Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryrge
You say:
A species is a community of organisms that is internally fertile, but reproductively isolated from any other organisms.
Is that your own personally conceived and formulated definition of a species, and you give the lizard Podarcis sicula as an example of a species?
No that is not my own personally conceived and formulated definition of a species. It was formulated by Dobzhanzky and Mayer about 80 years ago. It is generally called the BSC or "Biological Species Concept" definition and with minor variations is almost universally accepted among biologists. Even creationist biologists.
And yes, Podarcis sicula is an example of a species.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryrge
I just want to ask you what you mean by the term 'internally fertile," and what by the term "reproductively isolated."
If two members of the same species mate, they can produce fertile offspring. If they are different species (no matter how closely related) they cannot.
"Reproductively isolated" means that the two species (think of them as gene pools) are separated from each other and do not intermix. Hint: This can be caused by behavior, mutual infertility, morphology, geography, even time (look up the concept of chronospecies.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryrge
I have read online the account of five pairs of Podarcis sicula lizards living in one island moved to another island, in Rapid large-scale evolutionary divergence in morphology and performance associated with exploitation of a different dietary resource PNAS.
Great... you finally managed to find the reference that I already gave you. I am very proud of you.
Now... that is the first publication where the evolutionary divergence of the lizards on the new island was first identified and published. There have been a number of others since. I am sure you will find and enjoy them too.
Thanks, HD, for your presence and cooperation.
What I am interested in is with tests for people to determine when a species is already different enough from its shall we call it species of origin, so that it (the later species) can be called a new species.
You say:
If two members of the same species mate, they can produce fertile offspring. If they are different species (no matter how closely related) they cannot.
I can see that to be a concrete way a good test to determine when a later species is a new species distinct from its species of origin.
Now you seem to put a reservation or a qualifier with these words:
"Reproductively isolated" means that the two species (think of them as gene pools) are separated from each other and do not intermix. Hint: This can be caused by behavior, mutual infertility, morphology, geography, even time (look up the concept of chronospecies.)
I am not very clear on what you exactly mean with those words.
Do you see your words to be clear?
Anyway, let me try.
You mean that the two species do not breed because they are isolated from each other in effect, but if you can bring the egg of one and the sperm of the other or vice-versa they can breed and their offsprings can breed?
Remember we are talking about species that do breed by egg and sperm as with lizards for example the Podarcis sicula.
If macro-evolution weren't true (no speciation), we'd only have one highly evolved species on the entire face of the planet You only need to look around to see that isn't the case.
I spent a few minutes reading some reviews of this amazing book posted to us. The author apparently has a Ph.D in engineering. I was expecting someone with a Ph.D in biology, since he's supposed to be an authority on the subject. Funny how that isn't the case, and it never is when it comes to such books.
Apparently he's also one of these people who believe humans and dinosaurs walked the earth at the same time
Really, those Flintstones cartoons aren't based on a true story. Somebody needs to spread the word.
If macro-evolution weren't true (no speciation), we'd only have one highly evolved species on the entire face of the planet You only need to look around to see that isn't the case.
Quote:
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood
Amazon.com: In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood (8th Edition) (9781878026095): Walt Brown: Books
I spent a few minutes reading some reviews of this amazing book posted to us. The author apparently has a Ph.D in engineering. I was expecting someone with a Ph.D in biology, since he's supposed to be an authority on the subject. Funny how that isn't the case, and it never is when it comes to such books.
Apparently he's also one of these people who believe humans and dinosaurs walked the earth at the same time
Really, those Flintstones cartoons aren't based on a true story. Somebody needs to spread the word.
You say:
I spent a few minutes reading some reviews of this amazing book posted to us. The author apparently has a Ph.D in engineering. I was expecting someone with a Ph.D in biology, since he's supposed to be an authority on the subject. Funny how that isn't the case, and it never is when it comes to such books.
Well, that is what I can see to be why critics of the proponents of the theory of evolution could find the ideas and views of the proponents of the theory to be questionable, when these critics seek to consider the engineering aspects of how any development of a new species (the species of descent) from an earlier species (species of origin) can be effected with the laws of engineering.
Are proponents of the theory of evolution dispensed from observing the laws of engineering?
I spent a few minutes reading some reviews of this amazing book posted to us. The author apparently has a Ph.D in engineering. I was expecting someone with a Ph.D in biology, since he's supposed to be an authority on the subject. Funny how that isn't the case, and it never is when it comes to such books.
Well, that is what I can see to be why critics of the proponents of the theory of evolution could find the ideas and views of the proponents of the theory to be questionable, when these critics seek to consider the engineering aspects of how any development of a new species (the species of descent) from an earlier species (species of origin) can be effected with the laws of engineering.
Are proponents of the theory of evolution dispensed from observing the laws of engineering?
Ryrge
Critics of evolution should come up with their own evidence/hypothesis on how life started that's falsifiable and present it to the scientific community for peer review if they want to be taken seriously.
No....none of us are dispensed from observing the laws of engineering, but that doesn't make us experts in the field, unless we went to school and spent years studying to be an engineer .
Just because you're an expert in one field, doesn't make your word on things outside it (see: biology) an authority in any way.
Last edited by achickenchaser; 05-11-2010 at 06:53 PM..
Now you seem to put a reservation or a qualifier with these words:
"Reproductively isolated" means that the two species (think of them as gene pools) are separated from each other and do not intermix. Hint: This can be caused by behavior, mutual infertility, morphology, geography, even time (look up the concept of chronospecies.)
I am not very clear on what you exactly mean with those words.
Do you see your words to be clear?
Actually yes, I do. If you sense "ambiguity" is not because the base definition (which you already declared solid) is ambiguous. It is because the experiment necessary to test that definition is not always possible.
For example, chronospecies such as Homo sapiens and Homo hiedelbergensis. How would you propose we test whether or not they could produce fertile offspring, when they are separated by 200 thousand years of time? We can't do the direct experiment, so we are left to use other characteristics to decide that they are different enough to be different species. In this case, we use morphology.
Another example is behavior. Sometimes, closely related species might actually be capable of producing fertile offspring, but because their behaviors have become so different they no longer ever interbreed, even when their natural ranges overlap. We see this a lot in fish like killifishes and stickelbacks. An interesting case is one being debated right now by taxonomists concerning Orcas. We have traditionally considered killer whales to be a single species, Orcinus orca. But we have noticed that there are different orca "cultures" that do not interbreed; "resident" pods that primarily eat fish, and "transient" pods that primarily eat other sea mammals like seals and whales. Genetic studies show that the groups have not interbred for more than 10,000 years, even though their ranges overlap almost completely.
As a result, there is a move afoot to classify them as separate, but closely related species, along with a third species discovered in 1988 in deep water called "offshore" pods.
Is it possible that these species could produce fertile offspring? Maybe, but we can't do the experiment because they will not mate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryrge
You mean that the two species do not breed because they are isolated from each other in effect, but if you can bring the egg of one and the sperm of the other or vice-versa they can breed and their offsprings can breed?
Remember we are talking about species that do breed by egg and sperm as with lizards for example the Podarcis sicula.
Not if the crossing is artificial. I.e. if we artificially inseminated a Pod Mrcaru egg with the sperm of a Pod Kopiste lizard, that would not demonstrate they were still the same species.
But if they interbreed in the wild, or if they could interbreed in the wild and produce fertile offspring, then they are the same species. What I hope you have found in your continued research is that we've tried that.
But their behaviors (especially the territoriality of males) have changed so much that they will no longer cross.
I spent a few minutes reading some reviews of this amazing book posted to us. The author apparently has a Ph.D in engineering. I was expecting someone with a Ph.D in biology, since he's supposed to be an authority on the subject. Funny how that isn't the case, and it never is when it comes to such books.
I've actually known Walt Tarleton Brown for the better part of 25 years. He graduated from West Point many, many years before I did so it was a commonality we shared when we started debating each other on the issue of creation/evolution in the mid 1980s.
My favorite exchange with him was over his arguments for a young earth. He had a list of about 10 elements that he said proved the Earth was young, since the amounts of them present in seawater were far too low for the oceans to have been billions of years old. When I pointed out to him that the ages he had calculated were mutually contradictory, and some of them absurd (aluminum would indicate that the oceans are only a few hundred years old) he couldn't wrap his head around the concept of "residence times." I explained that, sure, elements were always flowing into the sea... but they also were constantly being removed from seawater by deposition, biological extraction (there are a lot of living things in the sea, after all) and simple chemistry. And therefore, the numbers he had calculated did not tell us how old the seas were, but what the residence times were for different elements before they were removed.
He then countered that there were no known mechanisms for removing the ten elements on his list... a claim I was able to debunk in 30 minutes by showing him mechanisms for each and every element on his list.
Here is where it get's fun.
Once I had destroyed his little list of ten elements, I asked him, "Walt. Now that you know your claims about these ten elements were not true, are you going to stop claiming that they prove the Earth is young?"
He answered, "No. I'll just come up with a new list of other elements."
That right there tells you everything you need to know about the intellectual integrity of "creation scientists."
Are proponents of the theory of evolution dispensed from observing the laws of engineering?
In Walt's case, almost none of his arguments have anything to do with engineering. In fact his "big contribution" is the theory of "continental zip" and that's an argument about geology, not engineering.
Walt's a bit of a nutcase. He's a nice enough old codger, but he's also been considered weird even by his friends ever since he was a cadet.
In the spirit of mutual, intellectually honest truth-or-dare tell-alls, Ryrge, why don't you point out one or two or five key elements of the established mechanisms of Evolution that you know, or think, to be false?
This same question could also be directed at bellafinzi, who makes some absolute and conclusive statements here.
Then I and others here can address them, quietly, peacefully, and briefly.
Critics of evolution should come up with their own evidence/hypothesis on how life started that's falsifiable and present it to the scientific community for peer review if they want to be taken seriously.
No....none of are dispensed from observing the laws of engineering, but that doesn't make us experts in the field, unless we went to school and spent years studying to be an engineer .
Just because you're an expert in one field, doesn't make your word on things outside it (see: biology) an authority in any way.
You say:
Just because you're an expert in one field, doesn't make your word on things outside it (see: biology) an authority in any way.
But even though you are not the expert in any field, if you have the intelligence that is measured with IQ you can determine whether the ideas and views of anyone expert in his field is talking intelligence or guesswork.
You will ask me, what is that intelligence which is measured by IQ scores?
Well, we have to find out from authors of IQ tests more exactly.
But I can give you some ideas, intelligence as measured with IQ scores consists in factors whereby a human being can and does know what makes sense and what does not, for example, seeing the bigger and bigger picture of things, that is one factor of an intelligent mind that makes him more intelligent in his thinking than a person who cannot or chooses to not see the bigger and bigger picture of things and even the biggest possible to the human mind.
Another example of a factor whereby a person is more intelligent compared to one not as intelligent, as scored with IQ tests, is the habit and skill of seeing patterns in things which are consistently prevailing in a situation or event.
What on earth do IQ tests have to do with this discussion? I believe Rifleman asked you a question...Are you going to answer?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You only need to look around to see that isn't the case.
