Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Neruda · 10-25-2002, 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by tgamble:


Still a wallabie. Still a pupfish. Nothing new. :=)

yeah, and all 350,000 species of beetles (or whatever the number is) are all the same thing too.

Psycho Economist · 10-25-2002, 10:44 AM

A species is determined by its ability to breed with others of the same species and produce offspring that can breed, themselves... that's it. If you want to talk about creation of new branches way up on the family tree, that's a whole different ball of cytoplasm. That's what's being sorted out in the attempt to determine the finer points of gradualism and puctuated equillibrium.

But speciation is speciation, and has been documented in the laboratory and in nature.

Wyz_sub10 · 10-25-2002, 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Psycho Economist:
A species is determined by its ability to breed with others of the same species and produce offspring that can breed, themselves... that's it.

I've often read that this was an inadequate definition. Although this is usually referred to as a useful measure (just not a complete one).

Quote:

If you want to talk about creation of new branches way up on the family tree, that's a whole different ball of cytoplasm.

Isn't this working backwards? You mean identifying new branches, not creating them right?

I'm not sure I understand your distinction between a new species and a new "branch."

Psycho Economist · 10-25-2002, 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Wyz_sub10:
Isn't this working backwards? You mean identifying new branches, not creating them right?

The new branches forming (creating implies someone, us? is doing it) E.g., another unique class of arthropod.

Quote:

I'm not sure I understand your distinction between a new species and a new "branch."

A kingdom, phylum, class, order, family... Something bigger than a new genus or species, since the development of those are so banal as to not be evidence of evolution, aparently

.

tgamble and Neruda had an exchange to the effect that if a new species in the family of beatle developed, it would be just another beatle.

tgamble · 10-25-2002, 03:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Neruda:

yeah, and all 350,000 species of beetles (or whatever the number is) are all the same thing too.

That could work.

Here's an example of speciation. (Give example of speciation in beetles)

That's not evolution! That's just variation! It's still a beetle!

So you're saying Noah only took two beetles on the ark and they evolved into all the beetles?

Yeah!

Including the bombardieer beetle?

Well uh duh um I uh guess um I ah um. Evolution is a LIE! Repent or burn in hell! You'll know the truth when you DIE!

Valentine Pontifex · 10-25-2002, 04:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Wyz_sub10:
The Ehrlich's definitely acknowledge speciation having occurred. In fact, on pp. 26-27 of the book, they state:

The quote given by Wyz_sub10 was:

Quote:

Throughout most of Earth's history, the faucet has been running species in a little faster on the average than they have been going down the drain. As a result, the number of living species has generally increased over the ages

That quote is not relevant to the statement which the creationists are quoting. If one accepts evolution that speciation has clearly happened regardless of whether or not it has been documented in nature. And that fossil record clearly shows that new species appear through geological time. But that does not count as documenting speciation in nature.

I have long assumed that in that particular quote that Ehrlich screwed up royally. Everyone screws up. One can "document" many falsehoods by finding some famous scholar who got it wrong, but should not have. (Look how Wells claims that no peppered moths are found on tree trucks and it is based of errors made by scientists who have not actually did any peppered moths research.) And Paul Ehrlich has certainly got his fair share of statements that have turned out not to be so.

In any event, this just shows one of the many fallacies of argument via the quote: just because someone says something does not make it so!

Wyz_sub10 · 10-25-2002, 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Valentine Pontifex:
That quote is not relevant to the statement which the creationists are quoting.

I believe the original issue was not the validity of the quote, but its intent. Ross supporters are using the quote in tgamble's opening to say, "see, even the Ehrlich's agree that speciation did not occur."

I'm countering by saying that not only do the Ehrlich's think speciation did occur, but they have some thoughts on its role in biodiversity.

In other words, they are wrong in their assessment of the Ehrlichs (whether they're wrong in their assessment in speciation, or the Ehrlich's were wrong in their assessment in speciation is not the point).

tgamble · 10-25-2002, 05:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Wyz_sub10:
[QB]

I believe the original issue was not the validity of the quote, but its intent. Ross supporters are using the quote in tgamble's opening to say, "see, even the Ehrlich's agree that speciation did not occur."

Not quite, It did occur in the past, but only by God's will. He's in the day of rest now and no new species have been created. Or so the fairy tale goes.

The quote is used to support speciation no longer occuring, not that it never did. If speciation can refer to new species being created rather than evolving.

Wyz_sub10 · 10-25-2002, 10:46 PM

Sorry, maybe I didn't fully understand the original issue. My understanding was that the Ross supporters were touting the book as being in agreement that speciation is not occurring.

The Ehrlichs' seem to be clear that they believe speciation is occurring, and therefore the book is not in agreement with Ross supporters.

Am I missing something? <img src="confused.gif" border="0">

Albion · 10-25-2002, 11:24 PM

This article is about sympatric speciation in the wild.

<a href="http://www.smithsonianmag.si.edu/smithsonian/issues02/oct02/phenomena.html" target="_blank">http://www.smithsonianmag.si.edu/smithsonian/issues02/oct02/phenomena.html</a>

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

10-25-2002, 10:44 AM	#12
Psycho Economist Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Peoria, IL Posts: 854	A species is determined by its ability to breed with others of the same species and produce offspring that can breed, themselves... that's it. If you want to talk about creation of new branches way up on the family tree, that's a whole different ball of cytoplasm. That's what's being sorted out in the attempt to determine the finer points of gradualism and puctuated equillibrium. But speciation is speciation, and has been documented in the laboratory and in nature.

10-25-2002, 10:46 PM	#19
Wyz_sub10 Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: In the land of two boys and no sleep. Posts: 9,890	Sorry, maybe I didn't fully understand the original issue. My understanding was that the Ross supporters were touting the book as being in agreement that speciation is not occurring. The Ehrlichs' seem to be clear that they believe speciation is occurring, and therefore the book is not in agreement with Ross supporters. Am I missing something? <img src="confused.gif" border="0">

10-25-2002, 11:24 PM	#20
Albion Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: US east coast. And www.theroyalforums.com Posts: 2,829	This article is about sympatric speciation in the wild. <a href="http://www.smithsonianmag.si.edu/smithsonian/issues02/oct02/phenomena.html" target="_blank">http://www.smithsonianmag.si.edu/smithsonian/issues02/oct02/phenomena.html</a>

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.