Evolution... Do we believe?

[alwight]

Google "species problem"..
.
You will find thongs such as "One common, but sometimes difficult, question is how best to decide which species an*organism*belongs to, because reproductively isolated groups may not be readily recognizable"

Yes that was something from the wiki link I posted earlier. Most of the time however there really isn't too much of a practical problem for us except for biologists, or YECs perhaps.:juggle:

 

[Jose Fly]

Then feel free to butt out.

Nah, it's far too amusing.

Names.

There's PneumaPsucheSoma, Aimiel, 1mind1spirit, fzappa13, and a few that seemed to be non-committal as to whether the earth moves.

 

[Jose Fly]

Your notion that creationism will soon be dead is utterly laughable.

What are you talking about? Creationism has been 100% scientifically irrelevant for over a century.

 

[Jose Fly]

OAs has been pointed out to you numerous times the biblical model is rapid adaptation. It is entirely consistent with the biblical model that we see numerous groups of very similar animals, some which have lost the ability to interbreed.

That sounds an awful lot like speciation via evolution.

 

[Jose Fly]

A kind is all the organisms descended from a common ancestor population.

So all life on earth is the same "kind". Glad we could figure that out.

 

[Stripe]

Which is basically centred on individuals being of the same species if they can produce viable offspring.

This is a vague description. What you need to do is put a stake in the ground and be willing to defend it. That is how science works. See, I gave you a definition up front that is easy to understand and useful, so I don't have a hard time explaining it or applying it.

Trying to get something substantial from an evolutionist is like pulling teeth.

 

[The Barbarian]

Once again ... you demonstrate lack of knowledge of the Bible, then create a strawman to defend your belief system.

I'm just pointing out the facts. Creationism says that there are "kinds" and each kind was separately created. If this were true, species would be easy to define. On the other hand, as you learned, Darwin's theory requires that species be impossible to define in a way that covers all things.

This is one of the reasons why scientists don't accept creationism.

As has been pointed out to you numerous times the biblical model is rapid adaptation.

Give us that verse. Sounds like more of your additions to the Bible.

 

[The Barbarian]

This is a vague description. What you need to do is put a stake in the ground and be willing to defend it.

Darwin's claim was that species should be impossible to define in every case. As you know, his claim has been verified. You're now demanding that science prove something it has shown to be false.

That is how science works.

No, that's not how it works. A theory is only about the claims it actually makes. You're trying to invent new claims and demand science verify them for you.

Since you were unable to come up with a testable definition that fits every case, you've essentially verified Darwin's claim.

 

[alwight]

This is a vague description. What you need to do is put a stake in the ground and be willing to defend it. That is how science works. See, I gave you a definition up front that is easy to understand and useful, so I don't have a hard time explaining it or applying it.

Nonsense, I've explained what I think is the scientific position to my understanding and which makes sense to me, not put a stake in the ground. If my understanding is faulty then I have no intention of mindlessly holding my ground regardless.
Clearly you never intend to budge from your stake in the ground however many times you are shown that your YEC notions are faulty.

 

[JosephR]

Nonsense, I've explained what I think is the scientific position to my understanding and which makes sense to me, not put a stake in the ground. If my understanding is faulty then I have no intention of mindlessly holding my ground regardless.
Clearly you never intend to budge from your stake in the ground however many times you are shown that your YEC notions are faulty.

i love honesty,and you are it

 

[Stripe]

Nonsense, I've explained what I think is the scientific position to my understanding and which makes sense to me, not put a stake in the ground. If my understanding is faulty then I have no intention of mindlessly holding my ground regardless.

Science doesn't work by declaring that definitions of words you use need not be definitions. What you need is an idea that is testable and falsifiable. Adopting a stance that lets you bring in exceptions every time a challenge is issued shows that you have no idea what science is.

Clearly you never intend to budge from your stake in the ground however many times you are shown that your YEC notions are faulty.

:yawn:

Wake us up when you're done emoting.

 

[6days]

Poodles and great danes are not considered separate species.

Try reading slower... that's what I said.

 

[alwight]

Science doesn't work by declaring that definitions of words you use need not be definitions.

:liberals:

What you need is an idea that is testable and falsifiable.

:up:

Adopting a stance that lets you bring in exceptions every time a challenge is issued shows that you have no idea what science is.

This from someone who will reject any science, however rigorous and well evidenced, should it happen to clash with a literal interpretation of a particular ancient scripture is a bit more than rich.

However, science involves the explanation of evidence and facts, and sometimes one simple explanation does not fully cover all of it. There may not be one simple all inclusive definition of "species" but that doesn't mean that anyone is equivocating about it or being dishonest. Science at least is very capable of honestly adapting to all the facts and evidence.
What is being dishonest imo is dyed-in-the-wool YECs who would whinge and whine that science or Darwinian evolution has a problem because the definition of "species" is just a bit too vague (or woolly?) for them to accept ...but YECs won't accept any science if it contradicts Genesis!
If, somehow, the evidence instead seemed to suggest a young Earth and a miraculous creation of "kinds" a few thousand years ago then so be it let's change science, ...but since it plainly doesn't then that is why it is not science, not because science conspires against the truth.

:yawn:

Wake us up when you're done emoting.

King fundie nods off again. :king:

 

[6days]

YECs probably aren't too interested in a reasonable working definition

Wasn't it a Biblical creationist who is the father of modern taxonomy?

The point is that evolutionists seem to want concise definitions, (no problem) but bristle when they realize they have even bigger problems with definitions.*

Huge anatomical differences couldn't reasonably be expected to happen naturally imo.

God created organisms with great diversity...so much so that biologists sometimes have had difficulty knowing that the male and female are the same species. *With difficulties such as that between live observable animals, calling old bones a separate species is often based on evolutionary assumptions...not the scientific method.

Arguably a very early human might not be easily able to produce a viable offspring with a modern human, it isn't always an easy thing to define.

* *We are all descendants of "early humans"... We even know their names.*

As far as I know many of us carry Neanderthal DNA, so some viable offspring must have emerged

Not "many"... its pretty much all of us, excluding Africans.*

*But face it they were physically different in many ways

Neandertals we're a distinct people group not unlike pygmies and others who are distinct. Neandertal skeletal differences fall within the range of some modern humans. Evolutionists attempt to deny the humanity of Neandertals, even though science has shown we are their descendants. (Not unlike how evolutionists in the past denied humanity of black people calling them savages who would someday be eliminated, or who thought women weren't as highly evolved as men. )

God's Word correct thousands of years ago...Correct now. All humanity is one blood.

 

[Stripe]

This from someone who will reject any science, however rigorous and well evidenced, should it happen to clash with a literal interpretation of a particular ancient scripture is a bit more than rich.

Nope.

Your stance is non-scientific, using terms that you can shift about when challenged. I have put my stake in the ground. If it is shown untenable, I will be forced to move it.

There may not be one simple all inclusive definition of "species" but that doesn't mean that anyone is equivocating about it or being dishonest.

Definitions, by definition, define an idea. Tell us what your idea is and put a word to it. If you do not want to use "species," fine. :up:

Science at least is very capable of honestly adapting to all the facts and evidence.

Nope. Science is throwing out ideas based on the evidence.

What is being dishonest imo is dyed-in-the-wool YECs who would whinge and whine that science or Darwinian evolution has a problem because the definition of "species" is just a bit too vague (or woolly?) for them to accept ...but YECs won't accept any science if it contradicts Genesis!

:yawn:

Wake us up when you're done emoting.

 

[alwight]

Nope.

Your stance is non-scientific, using terms that you can shift about when challenged. I have put my stake in the ground. If it is shown untenable, I will be forced to move it.

Stripe, fundies like you are obliged to adhere to a literal Genesis, come hell or high water admit it, it cannot be allowed to be wrong, whatever science may rigorously conclude. That is the only reason why you reject "species" for "kinds", be honest, rationality doesn't come into it.

Definitions, by definition, define an idea. Tell us what your idea is and put a word to it. If you do not want to use "species," fine. :up:

"Species" as it stands is more than adequate to explain the idea for most rational people including me.

Nope. Science is throwing out ideas based on the evidence.

You think that science is dishonest because it throws out (falsifies?) ideas based in evidence?

 

[Stripe]

Stripe, fundies like you are obliged to adhere to a literal Genesis, come hell or high water admit it, it cannot be allowed to be wrong, whatever science may rigorously conclude. That is the only reason why you reject "species" for "kinds", be honest, rationality doesn't come into it.

Nope. Evidence, remember? That's what science is concerned with.

On the other hand, you are yet to provide anything remotely approaching a rational contribution to a scientific discussion; even vacillating on whether there is a definition of "species."

Forget being able to challenge any of your ideas; you haven't suggested anything concrete that might be tested.

However, the YEC camp has provided a clear and concise definition of "kind," which has shown itself to be useful as a tool to determine fact from fiction.

"Species" as it stands is more than adequate to explain the idea for most rational people including me.

And yet you will not explain what it is. You just use the term and carry a myriad of definitions from which you can pluck a suitable one to deny any challenge to your precious religion exists.

You think that science is dishonest because it throws out (falsifies?) ideas based in evidence?

:chuckle:

I've not used the word "dishonest" in this thread.

That would be you; desperate to deflect attention from the paucity of your ideas.

 

[alwight]

Wasn't it a Biblical creationist who is the father of modern taxonomy?

Darwin was a Biblical creationist at one time.:idea:

The point is that evolutionists seem to want concise definitions, (no problem) but bristle when they realize they have even bigger problems with definitions.

About God and YECism? Seems to me what is actually required is some evidence beyond what some people believe from ancient scripture, it needn't be perfect. :nono:

God created organisms with great diversity...so much so that biologists sometimes have had difficulty knowing that the male and female are the same species. *With difficulties such as that between live observable animals, calling old bones a separate species is often based on evolutionary assumptions...not the scientific method.

Some specific evidence might be nice and we might find out how their conclusions were arrived at.

* *We are all descendants of "early humans"... We even know their names.*

You might believe you do, but I personally have my doubts that your ancient scripture is as reliable as you want it to be, myth/legend and historical fact are not necessarily the same thing.

Not "many"... its pretty much all of us, excluding Africans.*

Sounds interesting what is your source?

Neandertals we're a distinct people group not unlike pygmies and others who are distinct. Neandertal skeletal differences fall within the range of some modern humans. Evolutionists attempt to deny the humanity of Neandertals, even though science has shown we are their descendants. (Not unlike how evolutionists in the past denied humanity of black people calling them savages who would someday be eliminated, or who thought women weren't as highly evolved as men. )

Who and when exactly is attempting to deny their humanity? You wouldn't be going back to the 19th century would you, things have moved on a bit since then?

God's Word correct thousands of years ago...Correct now. All humanity is one blood.

If you say so.

 

[alwight]

Nope. Evidence, remember? That's what science is concerned with.

On the other hand, you are yet to provide anything remotely approaching a rational contribution to a scientific discussion; even vacillating on whether there is a definition of "species."

Forget being able to challenge any of your ideas; you haven't suggested anything concrete that might be tested.

However, the YEC camp has provided a clear and concise definition of "kind," which has shown itself to be useful as a tool to determine fact from fiction.

Stripe, I doubt that there will ever be a rational scientific definition of "species" that you will not quibble with. The existing scientific explanation should be quite good enough for reasonable people, but sadly you are obliged to quibble with any such definition. The fact is that in your world there can only be "kinds", however well and comprehensively "species" are defined for you.

 

[Stripe]

I doubt that there will ever be a rational scientific definition of "species."

That seems likely. Wiki admits that the term is highly variable. I've seen as many as 14 definitions for the word. You can't even decide whether you're going to define it as organisms that can reproduce or stick with the "no definition" nonsense.

that you will not quibble with.

To talk science, you need to be precise and consistent in the words you use. Introducing a word that so readily disguises the fact that what you are talking about is constant equivocation is the antithesis of science.

In this very thread, evolutionists have used the word "species" as if it is evidence for what they believe, when what they believe requires a malleable term to insulate their ideas from challenges.

The existing scientific explanation should be quite good enough for reasonable people.

Because you say so? Or are you going to issue an appeal to popularity?

"Species" is not a scientific term until you define it. You cannot define it as a myriad of things and then use it as if it is a solid concept.

You are obliged to quibble with any such definition.

You haven't provided a definition. You've vacillated between nonsense and equivocation.

The fact is that in your world there can only be "kinds", however well and comprehensively "species" are defined for you.

Nope. I'd be happy to talk about "species" if you are willing to stick with a definition.

However, evolutionists are at their happiest when they can waffle on about nonsense; it helps them keep their distance from the challenges they face.

YECs have raised a number of challenges to the evolutionary model and they have been systematically ignored. You blokes aren't doing science; you're protecting a religion.

If you defined "species," we'd raise a whole lot more. Added incentive for you to keep spouting noise.