Evolution is not observable admits Jerry Coyne

[Valjean]

Biologists don't believe in the term, either. They just use it cause it's so convenient. Taxonomy uses cladistics these days.

 

[Revoltingest]

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.

You have no explanation about how identifying species is racist?
This reminds me of the old feminist accusation that Newton's Principia Mathematica as a "rape manual".
To disagree with scientific consensus isn't well served by unsupported demonizing claims.

 

[Sonofason]

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.

Nothing magical about God. He is as natural in his existence as you are in yours.

 

[Sonofason]

Biologists don't believe in the term, either. They just use it cause it's so convenient. Taxonomy uses cladistics these days.

Well, hooray for the biologists.

 

[Sonofason]

You have no explanation about how identifying species is racist?
This reminds me of the old feminist accusation that Newton's Principia Mathematica as a "rape manual".
To disagree with scientific consensus isn't well served by unsupported demonizing claims.

So it is important to distinguish the differences between blacks and whites?

 

[Revoltingest]

So it is important to distinguish the differences between blacks and whites?

You made a statement with a question mark.

 

[Sonofason]

You made a statement with a question mark.

No, I was asking you a question?

 

[Revoltingest]

No, I was asking you a question?

Again, a statement with a question mark.

 

[Sonofason]

Again, a statement with a question mark.

Have a good night.

 

[Revoltingest]

Have a good night.

Will do.
You too!

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Because it's not "blind" in the sense there's no direction at all. There is. It's just this direction isn't at the greater level. It's on the individual level. An animal that is better-suited to survive because of a mutation will generally survive longer and breed more than its baseline counterparts, and this mutation will be propagated at a rate greater than the baseline, until the mutation becomes the new baseline. Stack that for eons and you have evolution.

Obviously a significant design improvement will help that design outlive an inferior one, the Ford Mustang outlived the Ford Pinto because it was better suited to survive also.

The question remains:

How does a random corruption in the design plans of anything- just happen to produce a significantly superior design?

 

[metis]

Nothing magical about God. He is as natural in his existence as you are in yours.

And how do you supposedly know this?

BTW, the evolution of species, even if one doesn't understand the science of it, is just plain old common sense: all material things change over time, and genes are material things.

 

[metis]

Obviously a significant design improvement will help that design outlive an inferior one, the Ford Mustang outlived the Ford Pinto because it was better suited to survive also.

The question remains:

How does a random corruption in the design plans of anything- just happen to produce a significantly superior design?

Mutations are not "corruptions"-- they're variations that increase the forms within the gene pool.

 

[viole]

How does a random corruption in the design plans of anything- just happen to produce a significantly superior design?

This is question that has an amazing density of question begging words, when applied to biological evolution. Difficult to top. I can count six.

- corruption
- design
- plans
- significantly
- superior
- design

Ciao

- viole

 

[Nietzsche]

Obviously a significant design improvement will help that design outlive an inferior one, the Ford Mustang outlived the Ford Pinto because it was better suited to survive also.

The question remains:

How does a random corruption in the design plans of anything- just happen to produce a significantly superior design?

Because it produces significantly inferior ones as well. It's just as likely to happen. Those just die.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Because it produces significantly inferior ones as well. It's just as likely to happen. Those just die.

no, not just as likely vastly more likely for a random change to be deleterious.

Similarly any random change in a car has a minute chance of creating a significantly superior vehicle, same for life except we're dealing with far more complex machines

 

[metis]

no, not just as likely vastly more likely for a random change to be deleterious.

Similarly any random change in a car has a minute chance of creating a significantly superior vehicle, same for life except we're dealing with far more complex machines

Most mutations either are negative or neutral rather than positive, but a neutral change, and sometimes even a negative change, could turn out to become a positive if the environment changes in certain ways.

For example, sickle-cell anemia. From an evolutionary point of view, it makes sense; but from a theistic point of view, it doesn't. Can you see why?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

you had said:

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

It can't. Your dog is always your dog. Your dog's pups are also dogs. The rate of change is much, much, much slower than that.

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.

Okay, well...if we're running to my terminology, then I'd suggest a couple of things;
1) Species is not well-defined, although it's a lot better defined than 'kinds'. And yes, it is a human construct but so are words like 'square' and 'circle'. That doesn't make them meaningless.
2) I would think that the ability to breed is a prime consideration in whether an animal is a different species to another. But one of the common 'questions' is whether it is the ABILITY to breed that creates a species, or the DESIRE to breed. So, if we could take sperm and egg from a male and female and create a baby, versus whether a male and female would ever mate left to their own devices (across all males and females, not on an individual basis).

Because I understand words pretty well.

I feel like we're talking past each other slightly here. To be clear, I understand your point about species being a human construct. But the word itself has a fairly fuzzy meaning. There are multiple definitions of it, with slight variances, which can be important in terms of evidence, etc. It's a little like 'terrorism' in that respect, although not quite so controversial. So regardless of how well you understand the word, we could be running with different meanings.

Experiments on speciesization are exceedingly difficult to control and run due to the time frames which are involved in any sort of 'macro' change, for want of a more accurate description. But there have been experiments with fruit flies which show observable evidence of (2) in my list above. And bacterial experiments showing substantive changes over generations have been run. The reason for using bacteria is obviously the rapidity of generational progress.

But when these are raised, many either ignore them, or simply say they are not different kinds anyway. The bacteria is still bacteria. Hence my questions about how YOU are using the word 'species'.

 

[Sonofason]

And how do you supposedly know this?

I know this because there is no such thing as magic. And I know that everything that has occurred has occurred naturally.
Computers exist naturally because it comes naturally for human beings to create them. God existed before the universe did. So His existence is even more natural than the existence of entire universe, and everything in it.

BTW, the evolution of species, even if one doesn't understand the science of it, is just plain old common sense: all material things change over time, and genes are material things.

Of course..I have no doubt that evolution of species is true.

 

[Sonofason]

It can't. Your dog is always your dog. Your dog's pups are also dogs. The rate of change is much, much, much slower than that.



Okay, well...if we're running to my terminology, then I'd suggest a couple of things;
1) Species is not well-defined, although it's a lot better defined than 'kinds'. And yes, it is a human construct but so are words like 'square' and 'circle'. That doesn't make them meaningless.
2) I would think that the ability to breed is a prime consideration in whether an animal is a different species to another. But one of the common 'questions' is whether it is the ABILITY to breed that creates a species, or the DESIRE to breed. So, if we could take sperm and egg from a male and female and create a baby, versus whether a male and female would ever mate left to their own devices (across all males and females, not on an individual basis).



I feel like we're talking past each other slightly here. To be clear, I understand your point about species being a human construct. But the word itself has a fairly fuzzy meaning. There are multiple definitions of it, with slight variances, which can be important in terms of evidence, etc. It's a little like 'terrorism' in that respect, although not quite so controversial. So regardless of how well you understand the word, we could be running with different meanings.

Experiments on speciesization are exceedingly difficult to control and run due to the time frames which are involved in any sort of 'macro' change, for want of a more accurate description. But there have been experiments with fruit flies which show observable evidence of (2) in my list above. And bacterial experiments showing substantive changes over generations have been run. The reason for using bacteria is obviously the rapidity of generational progress.

But when these are raised, many either ignore them, or simply say they are not different kinds anyway. The bacteria is still bacteria. Hence my questions about how YOU are using the word 'species'.

Actually, I have a pretty good understanding of evolution and the word species as well. I'm just not so locked in as it seems many people are with regard to the meaning of the word. Species is indeed more precise a word than the word kind..I agree. But I lost my favor to the word here on this forum talking to atheist evolutionists. It happened when I was presented with a question that went something like this. How can I believe in the God of the Bible when those who wrote the bible didn't even know that a bat was not a bird. I tried to bring this up earlier in this thread, but no one seemed to take interest. When the Bible was written, a bat was a kind of bird. So I formed some resentment to the word, and greater resentment to atheists for that reason. It was a most dishonest and idiotic question to ask. And left me with the impression that I'm sick and tired of talking to these idiots. I have enjoyed our conversation, and as a result of it I have at least some hope that at least some atheists are decent people.

To me the word species represents a group of individuals having as you say, a "fuzzy range" of similar characteristics and are capable of producing viable offspring.