Evolution is not observable admits Jerry Coyne

[Sonofason]

I am confident that you are.
But you didn't answer my question, which would be the polite thing to do before expecting the same of me, eh.

Yes, I see what you say I did, and that is the problem I have with the terminology and definition of the word species.
Is species a word with two meanings?
Can we say that a species evolves over time but yet at the same time say that the characteristics of a particular species remains constant over time?
How can this be? It makes no sense to me.

 

[Sonofason]

This is the same argument as the white box changing to a black box.
You're proving that white is black again.

I know.

 

[Sonofason]

This is the same argument as the white box changing to a black box.
You're proving that white is black again.

Maybe black is white.

Consider something which does not actually exist. It is a word construct created by us human beings. It is the word darkness. Darkness is not something which truly exists. It is a construct for an abstract concept of the absence of something which actually does exist, namely light. How do we know and understand darkness? It is defined by light. That which is not can only be defined by that which is. I might say that darkness could not exist without light. Does that mean that darkness is light? It surely wouldn't exist if light did not exist.

 

[Revoltingest]

I know.

I haven't found this particular fallacy by searching the internet, so I'll name it.....
"The infinitesimal change fallacy"
Briefly, a large number of vanishingly small sequential changes in series can add up to a large change.
The mistake is assuming that one item is virtually the same as the next, therefore there is no aggregate change.

Calculus illustrates how infinitesimal pieces so small they approach zero can generate large results.

 

[Revoltingest]

Maybe black is white.

Consider something which does not actually exist. It is a word construct created by us human beings. It is the word darkness. Darkness is not something which truly exists. It is a construct for an abstract concept of the absence of something which actually does exist, namely light. How do we know and understand darkness? It is defined by light. That which is not can only be defined by that which is. I might say that darkness could not exist without light. Does that mean that darkness is light? It surely wouldn't exist if light did not exist.

This is just a word game & a red herring.

 

[Sonofason]

No, of course your dog will remain your dog. I don't think anyone ever has suggested differently.

you had said:

I don't get why you would say that an animal can't become a different species

An animal is an individual member of a species is it not? How can an individual member of a species become a different species?

My terminology? I'm trying to understand your definition of species. For me, I would think the ability to breed plays a role but I am unsure whether you would agree with that supposition.

Yes, your terminology. An animal is not a species of animal or a kind of animal. While an animal can be a member of some particular species of animal, the animal is not the species of animal that the animal belongs to. Animals do not evolve.

And you're sure of this because...

Because I understand words pretty well.

 

[Sonofason]

I haven't found this particular fallacy by searching the internet, so I'll name it.....
"The infinitesimal change fallacy"
Briefly, a large number of vanishingly small sequential changes in series can add up to a large change.
The mistake is assuming that one item is virtually the same as the next, therefore there is no aggregate change.

Three questions.
1. Do animal species evolve?
2. Are there set characteristics for a given species?
3. Given that there are set characteristics for a given species, how can a species evolve into another species?

 

[Revoltingest]

Three questions.
1. Do animal species evolve?
2. Are there set characteristics for a given species.
3. Given that there set characteristics for a given species, how can a species evolve into another species?

1) Yes
2) Yes
3) The characteristics change over time.

It might help you to think of a species not as a singular thing which is always precisely defined.
Instead, think of it as a genetic signature within a fuzzy range of values, & that this range can shift over time.

 

[Sonofason]

This is just a word game & a red herring.

Yes, of course it is.

 

[Sonofason]

1) Yes
2) Yes
3) The characteristics change over time.

It might help you to think of a species not as a singular thing which is always precisely defined.
Instead, think of it as a genetic signature within a fuzzy range of values, & that this range can shift over time.

I get it. The word species is like the word darkness. It is an abstract concept created to represent something which doesn't really exist, kinda like a white box in the absence of light.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes, of course it is.

Of course, I detect the sarcasm.
But it would pay to recognize that defining darkness in terms of light
doesn't shed any of the latter on the issue of evolution of species.

 

[Revoltingest]

I get it. The word species is like the word darkness. It is an abstract concept created to represent something which doesn't really exist, kinda like a white box in the absence of light.

Some words describe material things.
Others describe concepts.
Concepts exist, even if they aren't material.
Example:
Thermodynamics is not a material.
But it is a very useful set of concepts.
It is a field of science & engineering which most definitely exists.
Moreover, while arguing otherwise is fallacious, it still has no relevance to evolution.
But if things not material don't exist, as you claim, then your religion & its god don't either.
Clearly, this is reductio ad absurdum from both our perspectives.

 

[Sonofason]

Of course, I detect the sarcasm.
But it would pay to recognize that defining darkness in terms of light
doesn't shed any of the latter on the issue of evolution of species.

I'm just saying that evolution takes place, and there really is no distinction between different species, because it is the species that evolves. We like to break it up and segment it as if those segments really exist. But it is continuous. But in my opinion a species begins at creation and continues to evolve until something or someone stops the process and the species ceases to exist. But if we really feel the need to discriminate between the different characteristics some particular species undergoes over time, I'm happy to accept what ever labels you want to put on the members of that particular species. Sounds a lot like racism to me.

 

[Sonofason]

Some words describe material things.
Others describe concepts.
Concepts exist, even if they aren't material.
Example:
Thermodynamics is not a material.
But it is a very useful set of concepts.
It is a field of science & engineering which most definitely exists.
Moreover, while arguing otherwise is fallacious, it still has no relevance to evolution.
But if things not material don't exist, as you claim, then your religion & its god don't either.
Clearly, this is reductio ad absurdum from both our perspectives.

Ah so even if God is a concept and immaterial, He still might exist. Good to know.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm just saying that evolution takes place, and there really is no distinction between different species, because it is the species that evolves. We like to break it up and segment it as if those segments really exist. But it is continuous. But in my opinion a species begins at creation and continues to evolve until something or someone stops the process and the species ceases to exist. But if we really feel the need to discriminate between the different characteristics some particular species undergoes over time, I'm happy to accept what ever labels you want to put on the members of that particular species. Sounds a lot like racism to me.

Racism?
This one needs explanation.

 

[Sonofason]

Racism?
This one needs explanation.

Ahh, I redact my last sentence. The rest of my comment testifies to that without spelling it out so distinctly.

 

[Sonofason]

Ahh, I redact my last sentence. The rest of my comment testifies to that without spelling it out so distinctly.

I like dogs. I don't like cats. Eagles are beautiful, but those darn pigeons are disgusting.

 

[Revoltingest]

Ahh, I redact my last sentence. The rest of my comment testifies to that without spelling it out so distinctly.

This isn't clear.
It appears you're making an accusation.
But it's a cryptic non sequitur.

 

[Valjean]

Changes accumulate. Offspring are not identical to their parents. What is there to stop changes accumulating?
The natural processes that would select for certain features over others need no planning or direction. Some characteristics are just more adaptive than others, in a given environment.

I don't understand why you find this so implausible.
I don't understand why you find magic poofing plausible.

 

[Sonofason]

This isn't clear.
It appears you're making an accusation.
But it's a cryptic non sequitur.

We're beating a dead horse. I'm not really accusing anyone of intentionally doing anything really. This whole species thing just seems a lot like racism.

I don't believe in the term species as I have said. Just like I don't believe in distinguishing white people from black people. People are People, what ever color they are, right?
Well, on the same token life is life what ever species it is. All these labels is just a form of racism in my view.