RufusAtticus

Douglas,

If you don't know enough about the evidence, why are you arguing against it? Shouldn't people more familiar with the evidence than you be able to draw better conclusions? I don't see how your incomplete analysis could be more accurate than that of evolutionary biologists, a good portion of whom are Christians. I personally know a conservative, evangelical Christian who works in the field.

They are strong believers in God and his works and do not look at the subject under a cloud of "metaphysical naturalism." Science can only investigate the physical world. Divine influence is not a scientific concept because it is neither testable or objective. If you dissagree, please show me how to test for divine influence in an objective and somewhat repeatable manner.

Scigirl knows way more about science than you do. How is your analysis more accurate and informed? You obviously admit that you haven't considered every piece of data before you formed your hypotheses. That is not how to do science.

You should also always question your sources. I do. Since you are not familar with evidence, I can assume that you haven't had much of a science education. What resources are you using, and how do you know that they are accurate? Could they be wrong?

And the final question:
What makes you qualified to hold informed discussions about evolutionary biology?

-RvFvS

scigirl

Hello Douglas,

I know I should probably just stick to the formal debate with you, but when you post things that are clearly untrue, I as a scientist must reply.

I think this is confusing reproductive isolation with speciation. There are several types of reproductive isolation which can but do not necessesarily cause speciation. If the early explorers would have arrived in the new world much much later (i.e. in the future!) than it is quite likely that the native tribes in the americas would have been a different species than the people from the 'old world.' Good thing this didn't happen--racism is already a problem when we are all the same species!

Um, the assumption is actually correct. In many cases, even humans, certain behaviors are either entirely dictated, or heavily influenced by our genetics.

Humans are a bad example for this type (or any type really) of reproductive isolation, since our behavior and mating is dictated by a myriad of factors, we move around a lot, switch jobs, etc. Plus some of us mate at work! (I mean, I've heard of this happening. . . to a friend. . . )

Seriously though, there are animals where time of mating did cause speciation. The western spotted skunk and eastern spotted skunk do not interbreed because the former mates in the summer and the latter mates in the winter. There's another example with the orchid genus Dendrobium. There are three species in this genus. Since the number of days that lapse between the flowering stimululs and the flowering itself is 8, 9, and 10 respectively, reproductive isolation is maintained.

Yes it does. Let's look at what it says. My bio book talks about "introgression," which is transplantation of alleles between species. "Alleles may occasionally seep through all reproductive barriers and pass between the gene pools of closely related species when fertile hybrids mate successfully with one of the parent species." There are a lot of examples of this in agriculture, such as breeders purposely putting corn species together. "As long as reproductive barriers hold introgression to a trickle, the isolation of the two gene pools is not seriously breached, and the two species remain distinct."

In any case, I think these examples pose more of a problem for YEC than for evolution. If speciation of corn, for instance, can be explained by a temporal isolation, and we remove that temporal isolation, than we would expect very closely related species to be capable of breeding again. Not only does ToE explain this phenomenon, it also predicts it.

YEC however has to constantly flip back and forth between "kind" and "not kind." Species definitions are fuzzy for a reason. Because of the way specation works, and because evolution is an on-going process, we expect tigrons and ligers. Remember, biologists classify things more out of convenience than anything else, and they are well aware of the problems of doing so.

To me, YEC would not expect tigrons and corn hybrids, if all the kinds were made at once, complely separated from each other. But because YEC does not provide any explainable and testable mechanism for how kinds are created, things like tigrons are always going to pose a problem for your theory. As soon as you get YEC to fit all of the strange anomalies in nature by twisting and adding to scripture at your leisure, no doubt another anomaly (which will be predicted and explained by evolutionary theory) will arise and cause you to once again twist or add to scripture. Case in point:
See what I mean about adding to scripture? Let me ask you a question, Douglas. You believe that the authors of the Bible were divinely inspired, correct? Are you divinely inspired when you interpret and add to the scriptures when you post here?

Scigirl

P.S. If you wish to discuss these things formally as well--please let me know, or simply post the reply there.

RufusAtticus

Douglas,
Then explain the nested hierarchy. While your at it, do you have any objective evidence that there is a designer and its identity?

Humans, bonobos, chimps, gorillas, orangutans, etc. are all separate species. That is not in question. You definition is a rehash of the biological species concept. Why is kind a better name than species for a reproductively isolated population? In your view, what is the difference between kind and species?

Created kinds are supposed to have obviously distinct barriers, right? Evolved species are not. Evolution is incapable of establishing new kinds whereas new species occur all the time. What conclusion do you think the evidence points to?

Considering that there have been observed instances of the emergence of reproductively isolated populations, and that the barriers of such populations are often "fuzzy," the evidence indicates that kind is not an accurate description of reproductively isolated populations.

Could you give us enough examples of kinds to gauge its accuracy? Is there a canine kind, cat kind, monkey kind, etc.?

Your counter-example is very informative. The diversity of life (broncos and blazers) is evidence for multiple creators (Ford and Chevy). Did you really meant what your example implies? However, cars can never be related by "descent" because they never self-replicate. This is where all counter-examples to evolution using man-made objects fail. Life reproduces; cars do not. "Relatedness" has to do with kinship. For life which can reproduce, relatedness only refers to common descent. (You are related to your cousins.) For, inanimate objects, but not live ones, “relatedness” can be used as a synonym for “similarity.” You need to be well aware of connotations as well as denotations.

If they can interbreed, why call them separate kinds? You seem to be getting away from a literal reading Genesis.

Sure, hybrids like tigrons.

Now I know that you have no education in evolutionary biology. Evolution is a gradual process. If you trace a linage for 2000 generations, you might never observe an offspring being remarkable different from its parent. However, you might observe that an offspring is considerably different from its ancestor of 2000 generations ago. That is how macroevolution occurs in most cases: the accumulation microevolution. There are many instances from plants where offspring are considerable different from the parents, and are not members of the same ‘kind’ or species by any reasonable definition. All this evidence disproves the concept of ‘kind’ which western science abandoned a long time ago, due mainly to the work of dedicated Christian naturalists.

How can you say this? Do you have any evidence of a great dane and border collie ever producing viable hybrids? What about the more improbable cross: a great dane and a Chihuahua? If such things have never been observed, they are not members of the same kind by your definition.

And now the important question:
Is there any evidence, actual or probable, that you could not, will not, explain with "that’s how the designer(s) design(s)?" If so, please provide examples.

-RvFvS

[ December 09, 2001: Message edited by: RufusAtticus ]</p>

NeilUnreal

Dingoes can hybridize -- in fact hybridization with domestic dogs (feral and otherwise) is considered a threat to dingoes as a species. Whether or not dingoes and domestic dogs are separate species or merely subspecies is probably indeterminate, given that both are human artifacts. They are related, but dingoes have genetic differences which separate them from other domestic dogs. I'm not certain, but I think the discussion centers around whether Dingoes were domesticated directly from the same ancestor as domestic dogs, or whether either the dingo or the dog is the ancestor.

-Neil

[ December 09, 2001: Message edited by: NeilUnreal ]</p>

Jobar

scigirl-
<a href="http://richie.jphs.net/cretigo.html" target="_blank">Are you keeping score?</a>

Kosh

That's easy! Look at any toy set of noah's
ark, and you'll see two lions and two tigers!
SO they must be different "kinds"....

Kosh

....And so the wiggle worming begins....

Quetzal

Douglas

I'm still bothered by the "kinds" thing. You said: Would it be possible to show, by verse, where (and from what translation) you found this information?

Also, as requested repeatedly, please provide a succinct explanation of what criteria you are using to delineate "kind". Above, you noted two distinct "cat kinds". I would like to point out that your sort-of definition of reproductive barrier of some type doesn't necessarily hold water. Let's take the example of three species of neotropical "large cat kind" whose ranges are either identical or significantly overlapping: Leopardis wiedii, Puma concolor, Panthera onca. All three species can be found in the Cerro Kilambe Cloudforest Preserve in north-central Nicaragua. L. wiedii is nocturnal, solitary. Feeds on small animals like rodents and birds. P. concolor is both nocturnal and diurnal, feeds on medium-sized mammals but may feed on snakes and rats. P. onca are also nocturnal and diurnal. Feeds on large mammals, but also known to feed on smaller animals (including turtles, caiman, fish) and rodents. By your definition, all three would constitute "cats". However, there has never been a single cross in nature. There is no population barrier. They are not isolated from each other. They even share some of the same food resources. They are all Felinidae. Do they represent three distinct "kinds"? If so, how have you determined the barrier? Are there now (at least) five cat kinds in this discussion? Large cats, small cats, margay, mountain lion/puma, jaguar? Eight, if you include lions, tigers and crossed lion/tiger?

I guess what the question boils down to: is every single species identified to date a separately created "kind"? If not, I think it is crucial that you define what makes a different kind.

[ December 11, 2001: Message edited by: Morpho ]</p>

Kosh

Morpho,

I think they come up with this by appealing to...
common sense.

:tongue-in-check-icon:

wdog

I like the douglas /scigirl debate, but it points out something that I have always found disturbing. non scientists like douglas seem to have no problem at all jumping into a debate on evolution with someone working in the area. I have a PhD in physics and I don't feel qualified for such a debate unless I had studied the field carefully for a while. It is apparent to me that Douglas has not done that.

having seen this before, what usually results is that the self-assured bible believer will read just enough to gain a superficial knowledge, construct a list of rapid fire sophistries and half truths critical of evolution theory (or whatever scientific theory they find offensive), then claim that supports creationism (or whatever) despite scientific logic that dictates each theory must be tested on its own.

how does a real scientist respond? usually we are spending so much time educating and correcting all the misconceptions that it is not really a debate. the unsophisticate will then usually just argue endlessly about finer points which they really have little understanding. One of the main defenders of creationism is Philip Johnson of Berkley. He is a lawyer who thinks that he has a better understanding of the scientific method than do the scientists. He also believes that scientific theories are tested for truthfulness by a courtroom type approach, where theories are decided by jury, not objective experimentation.

Another problem is that these people are trying to talk science, but they don't follow the scientific method, most likely since they don't understand it. What is the use trying to hold a scientific debate with someone who rejects the scientific method?

Douglas doesn't understand that he is really attacking the whole scientific enterprise when he procedes this way. the same science that gave us the transistor gives us evolution. you can't just throw away a theory since it insults your religion (like the old geocentric religious view), science will discard it in a self correcting process if it is incorrect, but we accept those that survive since the methods have shown to be reliable (witness all our technology). this process has been of such benefit to us humans, much more than any religion, that to undermine it the way the creationists do is really more than just a sad footnote, it threatens our progress as people.