile population of living individuals. Thus, black and white people are the same species, since they can breed together, in spite of their different appearances, whereas the willow warbler and chiffchaff are different species even though they look virtually identical, because they cannot mate to produce viable offspring. This is the definition I and my biologist friends have always used and am not familiar with any other so I'm not sure where your uncertainty over the word comes from.

[Edited PS, I just found this link - http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/. It looks quite thorough but a bit long. If you are interested in a serious discussion we could both agree to read it and see what we think]

 

[DeletedUser30834]

Now, now, I daresay he was using "creation" to mean, roughly "Creationism". It's unreasonable to expect forensic exactitude in these forums but with a little patience the sense is usually understood. It's better than wilfully miscontruing and then blowing a gasket.

There is not a willful misconstruing on my behalf. The problem is that this entire message is that creation is wrong and could not ever have happened when science does not say that and even shows creation happening. This scenario is played out quite well in the Futurama episode of clock work origin- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Clockwork_Origin .

On a side-note: I have always understood "species" to refer to any inter-fertile population of living individuals. Thus, black and white people are the same species, since they can breed together, in spite of their different appearances, whereas the willow warbler and chiffchaff are different species even though they look virtually identical, because they cannot mate to produce viable offspring. This is the definition I and my biologist friends have always used and am not familiar with any other so I'm not sure where your uncertainty over the word comes from.

Not one observation of the speciation events listed at the talkorigins site or in science to date follow your definition of species without using semantics or ignoring it altogether in order to make the claim of a new species. In fact, depending on where you look now, you will find definitions for species that do not even include a provision for interbreeding. There is a couple of salamanders in California where they are claiming a new species because the darker salamanders from one side of a mountain does not like to breed with the lighter salamanders on the other side- despite the fact that they can still breed. The most popular case from the site is the gulls in Europe who for whatever reason have a different migration path that separate them by about 500 miles at all times. Despite them breeding when brought together, they are laying the claim that because of geographical separation they would not normally breed in the wild so one set is now a new species. There are insect populations that despute being able to reproduce together, are being claimed a separate species because of induced differences alone. There is even an orchid (I think, it's been a few years since I read that one) that is so different then it's parent plant, they are claiming it is a new species too. The funny thing about the orchid is that further study found that when placed with like pairs and left in isolation, they revert back to the same properties of the parent parent plant in less generation cycles as it took to create the claimed new species in the first place. This indicates it's the same species just de-evolved to some degree and was never a new or different species at all.

Here is a link talking about the different definitions of species and the caveats of both.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

[Edited PS, I just found this link - http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/. It looks quite thorough but a bit long. If you are interested in a serious discussion we could both agree to read it and see what we think]

We can discard over half of that link right off the bat. I am not and never have said new species are not or can not come from other species through evolution. I said that we have no seen it and that all claimed direct observations of it pull semantics manipulating or ignoring the definition of species in order to make the claim.

If you tool around that site, you will also find areas or places where it says religion and evolution can get along perfectly fine which seems to be a common note of problems here where some say it can't.

 

[DeletedUser]

Well then, tell us what YOU understand by the term "species" and we can have a proper discussion.

 

[DeletedUser30834]

Species is a group of animals or organisms similar in basic appearance that can interbreed.

This similar in appearance is somewhat important as not all classes of taxa are created equally or interbreed.

 

[DeletedUser]

Excellent.
"Similar in appearance" is a little subjective, but if it only to allow creatures like bees, which have different forms (queen, worker, drone etc.) to be lumped together then we don't need to worry about it too much.
I would add the normal proviso that the offspring must be viable, as lions and tigers, horses and donkeys can interbreed to produce infertile tigrons/ligers/mules but are still considered separate species.
So, your contention (which I do not know if true or not) is that no group of interbreeding organisms has ever been observed under valid scientific conditions to divide/be divided into two or more groups, the members of which can interbreed with one another, but not with any member of the other group(s) - although this may have happened historically. Is that your position?
If it is I will look at the evidence.

 

[DeletedUser]

Excellent.
"Similar in appearance" is a little subjective, but if it only to allow creatures like bees, which have different forms (queen, worker, drone etc.) to be lumped together then we don't need to worry about it too much.
I would add the normal proviso that the offspring must be viable, as lions and tigers, horses and donkeys can interbreed to produce infertile tigrons/ligers/mules but are still considered separate species.
So, your contention (which I do not know if true or not) is that no group of interbreeding organisms has ever been observed under valid scientific conditions to divide/be divided into two or more groups, the members of which can interbreed with one another, but not with any member of the other group(s) - although this may have happened historically. Is that your position?
If it is I will look at the evidence.

The bible does not use the word species, but "kinds." That is the reality. Animals bread according to their kinds. That is how you know if they are of the same kind, if they can successfully produce viable offspring that can also reproduce.

 

[DeletedUser16008]

The bible does not use the word species, but "kinds." That is the reality. Animals bread according to their kinds. That is how you know if they are of the same kind, if they can successfully produce viable offspring that can also reproduce.

Mainly because they had never heard of the word species so had to use simple wording at the time. This is a 3000 + year old template with little understanding of anything much in the way of science or simple biology let alone language like species.

 

[DeletedUser]

Mainly because they had never heard of the word species so had to use simple wording at the time. This is a 3000 + year old template with little understanding of anything much in the way of science or simple biology let alone language like species.

Nah, if they didn't know it it wasn't worth knowing. Science should have learned to accept their God-given diseases instead of curing them.

 

[DeletedUser]

Nah, if they didn't know it it wasn't worth knowing. Science should have learned to accept their God-given diseases instead of curing them.

Where do you get that idea? Jesus and the apostles cured the sick; even Luke was a doctor. Disease are a result of sin, not God given.

 

[DeletedUser]

and how exactly do you arrive at that conclusion, if 'God created everything' then he created disease, and don't give me any crap about 'disease only affecting sinners' because we both know that's rubbish. could you further your ridiculous claim?

 

[DeletedUser]

Willy is once again heading in the direction of a circular argument Tigermite, and yes he's still off topic.

To address it, he's referring to Original sin, which resulted in God taking away Man's immortality. He is, however, forgetting what the Bible indicates, which is that God posed mortality, subjected Man to diseases and health issues that cut their lives short. Which means according to the Bible, God made diseases. God blames Man for committing the original sin, the sin of eating from the tree of knowledge, and thus obtaining some degree of education, of becoming more than clueless zygotes.

God blames Man for committing the original sin, and in such he takes away Man's immortality, releases disease and pestilence and blames it on Man, in much the same way a husband blames his bruised and battered wife for provoking him.

 

[DeletedUser]

Continuing the off-topicality, how do we know that mankind was originally immortal? To evidence that someone would have to live for ever. And that hasn't happened. It's like saying "Napoleon was immortal before he went to St Helena".

-"You've eaten my apple, Now I'm going to have to keeeel you"

 

[DeletedUser]

Excellent.
"Similar in appearance" is a little subjective, but if it only to allow creatures like bees, which have different forms (queen, worker, drone etc.) to be lumped together then we don't need to worry about it too much.
I would add the normal proviso that the offspring must be viable, as lions and tigers, horses and donkeys can interbreed to produce infertile tigrons/ligers/mules but are still considered separate species.
So, your contention (which I do not know if true or not) is that no group of interbreeding organisms has ever been observed under valid scientific conditions to divide/be divided into two or more groups, the members of which can interbreed with one another, but not with any member of the other group(s) - although this may have happened historically. Is that your position?
If it is I will look at the evidence.

A bit weird to quote myself, but it seems that when the discussion is kept to verifiable specifics rather than wafty generalisations and distractions, some people go all quiet. I thought in the 2 weeks I was away I might have got an answer. But.....nada.

 

[DeletedUser]

Yeah don't expect a viable response Eli. Anyway, it frankly doesn't matter what Sumdumass' definitions are. Species, speciation, microevolution and macroevolution are words presented by scientists to encapsulate, define, what is universally understood, precisely to give consistency when discussing or explaining.

Sumdum's personal definitions are irrelevant and are not consistent with the universally applied and understood definitions as used in the scientific community. It is typical fare for Creationists to pose strawman* arguments in an effort to avoid arguing a non-arguable point.

Anyway, we last ended it with Sumdumass claiming the links I provided didn't provide evidence**, but also earlier confessed he didn't actually read the reports/studies, or the associated referenced material, which essentially translates to him not bothering to obtain an education and instead choosing to remain ignorant. I.e., he and Willy would prefer to argue from a podium of ignorance instead of becoming informed, educated on evolutionary facts and theories.

It's a choice, the choice of being blind or opening your eyes. Some people would simply prefer to remain blind, particularly when what they see conflicts with their personal interpretation of "how things are supposed to be."




* a strawman argument is a derailing argument in which an off-point, usually contrived, is argued rather than arguing the actual point. It is a type of fallacious reasoning, false logic.

** The links and many of the 500+ references I posted (or linked) do indeed provide evidence on macroevolution, ample amounts of evidence. On this claim, Sumdumass is simply lying and continues in failing to provide any evidence in support of his assertions and, specifically, any evidence in contra to the evidence already provided or any evidence in contra to my initial assertions on the OP of this thread.

 

[DeletedUser]

Willy is once again heading in the direction of a circular argument Tigermite, and yes he's still off topic.

I.e., he and Willy would prefer to argue from a podium of ignorance instead of becoming informed, educated on evolutionary facts and theories.
[/QUOTE]
Don't lump me together with Sum on that one, I am very well educated on that subject as well as others.

As far as your evidence is concerned,

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/tj/v14/n1/fossil

there are conflicting ideas on that front, not really proof as you would have others believe.

 

[DeletedUser]

lol, I discuss microevolution and macroevolution, present a multitude of reports on "witnessed" and "induced" events for data collation and genetic behavior studies, and you come back with a collection of bogus arguments refuting fossils?!?

Dude, you do realize what you presented, even if true (which it is not), does not refute micro, nor macro evolution, right?

Once again, argue the point. If you wish to debate fossil findings, carbon dating, and other forms of dating, then start another thread and I (and I'm sure others) will be glad to expose those arguments for what they are, garbage. It's pseudo-scientific babble.

In fact, let me just address one damning bit --- the author of that article is John Woodmorappe, who allegedly holds a B.A. in biology, a B.A. and M.A in geology. Except for that nagging problem --- John Woodmorappe doesn't exist. He was created and is penned by Jan Peczkis, an out-of-work elementary school teacher with no listed degree other than a teaching certificate.

Ouch...