Freethought & Rationalism Archive

07-29-2002, 11:14 AM

A recent article on the topic of the darwinan fundamentalists was published in an influential magazine. Rife with the usual familiar errors and fallacy (Public opinion supports creationism, no new species are formed, theory not fact etc. etc etc.), I would like to write a letter to them.

I would like some help on one particular passage:

"This is like arguing that because fish fare better than gophers in a flood, floods can cause species to change. But in fact fish stubbornly remain fish, gophers remain gophers and moths remain moths." (emphasis added)

What is the taxonomical equivalent of "fish" or "moth"? Is it even possible for them to create a new 'kind' on that level of classification within 150 years? Wouldn't that require a series of salitations?

Thanks in advance for the information.

Tom Sawyer · 07-29-2002, 11:48 AM

Species don't suddenly mutate to adapt to new environmental conditions. The process takes thousands or millions of years to happen. Simply walking into an area that's been flooded for the past week and not seeing any new species as a result of that flood doesn't invalidate evolution.

The reason you were having so much trouble with that statement is because it's even more non-sensical than most of that Creationist garbage.

tgamble · 07-29-2002, 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Synaesthesia:
<strong>A recent article on the topic of the darwinan fundamentalists was published in an influential magazine. Rife with the usual familiar errors and fallacy (Public opinion supports creationism, no new species are formed, theory not fact etc. etc etc.), I would like to write a letter to them.

When Rennie refuted this sort of garbage in his recent SA article. John Sarfati went on one of his childish rants and whined that such arguments were strawman arguments not used by them. You could point out that to them. "Your arguments are so stupid and inaccurate that the major creationist organization Answers in Genesis has advised against useing them...."

Quote:

I would like some help on one particular passage: "This is like arguing that because fish fare better than gophers in a flood, floods can cause species to change. But in fact fish stubbornly remain fish, gophers remain gophers and moths remain moths." (emphasis added)
What is the taxonomical equivalent of "fish" or "moth"?

Fish are made up of many classes. The superclass superclass Pisces as a whole. There's a huge amount of diversity there.
<a href="http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/section/fish_typesoffish.asp" target="_blank">http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/section/fish_typesoffish.asp</a>

Jawless Fish, Cartilaginous Fish, Bony Fish.

It's like saying a mammal is still a mammal (humans and chimps are still the same kind!).

Moths make up the order Lepidoptera.
<a href="http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/m1/moth.asp" target="_blank">http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/m1/moth.asp</a>

gophers make up the family Geomyidae.
<a href="http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/g1/gopher.asp" target="_blank">http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/g1/gopher.asp</a>

Quote:

Is it even possible for them to create a new 'kind' on that level of classification within 150 years?</strong>

Hell no. It would take millions of years.

TIME IS YOUR GOD!

pz · 07-29-2002, 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Synaesthesia:
<strong>
What is the taxonomical equivalent of "fish" or "moth"?</strong>

You mean like "teleost" and "lepidoptera"?

"fish stubbornly remain fish" is a really stupid statement, because fish are the most taxonomically diverse group of vertebrates. It's like looking at a frog, a snake, a mouse, a duck, and an elephant and announcing that there isn't any difference between them, they're all just a bunch of tetrapods.

Mageth · 07-29-2002, 12:15 PM

Small rodents are among the most polytypic (showing great morphological variation, thus having many subspecies) mammals. The southern pocket gopher, Thomomys umbrinus, for example, has 214 subspecies. So, like "fish remain fish", "gophers remain gophers" is not exactly correct.

RufusAtticus · 07-29-2002, 01:38 PM

And Humans stubornly remain primates. Boy, when you put it that way, Humans being related to rhesus monkeys is rather trivial and obvious.

Doubting Didymus · 07-29-2002, 04:03 PM

And dogs remain dogs.

I see two main things about evolution that are proven and undeniable that creationists really need to think about.

POINT ONE: Speciation has occured in the laboratory. One species of sexually producing micro-organism has been shown to have become two species over a short time. The two species could no longer interbreed after being reproductively isolated for a time. This happens a lot, in all kinds of animal.

The creationist response: "ah, but they are stil microbes/fish/apes, are'nt they?!?!"(sic)

At which point I point out:

POINT TWO: Natural selection is capable of massive physical changes in extremely short timespans. Compare the skeletons of Australopithecus (which creationists call an ape) and a modern human. Now compare the skeletons of a modern wolf and a pekingese, remembering that we humans got a pekingese from a wolf in just a few thousand years. How can anyone genuinely say, 'I believe that a wolf could become a pekingese, but an australopithecus could never become a human"

lpetrich · 07-29-2002, 05:05 PM

More specifically, what makes a fish a fish, a moth a moth, and a gopher a gopher? Creationists often assert a sort of essentialism as self-evident truth, without making any effort to justify their assertions.

Viti · 07-29-2002, 05:26 PM

Ipetrich...good point. They may say a fish swims in water yada yada but how then is something like the snake head explained? That monster can live three days out of the water and crawl on land...what exactly identifies it as a definite "fish" type??

Late_Cretaceous · 07-30-2002, 06:59 AM

I have had several debates with creationists who make the claim that microevolution does occur- but only withing species, and that macroevolution, or speciation, has never been observed. Then I have pointed out such things as speciation being observed in mosquitos and ring species only to have them reply "oh but they are still salamanders and mosquitos" - in the same thread. NOt once have they acknowledged the contradiction.

07-29-2002, 11:14 AM	#1
Synaesthesia Guest Posts: n/a	"Fish stubbornly remain fish..." A recent article on the topic of the darwinan fundamentalists was published in an influential magazine. Rife with the usual familiar errors and fallacy (Public opinion supports creationism, no new species are formed, theory not fact etc. etc etc.), I would like to write a letter to them. I would like some help on one particular passage: "This is like arguing that because fish fare better than gophers in a flood, floods can cause species to change. But in fact fish stubbornly remain fish, gophers remain gophers and moths remain moths." (emphasis added) What is the taxonomical equivalent of "fish" or "moth"? Is it even possible for them to create a new 'kind' on that level of classification within 150 years? Wouldn't that require a series of salitations? Thanks in advance for the information.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-29-2002, 11:48 AM	#2
Tom Sawyer Talk Freethought Staff Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Toronto, eh Posts: 42,293	Species don't suddenly mutate to adapt to new environmental conditions. The process takes thousands or millions of years to happen. Simply walking into an area that's been flooded for the past week and not seeing any new species as a result of that flood doesn't invalidate evolution. The reason you were having so much trouble with that statement is because it's even more non-sensical than most of that Creationist garbage.

07-29-2002, 12:15 PM	#5
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	Small rodents are among the most polytypic (showing great morphological variation, thus having many subspecies) mammals. The southern pocket gopher, Thomomys umbrinus, for example, has 214 subspecies. So, like "fish remain fish", "gophers remain gophers" is not exactly correct.

07-29-2002, 01:38 PM	#6
RufusAtticus Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: NCSU Posts: 5,853	And Humans stubornly remain primates. Boy, when you put it that way, Humans being related to rhesus monkeys is rather trivial and obvious.

07-29-2002, 04:03 PM	#7
Doubting Didymus Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: East Coast. Australia. Posts: 5,455	And dogs remain dogs. I see two main things about evolution that are proven and undeniable that creationists really need to think about. POINT ONE: Speciation has occured in the laboratory. One species of sexually producing micro-organism has been shown to have become two species over a short time. The two species could no longer interbreed after being reproductively isolated for a time. This happens a lot, in all kinds of animal. The creationist response: "ah, but they are stil microbes/fish/apes, are'nt they?!?!"(sic) At which point I point out: POINT TWO: Natural selection is capable of massive physical changes in extremely short timespans. Compare the skeletons of Australopithecus (which creationists call an ape) and a modern human. Now compare the skeletons of a modern wolf and a pekingese, remembering that we humans got a pekingese from a wolf in just a few thousand years. How can anyone genuinely say, 'I believe that a wolf could become a pekingese, but an australopithecus could never become a human"

07-29-2002, 05:05 PM	#8
lpetrich Contributor Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Lebanon, OR, USA Posts: 16,829	More specifically, what makes a fish a fish, a moth a moth, and a gopher a gopher? Creationists often assert a sort of essentialism as self-evident truth, without making any effort to justify their assertions.

07-29-2002, 05:26 PM	#9
Viti Contributor Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Down South Posts: 12,879	Ipetrich...good point. They may say a fish swims in water yada yada but how then is something like the snake head explained? That monster can live three days out of the water and crawl on land...what exactly identifies it as a definite "fish" type??

07-30-2002, 06:59 AM	#10
Late_Cretaceous Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Alberta Posts: 1,049	I have had several debates with creationists who make the claim that microevolution does occur- but only withing species, and that macroevolution, or speciation, has never been observed. Then I have pointed out such things as speciation being observed in mosquitos and ring species only to have them reply "oh but they are still salamanders and mosquitos" - in the same thread. NOt once have they acknowledged the contradiction.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.