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.
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.
[...]
You say:
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.
Not always possible, in which case just do the possible experiments.
And draw the conclusion on the possible and effected experiment whether the species of descent (from an alleged species of origin) is a new species or not.
Is that kind of an experiment done with the lizard Podarcis sicula?
---------------------
For those who want me to give examples of things I know about the theory of evolution, I will just say that when I consider the theoretical underpinnings of the theory, from the standpoint of intelligence as measured on IQ tests, it is not intelligent.
Now you think that intelligence as measured on IQ tests does not matter with the proponents of the theory, then that is your opinion.
Perhaps you want to tell that to the proponents of the theory, that their intelligence does not matter in their advocacy of the theory and in their explanation of the theory.
What do I know about the intelligence content of the theory of evolution?
Here, it postulates that chance mutation can produce a species that nature [sic] can filter out as survivable and thus it survives into a new species.
Why should chance produce a favorable or beneficial change in an organism which chance does not also destroy or also reverse undo in the next split second?
Is that an intelligent question or not, or to you it is intelligent to not ask the question?
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.
The man is not here, so best to here leave him out of the discussion on his book, his writings, his ideas and advocacies, and his style of debate, in particular when he is being subjected to disparaging words.
As regards geology not having anything to do with engineering, tell that to engineers.
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.
What I'm interested it is that you mentioned you would do research on specific examples of speciation and report back with what you've found. So far, you've fallen a bit short. It's almost as if you're hoping people will forget that you attempted to dodge them in this way.
Ryrge, I'm now officially assuming that English is not your first language, right? I'm just trying to suss your posts, and I'm possibly not intelligent enough to "get" them.
I'm trying to figure if you're arguing against the chance development of "intelligence" as a consequence of biochemical evolution within the brain of a particular species, or if you're suggesting that folks who have proven Evolution do not demonstrate enough IQ to make such comments.
To which I'd say, Huh?
At any rate, I thought my question to you about listing a few key elements was simple-minded enough. Yes? No?
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.
Sadly, no.
IQ was invented as a tool to determine exactly what areas learning disabled children were having difficulties in.
Its later misuse as a measure of "general intelligence" is rank pseudoscience.
Last edited by HistorianDude; 05-12-2010 at 11:41 AM..
Not always possible, in which case just do the possible experiments.
We do them when we can. When we cannot, we don't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryrge
Is that kind of an experiment done with the lizard Podarcis sicula?
Yes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryrge
Why should chance produce a favorable or beneficial change in an organism which chance does not also destroy or also reverse undo in the next split second?
Chance merely increases genetic variability (we are talking point mutations here, not macro-mutations). In any changing environment, or environment for which an organism is not already completely adapted, any increase in variability that affects fitness must have a 50-50 chance of moving the organism towards better fitness or away from better fitness.
Natural selection is then responsible for conserving beneficial changes and eliminating deleterious changes.
The man is not here, so best to here leave him out of the discussion on his book, his writings, his ideas and advocacies, and his style of debate, in particular when he is being subjected to disparaging words.
His book (his one and only book) has been introduced in this thread as evidence for creationism. He and his ideas are now fair game for discussion and consideration.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryrge
As regards geology not having anything to do with engineering, tell that to engineers.
I don't have to. I am an engineer by undergraduate training.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryrge
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.
What I'm interested it is that you mentioned you would do research on specific examples of speciation and report back with what you've found. So far, you've fallen a bit short. It's almost as if you're hoping people will forget that you attempted to dodge them in this way.
No, I am not hoping that people will forget, and I have been and am still doing research.
My efforts also are exerted to get some definitions correct ones or precise clear ones from people here who use the word species unclearly.
My original question from way back is has anyone found any new species having developed from an old species by random mutation and natural selection or in the laboratory?
And I have found that the most original account of lizards (Podarcis sicula) developing into allegedly another species of lizards is that from the article:
I have not read the latest postings of HistorianDude.
But I have to ask him again as I am now asking you, have you two found any new species specifically of lizards Podarcis sicula having developed from an older species of lizards?
And in this connection do you two mean that by being isolated reproductively, you understand that a new species has arisen if it is only at most physically prevented by being for example transported by men to another land location, so that it cannot physically interbreed with members of the species supposedly species of origin?
When I get all terms clearly understood, clearly explained by people here specially you and HistorianDude, then I will tell you my finding.
And I assure you that I will tell you whether you are right or wrong or more correctly getting the facts correctly or being loose in your words about a new species having arisen from an old species.
Just you be patient.
In the meantime I assure you that I am not in the habit of trapping people who want to talk fondly about new species having already seen to have developed from old species in a matter of some decades within a researcher's or experimenter's lifetime.
No, I am not in the habit of trapping people, but in the habit of getting people to explain their words and statements as to fit the facts as the case at issue is concerned.
Okay, here are the two questions that I am following up very closely by asking you and HistorianDude for details on new species from old species:
1. Again, what is a species in regard, in particular, to a new species which I will call species of descent having developed from an older species which I will call the species of origin.
2. In regard to the species lizards which is brought up by HistorianDude, has there really been a new species that has developed from an old species?
Please don't engage in loose talk hoping to convince people when you are not doing any convincing but the way I see it, engaging in loose talk.
Well, HistorianDude, will you answer my last post here also addressed to you.
Or if you be in a hurry, just then tell me categorically:
Has there been a new species developed from the lizards Podarcis sicula as reported in that article in PNAS?
And no loose talk here, please.
Ryrge
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.
