Login

Join for Free!
117501 members


Mutations

Discussion of everything related to the Theory of Evolution.

Moderator: BioTeam

Postby supersport » Thu Aug 23, 2007 3:47 am

supersport wrote:
mith wrote:

Let me ask you...do you believe it would be a contradiction to ToE (or do you believe it's even possible) for traits acquired during the lifetime of an animal due to a response to the environment to be inherited?


I would like someone to answer this, please.
supersport
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 35
Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 11:44 pm

Postby supersport » Thu Aug 23, 2007 3:50 am

alextemplet wrote:
supersport wrote:Are you asking if I think pandas descended from something other than a panda? I don't know the answer to that for sure. It's hard to say if all bears branched out from one "kind" of bear or if God made multiple "kinds" of bears. Unfortunately the Bible doesn't specify.


The "kinds" argument has more holes in it than a sieve. First of all, how do you define "kind"? Is it a genus? A family? An order? No one has ever given a clear definition, and I suspect it is so that they can simply wait for proof of an evolutionary lineage to be proven, and then claim that it doesn't matter because all the species involved are of the same "kind." I could just as easily claim that all vertebrates are the same "kind," and so it should be no problem to accept man's common ancestry with apes. It's a simple yet illogical fall-back argument that you can cling to even when your case has been disproven. I'm sorry, but in this forum we'll need legitimate scientific theories, and scientific terminology, not vague references to "kinds."

And since you mentioned the Bible, I would suggest you read it a little more carefully. I've read Genesis more times than I can remember and I am at a loss to figure out where it disagrees with modern scientific theory. In fact, the two are remarkably compatible.


yea, I agree, "kinds" is vague. However, likewise "species" is vague and hotly debated over its actual meaning. For example, is a grizzley bear a different "species" than a polar bear? Well most evolutionists say yes, however, these two bears can breed and produce a viable offspring....so what is the point in suggesting a speciation event if this is possible?
supersport
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 35
Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 11:44 pm

Postby mith » Thu Aug 23, 2007 4:37 am

Are you saying it's not meaningful to classify the polar bear and the grizzly as different simply because they can interbreed? I assure you, just because there are many definitions and some of them ill fitting does not mean they are useless.

For example some fruitflies are categorized based on the tufts of hair on their middle legs which seems really bizarre but has uses for conservation purposes. Likewise the morphological definition might be used for telling between a wolf and a dog. There's no use trying to see if a dog and a wolf would mate if you're confronted in the Alaskan wild.
Living one day at a time;
Enjoying one moment at a time;
Accepting hardships as the pathway to peace;
~Niebuhr
User avatar
mith
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 5345
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 8:14 pm
Location: Nashville, TN


Postby alextemplet » Thu Aug 23, 2007 6:09 am

supersport wrote:yea, I agree, "kinds" is vague. However, likewise "species" is vague and hotly debated over its actual meaning. For example, is a grizzley bear a different "species" than a polar bear? Well most evolutionists say yes, however, these two bears can breed and produce a viable offspring....so what is the point in suggesting a speciation event if this is possible?


I admit there is some debate over the exact definitions of scientific terms, but it is clearly understood that species are subgroups of genera, which are subgroups of families, which are subgroups of orders, etc. While there remains some difficulty with certain taxa as to which group or the other they should belong to, for the most part these taxanomical terms have very clear meanings. No one is going to hear "class" and think it means "family." What I ask you to do is tell me exactly which taxanomical level is equivalent to a "kind"; only then can we determine if your arguments have any scientific value or not.
Generally speaking, the more people talk about "being saved," the further away they actually are from true salvation.

~Alex
#2 Total Post Count
User avatar
alextemplet
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 5599
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 4:50 pm
Location: South Louisiana (aka Cajun Country)

Postby supersport » Thu Aug 23, 2007 11:31 pm

mith wrote:Are you saying it's not meaningful to classify the polar bear and the grizzly as different simply because they can interbreed? I assure you, just because there are many definitions and some of them ill fitting does not mean they are useless.

.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species

A species is often defined as a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring

so if a polar bear and a grizzly bear can breed and produce fertile offspring, why do evolutionists classify them as different species?
Last edited by supersport on Fri Aug 24, 2007 12:21 am, edited 1 time in total.
supersport
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 35
Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 11:44 pm

Postby alextemplet » Fri Aug 24, 2007 12:21 am

supersport wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species

A species is often defined as a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring


You need to take into account that Wikipedia can be edited by any retard with an internet connection. "Often" is the key word; that definition does not apply to all organisms. For example, it would be pointless and silly to try to categorize asexual species based on whether or not they can interbreed.
Generally speaking, the more people talk about "being saved," the further away they actually are from true salvation.

~Alex
#2 Total Post Count
User avatar
alextemplet
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 5599
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 4:50 pm
Location: South Louisiana (aka Cajun Country)

Postby supersport » Fri Aug 24, 2007 12:25 am

alextemplet wrote:
supersport wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species

A species is often defined as a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring


You need to take into account that Wikipedia can be edited by any retard with an internet connection. "Often" is the key word; that definition does not apply to all organisms. For example, it would be pointless and silly to try to categorize asexual species based on whether or not they can interbreed.




http://trc.ucdavis.edu/biosci10v/bis10v ... ncept.html

In its simplest form, species means "kind." Natural selection can lead to speciation. Speciation can also occur as a result of other microevolutionary processes such as genetic drift and mutation.
Attempting to determine whether different animals are the same species by appearance (phenotype) has been used extensively over the years, but may not reliable, due to the subtle variations that are displayed. Morphological traits may not always be useful in distinguishing species. Members of the same species may appear different because of environmental conditions. Morphology can vary with age and sex. Different species can appear identical.

The biological species concept relies on reproduction to define relatedness of species. Ernst Mayer is credited with developing the official definition of a species: "Species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups."
supersport
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 35
Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 11:44 pm

Postby alextemplet » Fri Aug 24, 2007 3:59 am

supersport wrote:http://trc.ucdavis.edu/biosci10v/bis10v/week7/speciesconcept.html

In its simplest form, species means "kind." Natural selection can lead to speciation. Speciation can also occur as a result of other microevolutionary processes such as genetic drift and mutation.
Attempting to determine whether different animals are the same species by appearance (phenotype) has been used extensively over the years, but may not reliable, due to the subtle variations that are displayed. Morphological traits may not always be useful in distinguishing species. Members of the same species may appear different because of environmental conditions. Morphology can vary with age and sex. Different species can appear identical.

The biological species concept relies on reproduction to define relatedness of species. Ernst Mayer is credited with developing the official definition of a species: "Species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups."


Had you read just one more paragraph, you would have found:

As good as it is, this definition is troublesome for organisms that are non-sexually reproducing, for those known only from fossils, or when life histories have not been studied.

As I said before, simple interbreeding is not the only way - nor is it a fully reliable way - to differentiate species.
Generally speaking, the more people talk about "being saved," the further away they actually are from true salvation.

~Alex
#2 Total Post Count
User avatar
alextemplet
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 5599
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 4:50 pm
Location: South Louisiana (aka Cajun Country)

Postby mith » Fri Aug 24, 2007 4:51 am

I already read the species article, and if you scroll down you'll see the nuances I discussed in my previous post.
Living one day at a time;
Enjoying one moment at a time;
Accepting hardships as the pathway to peace;
~Niebuhr
User avatar
mith
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 5345
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 8:14 pm
Location: Nashville, TN

Postby supersport » Sat Aug 25, 2007 12:52 am

alextemplet wrote:
supersport wrote:http://trc.ucdavis.edu/biosci10v/bis10v/week7/speciesconcept.html

In its simplest form, species means "kind." Natural selection can lead to speciation. Speciation can also occur as a result of other microevolutionary processes such as genetic drift and mutation.
Attempting to determine whether different animals are the same species by appearance (phenotype) has been used extensively over the years, but may not reliable, due to the subtle variations that are displayed. Morphological traits may not always be useful in distinguishing species. Members of the same species may appear different because of environmental conditions. Morphology can vary with age and sex. Different species can appear identical.

The biological species concept relies on reproduction to define relatedness of species. Ernst Mayer is credited with developing the official definition of a species: "Species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups."


Had you read just one more paragraph, you would have found:

As good as it is, this definition is troublesome for organisms that are non-sexually reproducing, for those known only from fossils, or when life histories have not been studied.

As I said before, simple interbreeding is not the only way - nor is it a fully reliable way - to differentiate species.


and as I said to start this off, the concept of "species" is just as vague as "kinds" is in the Bible.
supersport
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 35
Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 11:44 pm

Postby alextemplet » Sat Aug 25, 2007 12:54 am

supersport wrote:and as I said to start this off, the concept of "species" is just as vague as "kinds" is in the Bible.


So are you implying that "kinds" equals "species"?
Generally speaking, the more people talk about "being saved," the further away they actually are from true salvation.

~Alex
#2 Total Post Count
User avatar
alextemplet
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 5599
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 4:50 pm
Location: South Louisiana (aka Cajun Country)

Postby AstusAleator » Sat Aug 25, 2007 1:45 am

Oh please. The word 'species' is used by scientists specifically because its meaning is more refined and definable. "kind" can imply ANY relation.
Scientific language is used with the specific intent to narrow down and winnow out extraeneous meanings and thus confusion. So IF YOU WOULD tell me what taxonomic level you are indicating when you say "kinds" and we can continue our SCIENTIFIC conversation from that point.
What did the parasitic Candiru fish say when it finally found a host? - - "Urethra!!"
User avatar
AstusAleator
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 1039
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 8:51 pm
Location: Oregon, USA

PreviousNext

Return to Evolution

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests

cron