Wow. Biblical literalists lead museum tours. [Archive]

Zygote

02-24-2006, 03:25 PM

Evidence against evolution is always welcome in the science class. Evolution just happens to be such a profoundly brilliant theory that all attempts to trump the theory's success, to date, have utterly failed.

This is basically how science works:
Scientists gather data wherever they can and attempt to do so unbiasedly and by strict methodology. So forth, attempts to explain the data require the explainer to pose a hypothesis. Next, the hypothesis must be tested against the data as an effort to falsify the theory.

No theory can be verified, but those that pass the test of falsification are adpoted as useful models.

Science is actually a utility and not a search for the utlimate truth, even though we may come about that truth by scientific research. Science is the attempt to best explain observable phenomon and model them so as to produce useful predictions and descriptions for their consequential benefit.

Any hypothesis that wants to stand the test of falsification versus evolution is welcome to do so. A theory must be testable against data for the theory to be scientific. The theory must also compete amongst other theories so that only the fittest survive. the point is that biblical creationism has virtually no chance of winning that fight (mostly because their isn't even a testable hypothesis) and that is why the theory is religious in nature rather than scientific.

miketurner

02-24-2006, 06:53 PM

But you’re putting words in my mouth as well as “reading between the lines” about the class that may or may not be accurate. That is why I said to ignore the fact that you may know I am a theist... because I agree with what you are saying except where you address incorrectly what you *think* I am really getting at.
[ QUOTE ]
Evidence against evolution is always welcome in the science class.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is exactly NOT true. That is what my question was about... If there is any evidence against it, why would it be forbidden to address it. If there were no evidence against it, there would be nothing to address. Obviously there is something to address here. Even if the evidence for it holds up in the end, it seems very “unscientific” to me to ignore or even forbid evidence against it. Surely you guys get what I’m saying here. Are you just purposely changing my meaning?
I’ll say it again... I am not even hinting about teaching creationism. It is incorrect for anyone to spin it that way.

hmkpoker

02-24-2006, 07:02 PM

Truth be told, I don't think evolution requires much (if any) fossil evidence to be validated. I brought this up way back, then Borodog put it much better than I did:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showth...rue#Post4318615 (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&Board=scimathphil&Number=43 18615&Searchpage=1&Main=4318615&Words=%26quot%3Bev olution+is+inevitable%26quot%3B&topic=&Search=true #Post4318615)

I love how there are people here who say there's no evidence for evolution, considering how much has been put forth by Maurille and Rduke55. What kind of evidence does evolution need? Do you need to watch a horse give birth to a monkey?

Zygote

02-24-2006, 07:03 PM

[ QUOTE ]
This is exactly NOT true. That is what my question was about... If there is any evidence against it, why would it be forbidden to address it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Forbidden by who?

miketurner

02-24-2006, 07:37 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I love how there are people here who say there's no evidence for evolution,

[/ QUOTE ]

Who said that?

miketurner

02-24-2006, 07:38 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is exactly NOT true. That is what my question was about... If there is any evidence against it, why would it be forbidden to address it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Forbidden by who?

[/ QUOTE ]

the Ohio Board of Education

MidGe

02-24-2006, 07:53 PM

[ QUOTE ]
... That is what my question was about... If there is any evidence against it, why would it be forbidden to address it.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is NO evidence against it, there is only obscurantism masquerading as evidence. That obscurantism is NOT scientific evidence.

bunny

02-24-2006, 07:53 PM

[ QUOTE ]
But you’re putting words in my mouth as well as “reading between the lines” about the class that may or may not be accurate. That is why I said to ignore the fact that you may know I am a theist... because I agree with what you are saying except where you address incorrectly what you *think* I am really getting at.
[ QUOTE ]
Evidence against evolution is always welcome in the science class.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is exactly NOT true. That is what my question was about... If there is any evidence against it, why would it be forbidden to address it. If there were no evidence against it, there would be nothing to address. Obviously there is something to address here. Even if the evidence for it holds up in the end, it seems very “unscientific” to me to ignore or even forbid evidence against it. Surely you guys get what I’m saying here. Are you just purposely changing my meaning?
I’ll say it again... I am not even hinting about teaching creationism. It is incorrect for anyone to spin it that way.

[/ QUOTE ]
I understand the point you are making. I think the objection to these classes comes from examining the quote from your first post. The deleted class

[ QUOTE ]
“encourages students to seek evidence for and against evolution.”

[/ QUOTE ]
The objection to this is that is legitimizes the idea that there is evidence to be found either way. A class which "encourages students to evaluate evidence for and against evolution" would be welcome - it would also be one-sided. The fact is there is no evidence against evolution. Even creationists only propose puzzles or things they claim evolution cant explain. This isnt evidence against evolution it's evidence against human understanding. Evidence against evolution would be evidence showing that random mutations didnt happen or that natural selection doesnt favor the "survival of the fittest".

So to me, the reason I would agree with cancelling the class is because it encourages students to doubt something we have no good reason to doubt. I similarly think it would be a waste of time running a maths class in which students were "encouraged to find inconsistencies in the axioms of euclidean geometry". It comes down to the goal of education - we dont have time to start kids off with no assumptions. We fast-track their knowledge and say "these are all the things we know - memorise them." Later on they can go back and question fundamental beliefs if they want but we dont have time to question every little axiom or kids wont graduate until they're forty.

Marko Schmarko

02-24-2006, 08:56 PM

[ QUOTE ]
"Did man and dinosaurs live together?" Carter asks. A timid yes comes from the students.

"How do we know that to be true?" Carter says. There's a long pause.

"What day did God create dinosaurs on?" he continues.

"Six," says a chorus of voices.

"What day did God create man on?"

"Six."

"Did man and dinosaurs live together?"

"Yes," the students say.

[/ QUOTE ]

vomit.

hmkpoker

02-24-2006, 10:40 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I love how there are people here who say there's no evidence for evolution,

[/ QUOTE ]

Who said that?

[/ QUOTE ]

oh man...NotReady, spaminator, txag007...the religious whackjobs. if I remember correctly, you joined 2+2 a month or two ago, shortly after the big SMP evolution wars of late '05 /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Rduke55

02-24-2006, 10:46 PM

[ QUOTE ]
there is any evidence against it, why would it be forbidden to address it.

[/ QUOTE ]

It isn't.

[ QUOTE ]
If there were no evidence against it, there would be nothing to address.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's the thing. The entire thing you aren't realizing is that the evidence against evolution isn't evidence at all in the scientific sense. That's why it's not in science class.

miketurner

02-25-2006, 09:28 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
there is any evidence against it, why would it be forbidden to address it.

[/ QUOTE ]

It isn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is according to this “linky linky” the OP posted. I quoted it in my first post.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If there were no evidence against it, there would be nothing to address.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's the thing. The entire thing you aren't realizing is that the evidence against evolution isn't evidence at all in the scientific sense. That's why it's not in science class.

[/ QUOTE ]

Truth be told, I would not be able to argue with that. But, with relatively little effort, I found 15 or so scientists (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&Number=4753006) with very impressive credentials and who specialize in this field who disagree. They go into pretty good detail as to why they disagree. I did a fairly extensive search on them, and found no evidence that they are not to be believed. I’m not saying I automatically think that they are right, & others are wrong... but I just find it suspicious that so many of you discard what they have to say without putting any effort into looking into their research. It’s as though most of you are guilty of doing the very thing that you accuse theists of doing... ignoring any evidence that doesn’t give you the desired results.

Rduke55

02-25-2006, 11:54 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
there is any evidence against it, why would it be forbidden to address it.

[/ QUOTE ]

It isn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is according to this “linky linky” the OP posted. I quoted it in my first post.

[/ QUOTE ]

 Again, what's not science does not belong in the classroom. Should astrology be there? Should the four humors idea of health be taught in class? 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If there were no evidence against it, there would be nothing to address.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's the thing. The entire thing you aren't realizing is that the evidence against evolution isn't evidence at all in the scientific sense. That's why it's not in science class.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Truth be told, I would not be able to argue with that. But, with relatively little effort, I found 15 or so scientists (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&Number=4753006) with very impressive credentials and who specialize in this field who disagree. They go into pretty good detail as to why they disagree.

[/ QUOTE ]

 First off, nearly none of these guys' are specialized in this field one is a J.D., etc.). Grasse is actually a zoologist so I would guess he's an exception. But I would hardly characterize him as "France's most distinguished zoologist" 

[ QUOTE ]
I did a fairly extensive search on them, and found no evidence that they are not to be believed. I’m not saying I automatically think that they are right, & others are wrong...

[/ QUOTE ]

 The problem when you only search for evidence that supports your point is that you always find it. Of course their arguments seem reasonable becasue they aren't being put into the broader picture. The random point mutation that they LOVE to give us statistics on is only ONE part of where the variability that underlies evolution comes from. Things like sexualy reproduction and recombination (to name to) play huge roles but we never see these taken into account in their cute little math problems.

[ QUOTE ]
but I just find it suspicious that so many of you discard what they have to say without putting any effort into looking into their research. It’s as though most of you are guilty of doing the very thing that you accuse theists of doing... ignoring any evidence that doesn’t give you the desired results.

[/ QUOTE ]

 You seem pretty reasonable and I like most of your posts but this is pretty irritating. How do you know that we haven't looked at it? One of the classes I teach is for nonmajors and I have to deal with these kinds of questions a lot. So I have looked into it in great detail.

There are fatal flaws with the rationale used to debunk evolution. Of course you won't see these because they only present the one side.

miketurner

02-25-2006, 01:22 PM

[ QUOTE ]
 Again, what's not science does not belong in the classroom. Should astrology be there? Should the four humors idea of health be taught in class? 

[/ QUOTE ]

One of us (or both) must be misunderstanding the other here.

[ QUOTE ]
 The problem when you only search for evidence that supports your point is that you always find it. Of course their arguments seem reasonable becasue they aren't being put into the broader picture. The random point mutation that they LOVE to give us statistics on is only ONE part of where the variability that underlies evolution comes from. Things like sexualy reproduction and recombination (to name to) play huge roles but we never see these taken into account in their cute little math problems.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, I didn’t search for evidence to “support my point.” To the contrary, I tried to find evidence that these men were wrong or incompetent. The reason I searched for that is: if I post something stupid, someone here is sure to find evidence of that & make me look like an idiot. I would rather find that out on my own and use my little “backspace” key before I hit “submit.” /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[ QUOTE ]
 You seem pretty reasonable and I like most of your posts but this is pretty irritating. How do you know that we haven't looked at it? One of the classes I teach is for nonmajors and I have to deal with these kinds of questions a lot. So I have looked into it in great detail.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you & sorry. I’m not trying to be irritating. In fact, if you are irritated... I have worded things poorly. Do you believe this forum if full of well studied scientific minds? Maybe you are an exception, but... well, just look at the recent airplane thread... How is that thing 7 pages? It is definitely not the result of well studied people to have a 7 page argument on something that is answered on page one.

[ QUOTE ]
 There are fatal flaws with the rationale used to debunk evolution. Of course you won't see these because they only present the one side.

[/ QUOTE ]

Cool. Help me out. Where are sources that debunk what these men have written. It is a (understandable) mistake to think that I blindly accept their theories. All I am saying is that I don’t blindly accept the other theories either. You follow me yet?

EDIT: On second thought... I think you & I agree entirely! This is exactly what I am saying and nothing more:[ QUOTE ]
 The problem when you only search for evidence that supports your point is that you always find it .

[/ QUOTE ]

bunny

02-25-2006, 02:25 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Truth be told, I would not be able to argue with that. But, with relatively little effort, I found 15 or so scientists (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&Number=4753006) with very impressive credentials and who specialize in this field who disagree. They go into pretty good detail as to why they disagree. I did a fairly extensive search on them, and found no evidence that they are not to be believed. I’m not saying I automatically think that they are right, & others are wrong... but I just find it suspicious that so many of you discard what they have to say without putting any effort into looking into their research. It’s as though most of you are guilty of doing the very thing that you accuse theists of doing... ignoring any evidence that doesn’t give you the desired results.

[/ QUOTE ]
The argument that evolution hasnt had time to happen is a reasonable thing to bring up in scientific discussion. However, it is unreasonable to claim this as evidence against evolution. It is evidence against human understanding and is merely something our theory needs to explain.

Notice the whole argument hinges on a number of assumptions (eg "According to Professor Ambrose, the minimum number of mutations necessary to produce the simplest new structure in an organism is five"). One explanation for the discrepancy between time required and time available would be errors in these assumptions. This assumption alone seems highly doubtful to me - in simple organisms I dont believe this is true at all (this isnt my field - first geneticist I asked told me it was demonstrably wrong though). I'm sure each of the assumptions used to build the mathematical model can be challenged or interpreted differently.

Another problem with time-based arguments against evolution is that they usually ignore the natural selection side and just factor in the random element. Random mutation alone hasnt had time to explain all of the complex organisms we see today - but it doesnt happen alone. Mutations happen and form the starting point for the next generation - "good" ones thrive, "bad" ones are rapidly discarded. Including this aspect of evolution into the equations makes it happen much, much faster.

To return to the classroom scenario. I would repeat my previous point, we dont have time for kids to be challenging every assumption and every axiom. There are fundamental problems at the edge of our understanding in any endeavour - physics, maths, medicine, any field you look at has unexplained anomalies. This doesnt mean we are about to abandon our theories as failures - it means we have to think harder about them. Kids are taught the uncontroversial bits - later on they can learn what the problems are at the edges of understanding.

Sharkey

02-25-2006, 02:33 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Should we be encouraging students to look for evidence against the theory of gravity?

[/ QUOTE ]

Science 101:

The huge difference is that gravity has been observed, evolution has not.

Apocalypso

02-25-2006, 03:17 PM

Yes it has /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Sharkey

02-25-2006, 03:27 PM

Such as where?

And, please, not the virus canard. A species is a group wherein the members are mutually fertile.

MelchyBeau

02-25-2006, 04:11 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Science 101:

The huge difference is that gravity has been observed, evolution has not.

[/ QUOTE ]

ah, but we do not know why gravity acts the way it does. some believe it is a space-time curving factor, wheras others believe its due to particle interaction.

Melch

Sharkey

02-25-2006, 04:36 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Science 101:

The huge difference is that gravity has been observed, evolution has not.

[/ QUOTE ]

ah, but we do not know why gravity acts the way it does. some believe it is a space-time curving factor, wheras others believe its due to particle interaction.

Melch

[/ QUOTE ]

No theory is perfect, but evolution by natural selection can’t even get started.

miketurner

02-25-2006, 04:44 PM

[ QUOTE ]
we dont have time for kids to be challenging every assumption and every axiom.

[/ QUOTE ]

Although it is only speculation, (in this case anyway) I concede that this might be true. The story doesn’t state exactly *why* they deleted the lesson plan. If this is the reason however, it is very poor writing for the author to throw that in there in the context of the story.

miketurner

02-25-2006, 04:45 PM

[ QUOTE ]
No theory is perfect, but evolution by natural selection can’t even get started.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please expand on this, with links & not just your opinion.

miketurner

02-25-2006, 04:54 PM

From: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&Number=4868241
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Any sort of sexual act that does not include the potential of reproduction is merely entertainment. This type of entertainment is a social construct

[/ QUOTE ]

No. Most times, people are not motivated to have sex because they want to reproduce. They have sex because it feels good. Evolution needed to make a very, very simple and clear incentive for animals to go through with reproduction.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is possible that he wasn’t being serious. But, wouldn’t early life die off before “evolution made sex feel good”?

Sharkey

02-25-2006, 04:54 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No theory is perfect, but evolution by natural selection can’t even get started.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please expand on this, with links & not just your opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

As a rule, I prefer logic over appeals to links.

The first necessity of a scientific theory is observation. I have yet to see a single example of two species (internally fertile, externally infertile groups) related through speciation, i.e. the process of one species becoming another, by means of natural evolution.

miketurner

02-25-2006, 05:02 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No theory is perfect, but evolution by natural selection can’t even get started.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please expand on this, with links & not just your opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

As a rule, I prefer logic over appeals to links.

The first necessity of a scientific theory is observation. I have yet to see a single example of two species (internally fertile, externally infertile groups) related through speciation, i.e. the process of one species becoming another, by means of natural evolution.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not even that I disagree with you or not... but the problem here is credibility. I don’t know if you are in a field that would allow you to see anything. Especially when others will almost definitely reply with “it has been observed.” That direction of debate just leads nowhere. I have yet to see a single example of two cows [censored], but that is not proof that they don't get it on to some Marvin Gaye. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Rduke55

02-25-2006, 05:02 PM

[ QUOTE ]
From: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&Number=4868241
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Any sort of sexual act that does not include the potential of reproduction is merely entertainment. This type of entertainment is a social construct

[/ QUOTE ]

No. Most times, people are not motivated to have sex because they want to reproduce. They have sex because it feels good. Evolution needed to make a very, very simple and clear incentive for animals to go through with reproduction.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is possible that he wasn’t being serious. But, wouldn’t early life die off before “evolution made sex feel good”?

[/ QUOTE ]

The "feel good" aspects of sex are believed by many scientists to be only in certain species for reasons other than strictly reinforing the reproductive act. Things like bonding, etc.

Rduke55

02-25-2006, 05:07 PM

Sharkey

02-25-2006, 05:15 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No theory is perfect, but evolution by natural selection can’t even get started.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please expand on this, with links & not just your opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

As a rule, I prefer logic over appeals to links.

The first necessity of a scientific theory is observation. I have yet to see a single example of two species (internally fertile, externally infertile groups) related through speciation, i.e. the process of one species becoming another, by means of natural evolution.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not even that I disagree with you or not... but the problem here is credibility. I don’t know if you are in a field that would allow you to see anything. Especially when others will almost definitely reply with “it has been observed.” That direction of debate just leads nowhere. I have yet to see a single example of two cows [censored], but that is not proof that they don't get it on to some Marvin Gaye. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

I wonder if Marvin Gaye gets residuals from the ranchers.

The blanket statement can be contradicted. It’s meant to encourage debate.

Sharkey

02-25-2006, 05:18 PM

Rduke55

02-25-2006, 05:38 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No theory is perfect, but evolution by natural selection can’t even get started.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please expand on this, with links & not just your opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

As a rule, I prefer logic over appeals to links.

The first necessity of a scientific theory is observation. I have yet to see a single example of two species (internally fertile, externally infertile groups) related through speciation, i.e. the process of one species becoming another, by means of natural evolution.

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you mean by one species becoming another?

[/ QUOTE ]

Evolution.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now you know that's not what I meant.

Sharkey

02-25-2006, 06:03 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No theory is perfect, but evolution by natural selection can’t even get started.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please expand on this, with links & not just your opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

As a rule, I prefer logic over appeals to links.

The first necessity of a scientific theory is observation. I have yet to see a single example of two species (internally fertile, externally infertile groups) related through speciation, i.e. the process of one species becoming another, by means of natural evolution.

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you mean by one species becoming another?

[/ QUOTE ]

Evolution.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now you know that's not what I meant.

[/ QUOTE ]

That’s the definition of the word as far as I know. Sorry for any confusion.

Rduke55

02-25-2006, 06:10 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No theory is perfect, but evolution by natural selection can’t even get started.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please expand on this, with links & not just your opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

As a rule, I prefer logic over appeals to links.

The first necessity of a scientific theory is observation. I have yet to see a single example of two species (internally fertile, externally infertile groups) related through speciation, i.e. the process of one species becoming another, by means of natural evolution.

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you mean by one species becoming another?

[/ QUOTE ]

Evolution.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now you know that's not what I meant.

[/ QUOTE ]

That’s the definition of the word as far as I know. Sorry for any confusion.

[/ QUOTE ]

You were serious?

Sharkey

02-25-2006, 06:14 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No theory is perfect, but evolution by natural selection can’t even get started.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please expand on this, with links & not just your opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

As a rule, I prefer logic over appeals to links.

The first necessity of a scientific theory is observation. I have yet to see a single example of two species (internally fertile, externally infertile groups) related through speciation, i.e. the process of one species becoming another, by means of natural evolution.

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you mean by one species becoming another?

[/ QUOTE ]

Evolution.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now you know that's not what I meant.

[/ QUOTE ]

That’s the definition of the word as far as I know. Sorry for any confusion.

[/ QUOTE ]

You were serious?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah mon! What?

chrisnice

02-25-2006, 07:18 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Such as where?

And, please, not the virus canard. A species is a group wherein the members are mutually fertile.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lake Victoria is a great place to look. Lizards around a valley whose name I cant recall in California, as has been discussed in here before. There are also several island chains where the evidence is obvious.

Prodigy54321

02-25-2006, 11:05 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No theory is perfect, but evolution by natural selection can’t even get started.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please expand on this, with links & not just your opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

As a rule, I prefer logic over appeals to links.

The first necessity of a scientific theory is observation. I have yet to see a single example of two species (internally fertile, externally infertile groups) related through speciation, i.e. the process of one species becoming another, by means of natural evolution.

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you mean by one species becoming another?

[/ QUOTE ]

Evolution.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now you know that's not what I meant.

[/ QUOTE ]

That’s the definition of the word as far as I know. Sorry for any confusion.

[/ QUOTE ]

You were serious?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah mon! What?

[/ QUOTE ]

let me see if I can get this back on track

you said you've yet to see an example of "one species becoming another"

they you said by "one species becoming another" you mean "evolution"

so Am I right ta assume you are saying that "You have yet to see an example of evolution"

---care to elaborate?

Sharkey

02-25-2006, 11:30 PM

I haven’t read of an example of two species related by speciation, i.e. the process of one species (mutually fertile group) developing into another.

bunny

02-26-2006, 12:54 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I haven’t read of an example of two species related by speciation, i.e. the process of one species (mutually fertile group) developing into another.

[/ QUOTE ]
One point of caution - this is only one of many definitions of speciation. It is an appropriate one in the case of vertebrates (apparently) but not for others (in the case of plants and insects, for example it is more usual to use other definitions). Having said that - here are some examples cited in the literature:

First Example
Formation of five new species of cichlid fishes which formed since they were isolated less than 4000 years ago from the parent stock, Lake Nagubago.
(Test for speciation in this case is by morphology and lack of natural interbreeding. These fish have complex mating rituals and different coloration. While it might be possible that different species are inter-fertile, they cannot be convinced to mate.)

Mayr, E., 1970. Populations, Species, and Evolution, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press. p. 348

Second example
Two strains of Drosophila paulistorum developed hybrid sterility of male offspring between 1958 and 1963. Artificial selection induced strong intra-strain mating preferences.
(Test for speciation: sterile offspring and lack of interbreeding affinity.)

Dobzhansky, Th., and O. Pavlovsky, 1971. "An experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila", Nature 23:289-292.

Final example
Rapid speciation of the Faeroe Island house mouse, which occurred in less than 250 years after man brought the creature to the island.
(Test for speciation in this case is based on morphology. It is unlikely that forced breeding experiments have been performed with the parent stock.)

Stanley, S., 1979. Macroevolution: Pattern and Process, San Francisco, W.H. Freeman and Company. p. 41

I found these here (http://www.talkorigins.org)

chrisnice

02-26-2006, 01:51 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I haven’t read of an example of two species related by speciation, i.e. the process of one species (mutually fertile group) developing into another.

[/ QUOTE ]

Observed speciation (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html)

Lestat

02-26-2006, 02:07 AM

How is that thing 7 pages? It is definitely not the result of well studied people to have a 7 page argument on something that is answered on page one. 

Some just need a LOT more convincing than others before realizing they're wrong. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Sharkey

02-26-2006, 02:15 AM

Thanks for taking the time to post that.

The definition of “species” I'm using (mutually fertile group) might be too specific for those in the field, but it works for my own investigation. Namely, how it is possible for random mutations to produce a significant number of mutually fertile descendants that are at the same time infertile with the original population? This without a huge ratio of "dead end" errors.

Sharkey

02-26-2006, 02:20 AM

What I had in mind was more like this:

What is the best example of two species related by speciation, i.e. the process of one species (mutually fertile group) developing into another?

1. ______________________________

2. ______________________________

bunny

02-26-2006, 02:31 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Thanks for taking the time to post that.

The definition of “species” I'm using (mutually fertile group) might be too specific for those in the field, but it works for my own investigation. Namely, how it is possible for random mutations to produce a significant number of mutually fertile descendants that are at the same time infertile with the original population? This without a huge ratio of "dead end" errors.

[/ QUOTE ]
Are you looking for two species currently in existence? As that isnt the position of evolution as I understand it. Rather species X is separated into two populations which then diverge and mutate over time into species Y and species Z.

I dont think evolution makes any claims that dogs have mutated into cats (for example). I think it's more that a long time ago there was a species X (now extinct) which diverged into two populations. One population continued mutating, splitting, etc and ended up with dogs. The other ended up with cats.

So if you are looking for two alive species, one of which has descended from the other I believe you wont find one. But that isnt the state of affairs suggested by evolution either, I think.

MidGe

02-26-2006, 02:36 AM

What I had in mind was more like this:

What is the best example of two species related by speciation, i.e. the process of one species (mutually fertile group) developing into another?

1. __the common ancestors to apes and mankind

2. __both, apes and mankind

Sharkey

02-26-2006, 02:46 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Are you looking for two species currently in existence?

[/ QUOTE ]

Either one, both or neither can be living, as long as there is “reasonable” evidence they could not interbreed (i.e. they aren’t, in fact, only types with a species).

Sharkey

02-26-2006, 02:50 AM

[ QUOTE ]
What I had in mind was more like this:

What is the best example of two species related by speciation, i.e. the process of one species (mutually fertile group) developing into another?

1. __the common ancestors to apes and mankind

2. __both, apes and mankind

[/ QUOTE ]

What are the specific names of the two species?

chrisnice

02-26-2006, 02:58 AM

Alright, I think I have an answer for you.

1. Herring Gulls (Larus argentatus)
2. lesser black-backed gulls (Larus fuscus)

But more to the point I think your question shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what evolution is. Your question reminds me of what Richard Dawkins has called "the tyranny of the discontinuos mind." Your question is analagous to asking when a pot of cold water put on a stove becomes hot. And if there is no point where the water ceases to be cold and becomes hot then it is impossible to get hot water from cold water as there is no way to change cold water into hot.

Sharkey

02-26-2006, 03:03 AM

I’ll look into your answer.

The shortcoming of your analogy is that mutual fertility is an experimental fact, not a subjective judgment.

MidGe

02-26-2006, 03:05 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I’ll look into your answer.

The shortcoming of your analogy is that mutual fertility is an experimental fact, not a subjective judgment.

[/ QUOTE ]

But mutual infertility is gradually achieved, not from one day to the next.

chrisnice

02-26-2006, 03:08 AM

BTW, I highly recomend that your read The Salamanders Tale in "The Ancestors Tale" by Richard Dawkins. Most of the info I just gave is explained much better there. The main point of the tale though is that that is not the way that evolution works. The salamanders are an example of a ring species which is much more indicitive of how evolution does work.

Sharkey

02-26-2006, 03:12 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I’ll look into your answer.

The shortcoming of your analogy is that mutual fertility is an experimental fact, not a subjective judgment.

[/ QUOTE ]

But mutual infertility is gradually achieved, not from one day to the next.

[/ QUOTE ]

Any two given specimens are either mutually fertile, or they’re not.

Sharkey

02-26-2006, 03:16 AM

Any serious theory of evolution has to at least account for the emergence of mutually infertile populations.

MidGe

02-26-2006, 03:20 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Any two given specimens are either mutually fertile, or they’re not.

[/ QUOTE ]

The change from one species to another is gradual and over a long period of time. You don't seem to know very much about evolution. That makes it difficult argue, especially if you misrepresent it to suit your purposes. See "the tyranny of the discontinuous mind.".

Sharkey

02-26-2006, 03:26 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Any two given specimens are either mutually fertile, or they’re not.

[/ QUOTE ]

The change from one species to another is gradual and over a long period of time. You don't seem to know very much about evolution. That makes it difficult argue, especially if you misrepresent it to suit your purposes. See "the tyranny of the discontinuous mind.".

[/ QUOTE ]

Repeating: Any two given specimens are either mutually fertile or they’re not.

Where do you see any consideration of time in that statement?

New001

02-26-2006, 03:32 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Any two given specimens are either mutually fertile, or they’re not.

[/ QUOTE ]

The change from one species to another is gradual and over a long period of time. You don't seem to know very much about evolution. That makes it difficult argue, especially if you misrepresent it to suit your purposes. See "the tyranny of the discontinuous mind.".

[/ QUOTE ]

Repeating: Any two given specimens are either mutually fertile or they’re not.

Where do you see any consideration of time in that statement?

[/ QUOTE ]
Clearly evolution can't work how it sounds like you're assuming it does: If at any given point a new species suddenly sprang into existence from another, of course it wouldn't have any other "like kind" to mate with.

Fortunately for us, it doesn't quite work like that. Sharks don't randomly give birth to eels (not that you believe that, but it sounds like you're suggesting something similar). I'd suggest that you do some reading up on the subject if you're interested.

Sharkey

02-26-2006, 03:42 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Any two given specimens are either mutually fertile, or they’re not.

[/ QUOTE ]

The change from one species to another is gradual and over a long period of time. You don't seem to know very much about evolution. That makes it difficult argue, especially if you misrepresent it to suit your purposes. See "the tyranny of the discontinuous mind.".

[/ QUOTE ]

Repeating: Any two given specimens are either mutually fertile or they’re not.

Where do you see any consideration of time in that statement?

[/ QUOTE ]
Clearly evolution can't work how it sounds like you're assuming it does: If at any given point a new species suddenly sprang into existence from another, of course it wouldn't have any other "like kind" to mate with.

Fortunately for us, it doesn't quite work like that. Sharks don't randomly give birth to eels (not that you believe that, but it sounds like you're suggesting something similar). I'd suggest that you do some reading up on the subject if you're interested.

[/ QUOTE ]

I never said anything “suddenly sprang into existence”. What I’m asking to be shown is that (the species of) the first specimen descended from (the species of) the second and they could not interbreed.

MidGe

02-26-2006, 03:48 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I never said anything “suddenly sprang into existence”. What I’m asking to be shown is that (the species of) the first specimen descended from (the species of) the second and they could not interbreed.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know it is difficult to believe without a bit of serious research and study, still easier to believe than to believe in god, however, but all life descends from a single common ancestor!

I am not sure if you ever tried mating with a banana tree, probably not, but I know it is not possible.

Sharkey

02-26-2006, 03:52 AM

I’ll take your word for it without asking for details.

MidGe

02-26-2006, 03:56 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I’ll take your word for it without asking for details.

[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Sharkey

02-26-2006, 04:04 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I’ll take your word for it without asking for details.

[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

I meant about the banana tree, of course. The part about a single common ancestor is unacceptable and shocking.

MidGe

02-26-2006, 04:29 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I meant about the banana tree, of course. The part about a single common ancestor is unacceptable and shocking.

[/ QUOTE ]

Aaaah! The banana tree! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

By the way here is an article that raises issues that may be even more controversial than common ancestry:

Chimps and humans... what's in a name? (http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CAF62.htm)

Sharkey

02-26-2006, 04:40 AM

You won’t make a monkey out of me!

See ya.

Sharkey

02-26-2006, 02:57 PM

Larus argentatus and Larus fuscus are not mutually infertile.

bunny

02-26-2006, 05:52 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Any serious theory of evolution has to at least account for the emergence of mutually infertile populations.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think evolution does give an account of this. It seems to me that you are not looking for an account of it but for an actual instantiation of where it has occurred. This is difficult (if not impossible) due to the fact that these changes are claimed to occur over millions of years - the only way to demonstrate a clear and unbroken chain would be to make continuous samplings of the relevant populations continuously over millions of years. This is impossible - at least in practise if not in principle. All we have is the fossil record (which does reveal a number of intermediate phases even if it doesnt provide an unbroken chain).

Given it is not possible to "see" evolution happen within human lifetimes (even within the lifetime of most cultures) we have to look at other evidence for its existence. This is not anything unusual - there is no way to "watch" tectonic plates moving around but the evidence for their existence is clear. It can be deduced from observing the world as we find it now and asking how did it get this way.

Random mutations happen - they have been observed. Can you give any reason as to why natural selection wouldnt occur?

Sharkey

02-26-2006, 06:19 PM

A specific instance shouldn’t be too much to ask of a scientific theory.

The impossibility of direct observation isn’t a problem per se. What’s at issue is the exclusivity of whatever conclusion is reached to account for the observable evidence. The theory of tectonic plates is relatively cut-and-dry, I think, because the mechanism is directly inferable from the physical effects. Such is not the case with evolution by natural selection.

I’m sure mutation and selection both happen. However, are they sufficient to accomplish what they have been credited with?

Borodog

02-26-2006, 06:57 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I’m sure mutation and selection both happen. However, are they sufficient to accomplish what they have been credited with?

[/ QUOTE ]

How could they not be?

Random mutation and selection have been sufficient to accomplish this in just a few thousand years:

http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c153/Borodog/dogs.jpg

What, exactly prevents it from creating correspondingly greater changes over hundreds of thousands, millions, tens of millions, hundreds of millions of years?

Sharkey

02-26-2006, 07:10 PM

First off, that variety is the result of artificial selection. Are you trying to make my point for me?

Second, every member is a Canis familiaris.

Nice picture though.

Borodog

02-26-2006, 07:14 PM

Now try answering my question.

What, exactly prevents it from creating correspondingly greater changes over hundreds of thousands, millions, tens of millions, hundreds of millions of years?

Sharkey

02-26-2006, 07:24 PM

What “it” are you referring to?

purnell

02-26-2006, 07:26 PM

[ QUOTE ]
First off, that variety is the result of artificial selection. Are you trying to make my point for me?

Second, every member is a Canis familiaris.

Nice picture though.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Artificial selection"? So humans are outside of nature?

Boro's point is that if such variety can be observed in only a few thousand years, it is reasonable that much larger changes would be observed after a time interval that is a few orders of magnitude longer, and it is clearly a valid point.

In order to learn, one must first discover and accept the fact that he has made a mistake. The more willing he is to recognize, rather than bury, his mistakes, the faster he will learn.

Borodog

02-26-2006, 07:27 PM

[ QUOTE ]
What “it” are you referring to?

[/ QUOTE ]

Jesus, are you another NotReady or something?

Mutation and selection.

hmkpoker

02-26-2006, 07:33 PM

Be nice.

He's not ready for this level of intellectual discourse /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Sharkey

02-26-2006, 07:34 PM

Q1: Speciation by mutation and artificial selection?

A1: Never been observed.

Q2: Speciation by mutation and natural selection?

A2: Never been observed.

Borodog

02-26-2006, 07:39 PM

Neither of those is true, but I'll just concede the points, and ask you again:

What exactly prevents [mutation and selection] from creating correspondingly greater changes over hundreds of thousands, millions, tens of millions, hundreds of millions of years?

Sharkey

02-26-2006, 07:45 PM

In terms of science, the absence of a mechanism by which it could happen.

Borodog

02-26-2006, 07:47 PM

[ QUOTE ]
In terms of science, the absence of a mechanism by which it could happen.

[/ QUOTE ]

The mechanism by which it could happen is mutation plus selection. Now, what stops it?

Sharkey

02-26-2006, 07:54 PM

The purported effect of speciation you ascribe to mutation plus selection has never been demonstrated to exist.

The burden of proof remains on you.

Prodigy54321

02-26-2006, 07:58 PM

I love this thread...I guess I just like watching Sharkey dance /images/graemlins/tongue.gif...it gives me my jollies /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Borodog

02-26-2006, 07:59 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The purported effect of speciation you ascribe to mutation plus selection has never been demonstrated to exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I didn't mention speciation at all. I said:

What exactly prevents [mutation and selection] from creating correspondingly greater changes [than wolf to chihuahua or wolf to bull mastiff] over hundreds of thousands, millions, tens of millions, hundreds of millions of years?

Can't you just answer the question?

Sharkey

02-26-2006, 08:10 PM

If you mean the slow destruction of the genome by the accumulation of errors, I don’t know what prevents that.

If you mean viable changes constituting a new species, nothing can stop something that never starts to begin with.

Borodog

02-26-2006, 08:16 PM

[ QUOTE ]
If you mean the slow destruction of the genome by the accumulation of errors, I don’t know what prevents that.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, what exactly are the errors in the genome of the Blue Tick Coonhound?

Sharkey

02-26-2006, 08:21 PM

[ QUOTE ]
So, what exactly are the errors in the genome of the Blue Tick Coonhound?

[/ QUOTE ]

That would depend on the intent of the design.

bunny

02-26-2006, 08:25 PM

[ QUOTE ]
A specific instance shouldn’t be too much to ask of a scientific theory.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why do you think this is true? Evolution has happened over millions of years and the changes that happen happen at an incredibly slow rate. Unless we are making continuous measurements of populations during this time we wont observe the change you are looking for completely. Rather we would expect to find an incomplete fossil record such as the one we actually do.

On a philosophical level this argument seems strange to me. I dont see how you can ask for evolutionists to provide evidence of a sort they never claimed to be able to. I can see that you would like to be able to see one complete story from whoa to go - but reality gets in the way - just because that's the evidence you want, doesnt mean that's the evidence you'll get.

Borodog

02-26-2006, 08:26 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So, what exactly are the errors in the genome of the Blue Tick Coonhound?

[/ QUOTE ]

That would depend on the intent of the design.

[/ QUOTE ]

So a perfectly healthy coonhound that lives a long and happy life (longer, in fact, than it's ancestral wolf stock does) and has many happy healthy litters of coonhound puppies is riddled with "errors" and it's genome is largely "destroyed" because it no longer looks or behaves like a wolf?

Sharkey

02-26-2006, 08:34 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A specific instance shouldn’t be too much to ask of a scientific theory.

[/ QUOTE ]
Evolution has happened over millions of years and the changes that happen happen at an incredibly slow rate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps I should have been more clear.

Astronomy makes the same sort of retrospective inferences. Real time is not necessary, and I didn’t mean to suggest that it is.

New001

02-26-2006, 08:35 PM

Sharkey, do yourself a huge favor and do some reading on the subject. You can come back if you have questions afterward, but this seems really useless.

Sharkey

02-26-2006, 08:42 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So, what exactly are the errors in the genome of the Blue Tick Coonhound?

[/ QUOTE ]

That would depend on the intent of the design.

[/ QUOTE ]

So a perfectly healthy coonhound that lives a long and happy life (longer, in fact, than it's ancestral wolf stock does) and has many happy healthy litters of coonhound puppies is riddled with "errors" and it's genome is largely "destroyed" because it no longer looks or bahaves like a wolf?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not according to the intelligent design that produced the changes.

Borodog

02-26-2006, 08:43 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Not according to the intelligent design that produced the changes.

[/ QUOTE ]

And where did the variability that allowed those changes come from?

Sharkey

02-26-2006, 08:55 PM

Variation in phenotype within a species.

Borodog

02-26-2006, 09:01 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Variation in phenotype within a species.

[/ QUOTE ]

Variation comes from variation?

So are you saying that wolves contain the variability for pure white dogs with block spots, floppy ears, short hair, non-fluffy tails and the ability to bark? As well as the variability for 3 pound hairless chihuahuas?

Because I've never seen a 3 pound pure white wolf with black spots that could bark. In fact, I've never seen a wolf that could bark, since they can't.

So again, does the wolf genome contain all that variability?

Sharkey

02-26-2006, 09:08 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Variation in phenotype within a species.

[/ QUOTE ]

Variation comes from variation?

So are you saying that wolves contain the variability for pure white dogs with block spots, floppy ears, short hair, non-fluffy tails and the ability to bark? As well as the variability for 3 pound hairless chihuahuas?

Because I've never seen a 3 pound pure white wolf with black spots that could bark. In fact, I've never seen a wolf that could bark, since they can't.

So again, does the wolf genome contain all that variability?

[/ QUOTE ]

Probably not. Go to a dog show and you’ll see a wide range of froms, all within a single species.

First you concede that speciation by mutation and selection has never been observed, then you imply that Canis familiaris is descendant from an ancestral wolf stock. Which is it?

Borodog

02-26-2006, 09:16 PM

Canis familiaris can freely interbreed with canis lupus. Wasn't that your definition of a species?

We're not talking about different species. Why do you keep trying to move the goal posts?

There are many breeds of dogs that have been developed historically. Completely new varieties of differing sizes, shapes, temperments, behaviors, abilities, color and patterning, hair texture and length, ear physiology, etc. Where did that variety come from? It exists now but is known to have not existed historically. Where did it come from?

Sharkey

02-26-2006, 09:25 PM

My definition of species has been the same all along, and I have repeated it a few times already: essentially, it’s a mutually fertile group.

All of these dogs are of one species, by my definition. That’s all I’m concerned with. Variation other than speciation is irrelevant to my position.

So far your line of questioning doesn’t seem to be going anywhere.

Borodog

02-26-2006, 09:27 PM

Why can't you just answer a simple question?

There is incredible variability within the dog species that is known to not have exited historically. Where did that variability come from?

Sharkey

02-26-2006, 09:34 PM

The variations are all within the latent capacity for expression of the fixed genome of the species.

chezlaw

02-26-2006, 09:50 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The variations are all within the latent capacity for expression of the fixed genome of the species.

[/ QUOTE ]
Hey Sharkey, I thought you said you knew nothing about evolution?

So how come you didn't realise your argument about first member of a species was a misconception?

chez

Borodog

02-26-2006, 09:53 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The variations are all within the latent capacity for expression of the fixed genome of the species.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok! Finally an answer! Unfortunately it's wrong. You simply can't fit all of the genetic variability of modern breeds of dogs into an ancestral population that had less variability. The ancestral breeds still exist, so you can test them genetically. Newer breeds contain genetic information that is not contained within the ancestral breeds. So where did it come from?

Sharkey

02-26-2006, 09:54 PM

So your first contribution here is an ad hominem attack and a uncorroborated assertion?

Chez, I expected better of you.

chezlaw

02-26-2006, 09:58 PM

[ QUOTE ]
So your first contribution here is an ad hominem attack and a uncorroborated assertion?

Chez, I expected better of you.

[/ QUOTE ]

you don't remember this?
[ QUOTE ]
I don’t pretend to any expertise in the subject, but I do have what I consider legitimate questions, like how does the new species perpetuate itself without its first member(s) mating?

[/ QUOTE ]

chez

Sharkey

02-26-2006, 10:01 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The variations are all within the latent capacity for expression of the fixed genome of the species.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok! Finally an answer! Unfortunately it's wrong. You simply can't fit all of the genetic variability of modern breeds of dogs into an ancestral population that had less variability. The ancestral breeds still exist, so you can test them genetically. Newer breeds contain genetic information that is not contained within the ancestral breeds. So where did it come from?

[/ QUOTE ]

I never excluded intra-special adaptation of the genome.

Try again.

Sharkey

02-26-2006, 10:03 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So your first contribution here is an ad hominem attack and a uncorroborated assertion?

Chez, I expected better of you.

[/ QUOTE ]

you don't remember this?
[ QUOTE ]
I don’t pretend to any expertise in the subject, but I do have what I consider legitimate questions, like how does the new species perpetuate itself without its first member(s) mating?

[/ QUOTE ]

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, of course. It's not the issue.

Borodog

02-26-2006, 10:04 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The variations are all within the latent capacity for expression of the fixed genome of the species.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok! Finally an answer! Unfortunately it's wrong. You simply can't fit all of the genetic variability of modern breeds of dogs into an ancestral population that had less variability. The ancestral breeds still exist, so you can test them genetically. Newer breeds contain genetic information that is not contained within the ancestral breeds. So where did it come from?

[/ QUOTE ]

I never excluded intra-special adaptation of the genome.

Try again.

[/ QUOTE ]

Try answering the question. Where does the new variation come from?

chezlaw

02-26-2006, 10:05 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So your first contribution here is an ad hominem attack and a uncorroborated assertion?

Chez, I expected better of you.

[/ QUOTE ]

you don't remember this?
[ QUOTE ]
I don’t pretend to any expertise in the subject, but I do have what I consider legitimate questions, like how does the new species perpetuate itself without its first member(s) mating?

[/ QUOTE ]

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, of course. It's not the issue.

[/ QUOTE ]
Seems like the issue. Do you have expertise in evolutionary theory or not?

chez

Sharkey

02-26-2006, 10:12 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So your first contribution here is an ad hominem attack and a uncorroborated assertion?

Chez, I expected better of you.

[/ QUOTE ]

you don't remember this?
[ QUOTE ]
I don’t pretend to any expertise in the subject, but I do have what I consider legitimate questions, like how does the new species perpetuate itself without its first member(s) mating?

[/ QUOTE ]

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, of course. It's not the issue.

[/ QUOTE ]
Seems like the issue. Do you have expertise in evolutionary theory or not?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn’t matter. My questions stand on their own merits.

In fact, it looks like the so-called experts are whom I’m arguing against.

chezlaw

02-26-2006, 10:17 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So your first contribution here is an ad hominem attack and a uncorroborated assertion?

Chez, I expected better of you.

[/ QUOTE ]

you don't remember this?
[ QUOTE ]
I don’t pretend to any expertise in the subject, but I do have what I consider legitimate questions, like how does the new species perpetuate itself without its first member(s) mating?

[/ QUOTE ]

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, of course. It's not the issue.

[/ QUOTE ]
Seems like the issue. Do you have expertise in evolutionary theory or not?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn’t matter. My questions stand on there own merits.

In fact, it looks like the so-called experts are whom I’m arguing against.

[/ QUOTE ]
It does matter because if you do know what you're talking about then you already knew the first member argument was bogus.

If you're non-expert and genuinely interested then let me ask you a question. If you could be show evidence of species formation, would that change your mind or would there be another objection?

chez

bunny

02-26-2006, 10:18 PM

[ QUOTE ]
First you concede that speciation by mutation and selection has never been observed, then you imply that Canis familiaris is descendant from an ancestral wolf stock. Which is it?

[/ QUOTE ]
These are not mutually exclusive. Can I ask why you are only willing to accept evolution if a specific instance of speciation is observed? I cant understand why this would be a requirement for believing evolution but similar requirements are not imposed on other scientific theories.

Sharkey

02-26-2006, 10:32 PM

You’re right, they aren’t.

Speciation need not be observed directly. What I’m asking be produced is evidence it occurred at all, i.e. one species that unambiguously derived from another through this process.

Sharkey

02-26-2006, 10:40 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So your first contribution here is an ad hominem attack and a uncorroborated assertion?

Chez, I expected better of you.

[/ QUOTE ]

you don't remember this?
[ QUOTE ]
I don’t pretend to any expertise in the subject, but I do have what I consider legitimate questions, like how does the new species perpetuate itself without its first member(s) mating?

[/ QUOTE ]

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, of course. It's not the issue.

[/ QUOTE ]
Seems like the issue. Do you have expertise in evolutionary theory or not?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn’t matter. My questions stand on there own merits.

In fact, it looks like the so-called experts are whom I’m arguing against.

[/ QUOTE ]
It does matter because if you do know what you're talking about then you already knew the first member argument was bogus.

If you're non-expert and genuinely interested then let me ask you a question. If you could be show evidence of species formation, would that change your mind or would there be another objection?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I’m a big fan of logic, not endless argument. Please, show me your evidence.

chezlaw

02-26-2006, 10:45 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So your first contribution here is an ad hominem attack and a uncorroborated assertion?

Chez, I expected better of you.

[/ QUOTE ]

you don't remember this?
[ QUOTE ]
I don’t pretend to any expertise in the subject, but I do have what I consider legitimate questions, like how does the new species perpetuate itself without its first member(s) mating?

[/ QUOTE ]

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, of course. It's not the issue.

[/ QUOTE ]
Seems like the issue. Do you have expertise in evolutionary theory or not?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn’t matter. My questions stand on there own merits.

In fact, it looks like the so-called experts are whom I’m arguing against.

[/ QUOTE ]
It does matter because if you do know what you're talking about then you already knew the first member argument was bogus.

If you're non-expert and genuinely interested then let me ask you a question. If you could be show evidence of species formation, would that change your mind or would there be another objection?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I’m a big fan of logic, not endless argument. Please, show me your evidence.

[/ QUOTE ]
hmmm

logic would suggest that if your objection is genuine you would change your position when the objection is dealt with. As this didn't happen with the 'first member objection' I doubt it will be any different with the 'species formation' ojection.

Tell me if I'm wrong. Forgive my cynicysm but we (SMP that is) has been here so many times before.

chez

Sharkey

02-26-2006, 10:52 PM

Forgive my cynicism, but in my experience the ad hominem approach is invariably the sign of a failed argument.

purnell

02-26-2006, 10:52 PM

Dance, little sistah, dance. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

MidGe

02-26-2006, 11:01 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I’m a big fan of logic, not endless argument. Please, show me your evidence.

[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/confused.gif /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

bunny

02-26-2006, 11:04 PM

[ QUOTE ]
You’re right, they aren’t.

Speciation need not be observed directly. What I’m asking be produced is evidence it occurred at all, i.e. one species that unambiguously derived from another through this process.

[/ QUOTE ]
The problem here seems to be your requirement that the evidence be "unambiguous". I cant think of any other evidence that would in any possible way be unambiguous - to my way of thinking the fossil record, our knowledge of genetics and the fact we can accelerate the process (a la borodog's examples with different breeds of canine, also the millions of generations of drosophila studied each year) is all evidence. Surely you would accept this as evidence of some sort- even if you didnt accord much weight to it?

Sharkey

02-26-2006, 11:10 PM

Go back to your banana.

MidGe

02-26-2006, 11:16 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I’m a big fan of logic, not endless argument. Please, show me your evidence.

[/ QUOTE ]

The evidence is all around you, maybe you are lacking some light and trying to see in the dark. Ad hominem, it has been repeated that your understanding of/assumptions about evolution are wrong. Yet you keep on insisting we give you a reply to a senseless question.

Turn on the light, leave obscurantism and darkeness behind.

Sharkey

02-26-2006, 11:21 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You’re right, they aren’t.

Speciation need not be observed directly. What I’m asking be produced is evidence it occurred at all, i.e. one species that unambiguously derived from another through this process.

[/ QUOTE ]
The problem here seems to be your requirement that the evidence be "unambiguous". I cant think of any other evidence that would in any possible way be unambiguous - to my way of thinking the fossil record, our knowledge of genetics and the fact we can accelerate the process (a la borodog's examples with different breeds of canine, also the millions of generations of drosophila studied each year) is all evidence. Surely you would accept this as evidence of some sort- even if you didnt accord much weight to it?

[/ QUOTE ]

I’m trying to answer your question. The evidence I’m looking for is in the nature of causality, mechanism. Not merely a lineup of skeletons etc and a storyline.

The accelerated process you refer to is not, and does not lead to, speciation.

bunny

02-26-2006, 11:28 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The problem here seems to be your requirement that the evidence be "unambiguous". I cant think of any other evidence that would in any possible way be unambiguous - to my way of thinking the fossil record, our knowledge of genetics and the fact we can accelerate the process (a la borodog's examples with different breeds of canine, also the millions of generations of drosophila studied each year) is all evidence. Surely you would accept this as evidence of some sort- even if you didnt accord much weight to it?

[/ QUOTE ]

I’m trying to answer your question. The evidence I’m looking for is in the nature of causality, mechanism. Not merely a lineup of skeletons etc and a storyline.

The accelerated process you refer to is not, and does not lead to, speciation.

[/ QUOTE ]
Perhaps I am not understanding - crudely speaking I think genetics provides the mechanism and natural selection the causation (and the richness of different species that seem related, all matching their environments so ideally, is example enough for me). I acknowledge that evolution may one day be abandoned as an outdated theory but I believe this is the process has led to speciation because it is the best explanation I have heard.

I presume you are an advocate of creationism as an explanation of the natural world?

miketurner

02-26-2006, 11:56 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I’m sure mutation and selection both happen. However, are they sufficient to accomplish what they have been credited with?

[/ QUOTE ]

How could they not be?

Random mutation and selection have been sufficient to accomplish this in just a few thousand years:

http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c153/Borodog/dogs.jpg

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this really the best solid evidence of evolution? The fact that there are different “breeds” of dogs?

"Evolution" is such a broad term, simply meaning "change," that it can be stated quite honestly that adaptation qualifies as a type of evolution. However, when "evolution" is stated to the layperson, the concept is of one sort of organism, like a bacteria, through time, chance, mutations, and natural selection, becoming another sort of organism, like an elephant. If this is the sort of evolution being referred to, then adaptation is in a different category altogether.
Adaptation is the process whereby a series of variations already within a population gets winnowed down to the few that are best suited to any particular environment. This is not a matter of adding anything new to the genetic material of the population, but simply weeding out what is not working as well as some other variations. For instance, a population of bears which wandered north at some point, gradually lost members with less fat, less aggressiveness, and darker fur, eventually leaving us with the white, aggressive, and fat-layered polar bear. There may have been some mutations or combinations which increased the fat or the aggressiveness or the lightness of color, but nothing which changed the essential "bear-ness" of the beast.
This is radically different from the type of evolution which posits that some kind of unicellular organism through millions of mutations became that bear in the first place.

[ QUOTE ]
What, exactly prevents it from creating correspondingly greater changes over hundreds of thousands, millions, tens of millions, hundreds of millions of years?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, it does seem possible to me I suppose... if you use some imagination. But using this much imagination sure seems like a pretty weak argument for such a hard lined stance. Just to be clear... I’m not taking a hard line stance against it, it just seems like a pretty thin limb if your dog story is your best argument. *shrug*

Sharkey

02-27-2006, 12:40 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The problem here seems to be your requirement that the evidence be "unambiguous". I cant think of any other evidence that would in any possible way be unambiguous - to my way of thinking the fossil record, our knowledge of genetics and the fact we can accelerate the process (a la borodog's examples with different breeds of canine, also the millions of generations of drosophila studied each year) is all evidence. Surely you would accept this as evidence of some sort- even if you didnt accord much weight to it?

[/ QUOTE ]

I’m trying to answer your question. The evidence I’m looking for is in the nature of causality, mechanism. Not merely a lineup of skeletons etc and a storyline.

The accelerated process you refer to is not, and does not lead to, speciation.

[/ QUOTE ]
Perhaps I am not understanding - crudely speaking I think genetics provides the mechanism and natural selection the causation (and the richness of different species that seem related, all matching their environments so ideally, is example enough for me). I acknowledge that evolution may one day be abandoned as an outdated theory but I believe this is the process has led to speciation because it is the best explanation I have heard.

I presume you are an advocate of creationism as an explanation of the natural world?

[/ QUOTE ]

Consider again the case of astronomy. Before underlying physical processes can be ascribed to a body of data, they must be closely observed and described in the laboratory.

With evolution by natural selection on the other hand, the phenomenology is not up to that standard. How can it be science when speciation is not observed in the laboratory or in the data and cannot be accounted for in terms of known quantities?

Intelligent design is the obvious explanation as far as I’m concerned. However, I don’t vouch for everything going by the name of “creationism” nowadays.

Frankly, I don’t consider genetics to provide a mechanism. Geneticists only say it does. Similarly, natural selection provides only a sketch of causation. History abounds with plausible narratives that aren’t science.

New001

02-27-2006, 12:46 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The problem here seems to be your requirement that the evidence be "unambiguous". I cant think of any other evidence that would in any possible way be unambiguous - to my way of thinking the fossil record, our knowledge of genetics and the fact we can accelerate the process (a la borodog's examples with different breeds of canine, also the millions of generations of drosophila studied each year) is all evidence. Surely you would accept this as evidence of some sort- even if you didnt accord much weight to it?

[/ QUOTE ]

I’m trying to answer your question. The evidence I’m looking for is in the nature of causality, mechanism. Not merely a lineup of skeletons etc and a storyline.

The accelerated process you refer to is not, and does not lead to, speciation.

[/ QUOTE ]
Perhaps I am not understanding - crudely speaking I think genetics provides the mechanism and natural selection the causation (and the richness of different species that seem related, all matching their environments so ideally, is example enough for me). I acknowledge that evolution may one day be abandoned as an outdated theory but I believe this is the process has led to speciation because it is the best explanation I have heard.

I presume you are an advocate of creationism as an explanation of the natural world?

[/ QUOTE ]

Consider again the case of astronomy. Before underlying physical processes can be ascribed to a body of data, they must be closely observed and described in the laboratory.

With evolution by natural selection on the other hand, the phenomenology is not up to that standard. How can it be science when speciation is not observed in the laboratory or in the data and cannot be accounted for in terms of known quantities?

Intelligent design is the obvious explanation as far as I’m concerned. However, I don’t vouch for everything going by the name of “creationism” nowadays.

Frankly, I don’t consider genetics to provide a mechanism. Geneticists only say it does. Similarly, natural selection provides only a sketch of causation. History abounds with plausible narratives that aren’t science.

[/ QUOTE ]
Random mutations occur. That is a fact. Some random mutations can be beneficial, some might be detrimental, some won't matter. Given this, how is evolution through natural selection not inevitable?

Sharkey

02-27-2006, 12:54 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Random mutations occur. That is a fact. Some random mutations can be beneficial, some might be detrimental, some won't matter. Given this, how is evolution through natural selection not inevitable?

[/ QUOTE ]

Speciation has not been accounted for as the mere accumulation of random mutations.

bunny

02-27-2006, 01:18 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Consider again the case of astronomy. Before underlying physical processes can be ascribed to a body of data, they must be closely observed and described in the laboratory.

With evolution by natural selection on the other hand, the phenomenology is not up to that standard. How can it be science when speciation is not observed in the laboratory or in the data and cannot be accounted for in terms of known quantities?

Intelligent design is the obvious explanation as far as I’m concerned. However, I don’t vouch for everything going by the name of “creationism” nowadays.

Frankly, I don’t consider genetics to provide a mechanism. Geneticists only say it does. Similarly, natural selection provides only a sketch of causation. History abounds with plausible narratives that aren’t science.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's certainly reasonable to be skeptical, when it comes to genetics though it isnt my field and I have to rely on the experts (Geneticists). Maybe they're just saying it provides a mechanism but I cant see any reason not to believe them.

Thanks for answering - I still think evolution gives a better explanation that intelligent design which doesnt seem to do any explaining to me. But I can live with disagreeing. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Borodog

02-27-2006, 01:47 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I&#8217;m sure mutation and selection both happen. However, are they sufficient to accomplish what they have been credited with?

[/ QUOTE ]

How could they not be?

Random mutation and selection have been sufficient to accomplish this in just a few thousand years:

http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c153/Borodog/dogs.jpg

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this really the best solid evidence of evolution? The fact that there are different &#8220;breeds&#8221; of dogs?

[/ QUOTE ]

A) Forgive any typos as I'm pretty hammered.

B) No, this is not the best evidence. I'm talking to someone who has claimed he does not have any deep understanding of evolution, and I'm attemptin to make a simple but profound point. Unfortunately it has taken a dosen posts back and forth before Sharkey has decided to stop responding because he has decided he is about to have to concede the first step in the chain a chain of logic, which he is too intellectually dishonest to allow himself to do.

[ QUOTE ]

"Evolution" is such a broad term, simply meaning "change," that it can be stated quite honestly that adaptation qualifies as a type of evolution. However, when "evolution" is stated to the layperson, the concept is of one sort of organism, like a bacteria, through time, chance, mutations, and natural selection, becoming another sort of organism, like an elephant. If this is the sort of evolution being referred to, then adaptation is in a different category altogether.
Adaptation is the process whereby a series of variations already within a population gets winnowed down to the few that are best suited to any particular environment. This is not a matter of adding anything new to the genetic material of the population, but simply weeding out what is not working as well as some other variations. For instance, a population of bears which wandered north at some point, gradually lost members with less fat, less aggressiveness, and darker fur, eventually leaving us with the white, aggressive, and fat-layered polar bear. There may have been some mutations or combinations which increased the fat or the aggressiveness or the lightness of color, but nothing which changed the essential "bear-ness" of the beast.
This is radically different from the type of evolution which posits that some kind of unicellular organism through millions of mutations became that bear in the first place.

[/ QUOTE ]

I like you Mike, I think you know that. You seem genuinely honest in your inquiries, whereas Sharkey is purposefully evasive. This difference is time. The point of bringing up dogs is that if you can turn wolves into chihuahuas in just a few thousand years (which is a known archeological, historical, and genetic fact) then what kind of change must be possible in ten times as long, or a hundred, or a thousand, or ten thousand, or a hundred thousand? In a few thousand years we have taken wolf stock to 3 pounds and over 240 pounds.

Do not let the handwaving about "natural" vs. "artifical" selection. Human intervention cannot create the variations. Nature does that. Humans only select according to human whims rather than nature's whims. "Articifical" selection can proceed no more rapidly than natural selection.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What, exactly prevents it from creating correspondingly greater changes over hundreds of thousands, millions, tens of millions, hundreds of millions of years?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, it does seem possible to me I suppose... if you use some imagination. But using this much imagination sure seems like a pretty weak argument for such a hard lined stance. Just to be clear... I&#8217;m not taking a hard line stance against it, it just seems like a pretty thin limb if your dog story is your best argument. *shrug*

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not the best argument, but it's a profound and correct argument and it is easily grasped without resorting to esoteric scientific papers that sharkey has admitted that he won't understand. It's not a matter of "imagination". It's a matter of there being a fundamental, inescapable mechanism, and to deny that this mechanism operates, the onus is on the denier. There is mutation that leads to variation. This is observed and undisputable. There is selection; whether it be natural or artificial is irrelevent. This is observed and undisputable. As changes in the genome accumulate it becomes less and less likely that two isolated populations with a common ancestral population can interbreed. This is simple to understand; humans share 99.4% of active coding DNA with chimpanzees, yet the two species are not interfertile.

To claim that naturally occuring and well understood sources of genetic variability and naturally occuring and well understood selection cannot lead to perfectly viable populations that can no longer interbreed requires the proposal of some special mechanism to actively prevent it, of which none is known. I.e., not only does the theory of evolution explain the triply redundant perfectly nested hierarchy of the fossil record, the phenotypic classification of all life, and the genetics of all life, there is no known mechanism that can stop it from operating.

But the first step to understanding any of this is to admit intellectually that random mutation can supply the variability and that selection can winnow that variability to viable populations of profoundly different phenotype. The example of dogs is an indisputable example of this, but Sharkey is not intellectually honest enough to even let himself approach this admission. His evasiveness and refusal to answer even the simplest of questions seems to me to be a clear indication that he knows what the answers are but doesn't want to answer them.

I need another martini.

bunny

02-27-2006, 02:31 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Adaptation is the process whereby a series of variations already within a population gets winnowed down to the few that are best suited to any particular environment. This is not a matter of adding anything new to the genetic material of the population, but simply weeding out what is not working as well as some other variations. For instance, a population of bears which wandered north at some point, gradually lost members with less fat, less aggressiveness, and darker fur, eventually leaving us with the white, aggressive, and fat-layered polar bear. There may have been some mutations or combinations which increased the fat or the aggressiveness or the lightness of color, but nothing which changed the essential "bear-ness" of the beast.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think this sums up a difference in our thinking - I dont think there are many white, fat grizzly bears. I think mutation led to that. With regard to the essential "bear-ness" I think this is a human measure not an objective one. The "bear-ness" is a whole conglomeration of smaller facts about the bear (such as fur color, amount of fat, size, number of limbs, and so on) - each of these is explicable through the processes of mutation and natural selection. I agree with the point Borodog makes in his last post completely - what would stop evolution from happening?

Rduke55

02-27-2006, 11:32 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I need another martini.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yay martinis! I always pictured you as a moonshine-out-of-a-mason-jar type.

Anyhow, great post. Wow Sharkey has turned this thread into a trainwreck. I love the "I don't know anything about genetics but I don't believe what geneticists say" avenue of debate.

Sharkey

02-27-2006, 04:18 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with the point Borodog makes in his last post completely - what would stop evolution from happening?

[/ QUOTE ]

Something like what stops the wind blowing sand and creating a Ferris wheel.

Sharkey

02-27-2006, 04:18 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I need another martini.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yay martinis! I always pictured you as a moonshine-out-of-a-mason-jar type.

Anyhow, great post. Wow Sharkey has turned this thread into a trainwreck. I love the "I don't know anything about genetics but I don't believe what geneticists say" avenue of debate.

[/ QUOTE ]

There never was a train, just a smoke machine and a whistle behind the curtain, and you bought the whole railroad.

Borodog

02-27-2006, 04:53 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I agree with the point Borodog makes in his last post completely - what would stop evolution from happening?

[/ QUOTE ]

Something like what stops the wind blowing sand and creating a Ferris wheel.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, the famous "Tornado in a Junkyard" argument. Pity though; it's been debunked uncountable times for decades upon decades. Sorry, selection is a non-random process.

Why do you willfully and intentionally refuse to even try to understand what you're arguing about?

Sharkey

02-27-2006, 04:59 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry, selection is a non-random process.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not enough so to make the difference.

Or, are you saying the information complexity of the species was preexisting in the selection process that “designed” them?

madnak

02-27-2006, 05:03 PM

Even if it were random, no mechanism has been proposed by which it might happen. Also sand blowing around can create some amazing things. Visit some of the national parks in Southern Utah.

madnak

02-27-2006, 05:03 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Or, are you saying the information complexity of the species was preexisting in the selection process that &#8220;designed&#8221; them?

[/ QUOTE ]

Before I build my computer, is the computer "pre-existing" in the components? If so, then yes.

Sharkey

02-27-2006, 05:08 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Before I build my computer, is the computer "pre-existing" in the components?

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

Borodog

02-27-2006, 05:19 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Sorry, selection is a non-random process.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not enough so to make the difference.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh? By what metric? I'd like to see how you computed this. Can you elaborate on your method?

[ QUOTE ]
Or, are you saying the information complexity of the species was preexisting in the selection process that “designed” them?

[/ QUOTE ]

This doesn't even make sense.

It's really very simple. Variability is created by random genetic changes. Phenotype depends on genotype, so variability in the genome leads to variability in phenotype. Since reproductive success obviously depends on phenotype, phenotypic variability that arise due to genetic variability lead to differential reproductive success rates. I.e. some variants are more reproductively successful than other variants, and the number of the former will increase relative to the total population while the number of the latter will decrease relative to the to the total population.

So, random genetic changes provide the variability, and differential reproductive success non-randomly selects the most fit variants. What mechanism stops this process?

Sharkey

02-27-2006, 05:24 PM

Random genetic change does not create information.

Where do you imagine the information content of the genome came from?

Borodog

02-27-2006, 05:29 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Random genetic change does not create information.

[/ QUOTE ]

Prove it.

Rduke55

02-27-2006, 05:29 PM

Boro, I think you're beating your head against a brick wall.

Borodog

02-27-2006, 05:31 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Where do you imagine the information content of the genome came from?

[/ QUOTE ]

Where do you imagine the completely new information content of the genomes in modern breeds of dogs came from?

Rduke55

02-27-2006, 05:32 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Where do you imagine the information content of the genome came from?

[/ QUOTE ]

Where do you imagine the completely new information content of the genomes in modern breeds of dogs came from?

[/ QUOTE ]

I could be wrong but I think he said earlier that it was already in the ancestor.

Sharkey

02-27-2006, 05:35 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Where do you imagine the information content of the genome came from?

[/ QUOTE ]

Where do you imagine the completely new information content of the genomes in modern breeds of dogs came from?

[/ QUOTE ]

Intelligent design.

Where do you imagine the information content of the genome in the original wolves came from?

Borodog

02-27-2006, 05:38 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Boro, I think you're beating your head against a brick wall.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know, but it's fun. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

Rduke55

02-27-2006, 05:42 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Boro, I think you're beating your head against a brick wall.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know, but it's fun. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

OK then. Keep it up. I'm entertained by it at least.

Borodog

02-27-2006, 05:45 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Where do you imagine the information content of the genome came from?

[/ QUOTE ]

Where do you imagine the completely new information content of the genomes in modern breeds of dogs came from?

[/ QUOTE ]

Intelligent design.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wait. So are you saying that hundreds of years ago human beings were altering canine DNA to genetically engineer completely new variations? Wow! What technologies were they using? Or are you saying that God came down and changed the doggie DNA so we could have Poodles and Chihuahuas?

I thought you said earlier in the thread that you "didn't rule out intraspecific adaptation of the genome" or something to that effect? Are you now claiming that genetic material can't change randomly due to point mutations, insertions, deletions, transposals, chromosomal changes, etc?

[ QUOTE ]
Where do you imagine the information content of the genome in the original wolves came from?

[/ QUOTE ]

The same place the completely new information content of the genomes of the modern dog variants came from. Where did that come from? Why can't you answer the simplest of questions?

Borodog

02-27-2006, 05:47 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Random genetic change does not create information.

[/ QUOTE ]

Prove it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh hey, it looks like you forgot this.

Sharkey

02-27-2006, 05:59 PM

By definition, randomness decreases information content.

It looks like you’re trying to dodge my last question.

Borodog

02-27-2006, 06:06 PM

[ QUOTE ]
By definition, randomness decreases information content.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong. In fact, patently wrong. If I take the non-random string "METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL" and the random string "DSFGJOW RUSNFSVN N EVUJREW W", they both contain the same amount of information. You have been duped into believing in an arbitrary and erroneous definition of "information". Randomly changing information doesn't diminish the "information content" it simply changes it.

[ QUOTE ]
It looks like you’re trying to dodge my last question.

[/ QUOTE ]

I answered your question. Scroll up and read it again.

Can you not answer a simple question? Don't you think the world will be a more meaningful place if you even attempted to approach it with intellectual honesty?

Yes or No: Can the genome change randomly via mechanisms like point mutation, transposition, insertions, deletions, etc?

Sharkey

02-27-2006, 06:18 PM

Yes. I never excluded intra-special adaptation of the genome.

Yes or No: Are you saying random change is a reliable source of increase in information content?

Borodog

02-27-2006, 06:22 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Yes. I never excluded intra-special adaptation of the genome.

Yes or No: Are you saying random change is a reliable source of increase in information content?

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course. What exactly does "reliable" mean in this context? How can random change not change the information content, and how can change mechanisms like duplications and insertions that lengthen the genetic code not increase the information content?

Borodog

02-27-2006, 06:24 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Yes. I never excluded intra-special adaptation of the genome.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wait. So now you're back to saying that the completely new genetic variability (genetic information content) observed in dogs can arise randomly, yes?

Sharkey

02-27-2006, 06:33 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes. I never excluded intra-special adaptation of the genome.

Yes or No: Are you saying random change is a reliable source of increase in information content?

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course. What exactly does "reliable" mean in this context? How can random change not change the information content, and how can change mechanisms like duplications and insertions that lengthen the genetic code not increase the information content?

[/ QUOTE ]

By “reliable” I mean sufficient to account for the creation of the species.

I did not say “change” in information content. Since you appear to have misread the question, I will repost it.

Yes or No: Are you saying random change is a reliable source of increase in information content?

Borodog

02-27-2006, 06:38 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes. I never excluded intra-special adaptation of the genome.

Yes or No: Are you saying random change is a reliable source of increase in information content?

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course. What exactly does "reliable" mean in this context? How can random change not change the information content, and how can change mechanisms like duplications and insertions that lengthen the genetic code not increase the information content?

[/ QUOTE ]

By “reliable” I mean sufficient to account for the creation of the species.

I did not say “change” in information content. Since you appear to have misread the question, I will repost it.

Yes or No: Are you saying random change is a reliable source of increase in information content?

[/ QUOTE ]

Try reading again.

Sharkey

02-27-2006, 06:43 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes. I never excluded intra-special adaptation of the genome.

Yes or No: Are you saying random change is a reliable source of increase in information content?

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course. What exactly does "reliable" mean in this context? How can random change not change the information content, and how can change mechanisms like duplications and insertions that lengthen the genetic code not increase the information content?

[/ QUOTE ]

By “reliable” I mean sufficient to account for the creation of the species.

I did not say “change” in information content. Since you appear to have misread the question, I will repost it.

Yes or No: Are you saying random change is a reliable source of increase in information content?

[/ QUOTE ]

Try reading again.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you saying “mechanisms like duplications and insertions that lengthen the genetic code” are sufficient to account for the creation of the species?

Borodog

02-27-2006, 06:43 PM

[ QUOTE ]
By “reliable” I mean sufficient to account for the creation of the species.

[/ QUOTE ]

And what is "sufficient" ? Sufficient should be enough accumulated genetic difference between the genomes of two isolated populations that they can no longer fertily interbreed, yes?

For example, humans and chimpanzees share 99.4% of their coding DNA, but cannot interbreed. So if the genome can change randomly, and those changes can accumulate in two isolated populations that split off from a single ancestral population, what prevents those changes from accumulating to the point where the populations can no longer interbreed?

Borodog

02-27-2006, 06:45 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes. I never excluded intra-special adaptation of the genome.

Yes or No: Are you saying random change is a reliable source of increase in information content?

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course. What exactly does "reliable" mean in this context? How can random change not change the information content, and how can change mechanisms like duplications and insertions that lengthen the genetic code not increase the information content?

[/ QUOTE ]

By “reliable” I mean sufficient to account for the creation of the species.

I did not say “change” in information content. Since you appear to have misread the question, I will repost it.

Yes or No: Are you saying random change is a reliable source of increase in information content?

[/ QUOTE ]

Try reading again.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you saying “mechanisms like duplications and insertions that lengthen the genetic code” are sufficient to account for the creation of the species?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why don't you answer the question? Do mechanisms like duplication and insertion that lengthen the genetic code increase the genome's information content or not?

Yes or no?

Rduke55

02-27-2006, 06:51 PM

Usually the rapid fire thread that entertains me at the end of the day is in OOT. Today it's here in SMP.

Sharkey

02-27-2006, 07:04 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes. I never excluded intra-special adaptation of the genome.

Yes or No: Are you saying random change is a reliable source of increase in information content?

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course. What exactly does "reliable" mean in this context? How can random change not change the information content, and how can change mechanisms like duplications and insertions that lengthen the genetic code not increase the information content?

[/ QUOTE ]

By “reliable” I mean sufficient to account for the creation of the species.

I did not say “change” in information content. Since you appear to have misread the question, I will repost it.

Yes or No: Are you saying random change is a reliable source of increase in information content?

[/ QUOTE ]

Try reading again.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you saying “mechanisms like duplications and insertions that lengthen the genetic code” are sufficient to account for the creation of the species?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why don't you answer the question? Do mechanisms like duplication and insertion that lengthen the genetic code increase the genome's information content or not?

Yes or no?

[/ QUOTE ]

The lengthening of a code does not in itself represent an increase in the information content of its expression.

And, yet again,

Yes or No: Are you saying random change is a reliable source of increase in information content?

Borodog

02-27-2006, 07:11 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The lengthening of a code does not in itself represent an increase in the information content of its expression.

[/ QUOTE ]

Finally, an answer! Unfortunately it's wrong. Lengthening the code clearly increases it's information content. The string BISONBISON contains more information than the string BISON. Again, you've been duped into believing in an erroneous definition of information. In fact, duplications in the genetic code are extremely valuable in evolution, because the duplicate code is free to change without losing the functionality of the original piece.

[ QUOTE ]
Yes or No: Are you saying random change is a reliable source of increase in information content?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. How many times do I have to say yes? Change mechanisms that lengthen the code increase its information content. How can they not?

Rduke55

02-27-2006, 07:17 PM

[ QUOTE ]
In fact, duplications in the genetic code are extremely valuable in evolution, because the duplicate code is free to change without losing the functionality of the original piece.

[/ QUOTE ]

An excellent point which pertains to both the formation of whole new genes as well as alleles.
The genes (promoter actually) I talked about in "The Monogamy Gene" are a great example of this. The only difference between the two species is a repeating string in the promoter.

Sharkey

02-27-2006, 07:21 PM

A gain in the information content of a code is only relevant insofar as it contributes to a loss or gain in information in the expression of that code. A gain in the information content of a code can actually represent a loss of information in its expression.

If you are willing to accept any lengthening of the code, then you still have to find a discriminator mechanism to differentiate successful and unsuccessful lengthenings from the point of view of the success of their expression.

Rduke55

02-27-2006, 07:25 PM

[ QUOTE ]
you still have to find a discriminator mechanism to differentiate successful and unsuccessful lengthenings from the point of view of the success of their expression.

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't this mechanism called selection?

Sharkey

02-27-2006, 07:33 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
you still have to find a discriminator mechanism to differentiate successful and unsuccessful lengthenings from the point of view of the success of their expression.

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't this mechanism called selection?

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this “selection” process also random, or does it proceed on the basis of information content?

Borodog

02-27-2006, 07:34 PM

[ QUOTE ]
A gain in the information content of a code is only relevant insofar as it contributes to a loss or gain in information in the expression of that code. A gain in the information content of a code can actually represent a loss of information in its expression.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is handwaving, and it's meaningless. "Meaning" is irrelevent to information. Is "KRZYZEWSKI" a random string of letters or is it the last name of Duke's head men's basketball coach? It doesn't matter because it's the same amount of information either way. Longer codes contain more information than shorter codes. Period. So change mechanisms that increase the length of the code increase its information content, just as you requested. Further, it's been pointed out that a duplication in the genetic code allows the duplicate to change and lead to new functionality without losing the functionality provided by the original code, so clearly the "expression information" can go up (even though it's an ill-formed concept).

[ QUOTE ]
If you are willing to accept any lengthening of the code, then you still have to find a discriminator mechanism to differentiate successful and unsuccessful lengthenings from the point of view of the success of their expression.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes! It's called differential reproductive success.

So! Random genetic changes can both increase the information content of the genome and increase its variability, and differential reproductive success leads to an increase in the frequency of more fit variants in the population versus less fit variants in the population. If there are two populations that become reproductively isolated from each other the changes that accumulate in those two populations will be distinct. Eventually, enough different genetic changes will have accumulated in the two populations that they can no longer interbreed.

Now, what mechanism prevents this from occuring?

Sharkey

02-27-2006, 07:45 PM

[ QUOTE ]
"Meaning" is irrelevent to information.

[/ QUOTE ]

“Meaning” is a strawman here. The functionality of the expression of a change in the information content of the code is the point.

Again, “differential reproductive success” requires an input of information upon which basis the determination of the success or failure of the modification is made. Where does this contribution of information come from?

Borodog

02-27-2006, 07:51 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"Meaning" is irrelevent to information.

[/ QUOTE ]

“Meaning” is a strawman here. The functionality of the expression of a change in the information content of the code is the point.

Again, “differential reproductive success” requires an input of information upon which basis the determination of the success or failure of the modification is made. Where does this contribution of information come from?

[/ QUOTE ]

The phenotype depends on the genotype. Changing the genotype can obviously change the genotype. The reproductive success of an organism obviously depends on the phenotype, and hence on the genotype. Hence, changing the information content of the genome leads to phenotypic variance that leads to differential reproductive success.

Agreed? And if not, what prevents any of this?

flatline

02-27-2006, 07:51 PM

[ QUOTE ]

“Meaning” is a strawman here. The functionality of the expression of a change in the information content of the code is the point.

Again, “differential reproductive success” requires an input of information upon which basis the determination of the success or failure of the modification is made. Where does this contribution of information come from?

[/ QUOTE ]

Hasn't this been answered like 20 times in this thread? Information is added by mutation. Useful information is retained by selection.

You seem to be very close-minded and unwilling to consider the arguments of others vastly more intelligent than yourself (not the people in this thread necessarily, but the overwhelming majority of scientists in the field).

Sharkey

02-27-2006, 08:04 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"Meaning" is irrelevent to information.

[/ QUOTE ]

“Meaning” is a strawman here. The functionality of the expression of a change in the information content of the code is the point.

Again, “differential reproductive success” requires an input of information upon which basis the determination of the success or failure of the modification is made. Where does this contribution of information come from?

[/ QUOTE ]

The phenotype depends on the genotype. Changing the genotype can obviously change the genotype. The reproductive success of an organism obviously depends on the phenotype, and hence on the genotype. Hence, changing the information content of the genome leads to phenotypic variance that leads to differential reproductive success.

Agreed? And if not, what prevents any of this?

[/ QUOTE ]

Creating a more reproductively adapted phenotype by randomly changing the genome?

Considering the extreme complexity of the system, it’s simply an absurd proposition. And something that has never been observed.

Sharkey

02-27-2006, 08:08 PM

Who is this “overwhelming majority” overwhelming?

Borodog

02-27-2006, 08:19 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"Meaning" is irrelevent to information.

[/ QUOTE ]

“Meaning” is a strawman here. The functionality of the expression of a change in the information content of the code is the point.

Again, “differential reproductive success” requires an input of information upon which basis the determination of the success or failure of the modification is made. Where does this contribution of information come from?

[/ QUOTE ]

The phenotype depends on the genotype. Changing the genotype can obviously change the genotype. The reproductive success of an organism obviously depends on the phenotype, and hence on the genotype. Hence, changing the information content of the genome leads to phenotypic variance that leads to differential reproductive success.

Agreed? And if not, what prevents any of this?

[/ QUOTE ]

Creating a more reproductively adapted phenotype by randomly changing the genome?

Considering the extreme complexity of the system, it’s simply an absurd proposition.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it isn't. Consider organism A, which you believe to be Genetically Perfect. Now consider a random genetic change that you claim must "degrade" its genome and can only lower its reproductive fitness, yes?

Now consider Organism B, which is identical to Organism A in everyway, except that it suffers from the exact defect caused by the random genetic change in Organism A. Then consider the exact opposite change, which is just as likely to occur. By your own definition this change must improve the reproductive fitness of Organism B. Hence it is clearly possible for random genetic changes to improve the reproductive fitness of a species.

It is also clear that this must be the case by considering the following hypothetical. A wooly elephant lives in a snowy cold climate. Random variants that have thinner coats do not tolerate the cold as well and are selected against. But then the climate becomes warmer, and the thinner coated variants tolerate the warmer temperatures better while the thicker coated variants are selected against. See, it is differential reproductive success that what defines what "improvement" is in the first place. As conditions in the environment change, so to does what is "better" and what is "worse".

[ QUOTE ]
And one that has never been observed.

[/ QUOTE ]

So incredibly wrong! Two words: antibiotic resistance. Observed!

Sharkey

02-27-2006, 08:32 PM

Yet again: I never excluded intra-special adaptation of the genome.

And, yet again: A species is a group wherein the members are mutually fertile. Bacteria obviously don’t count.

HLMencken

02-27-2006, 08:38 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
you still have to find a discriminator mechanism to differentiate successful and unsuccessful lengthenings from the point of view of the success of their expression.

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't this mechanism called selection?

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this “selection” process also random, or does it proceed on the basis of information content?

[/ QUOTE ]

Neither. Selection proceeds on the basis of what is best adapted to the environment.

Sharkey

02-27-2006, 08:45 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
you still have to find a discriminator mechanism to differentiate successful and unsuccessful lengthenings from the point of view of the success of their expression.

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't this mechanism called selection?

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this “selection” process also random, or does it proceed on the basis of information content?

[/ QUOTE ]

Neither. Selection proceeds on the basis of what is best adapted to the environment.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me get this clear: Are you claiming that information on the state of the environment is not a necessary input into the process of “differential reproductive success”?

HLMencken

02-27-2006, 09:11 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
you still have to find a discriminator mechanism to differentiate successful and unsuccessful lengthenings from the point of view of the success of their expression.

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't this mechanism called selection?

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this “selection” process also random, or does it proceed on the basis of information content?

[/ QUOTE ]

Neither. Selection proceeds on the basis of what is best adapted to the environment.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me get this clear: Are you claiming that information on the state of the environment is not a necessary input into the process of “differential reproductive success”?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, let ME be clear (again). --> Selection proceeds on the basis of what is best adapted to the environment.

You asked for a mechanism. That is the mechanism.

Sharkey

02-27-2006, 09:15 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
you still have to find a discriminator mechanism to differentiate successful and unsuccessful lengthenings from the point of view of the success of their expression.

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't this mechanism called selection?

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this “selection” process also random, or does it proceed on the basis of information content?

[/ QUOTE ]

Neither. Selection proceeds on the basis of what is best adapted to the environment.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me get this clear: Are you claiming that information on the state of the environment is not a necessary input into the process of “differential reproductive success”?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, let ME be clear (again). --> Selection proceeds on the basis of what is best adapted to the environment.

You asked for a mechanism. That is the mechanism.

[/ QUOTE ]

Very good.

Are you claiming that information on the state of the environment is not a necessary input into the process of “differential reproductive success”?

Yes or No.

Borodog

02-27-2006, 10:09 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Yet again: I never excluded intra-special adaptation of the genome.

[/ QUOTE ]

But what happens when the changes in two isolated populations accumulate to the point that they are no longer interfertile?

[ QUOTE ]
And, yet again: A species is a group wherein the members are mutually fertile. Bacteria obviously don’t count.

[/ QUOTE ]

So bacteria aren't members of species now? Why do you insist on arguing over that which you obviously have absolutely no clue what you're talking about?

Don't conflate the issues. You said that a random genetic change that increased reproductive fitness has never been witnessed, and that is wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong. So what magic mechanism allows it to occur in bacteria but magically prevents it in other species?

HLMencken

02-27-2006, 10:19 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
you still have to find a discriminator mechanism to differentiate successful and unsuccessful lengthenings from the point of view of the success of their expression.

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't this mechanism called selection?

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this “selection” process also random, or does it proceed on the basis of information content?

[/ QUOTE ]

Neither. Selection proceeds on the basis of what is best adapted to the environment.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me get this clear: Are you claiming that information on the state of the environment is not a necessary input into the process of “differential reproductive success”?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, let ME be clear (again). --> Selection proceeds on the basis of what is best adapted to the environment.

You asked for a mechanism. That is the mechanism.

[/ QUOTE ]

Very good.

Are you claiming that information on the state of the environment is not a necessary input into the process of “differential reproductive success”?

Yes or No.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your question is meaningless. If adapting to an environment is the mechanism, why are you asking about "information on the state of the environment"?

Analogy...

Me: I don't like the taste of ketchup, so I don't eat it.

You. But is the state of the makeup of ketchup molecules an input to your differential taste success evaluator?

Me: You're an idiot.

You: Darn, my big words didn't fool him.

Sharkey

02-27-2006, 10:36 PM

[ QUOTE ]
But what happens when the changes in two isolated populations accumulate to the point that they are no longer interfertile?

[/ QUOTE ]

To that same extent, the populations are no longer internally fertile either.

This entire discussion has been in the context of speciation according to a specific definition which I obviously shouldn’t have to repeat again. Since bacteria are not mutually fertile, they fall outside the scope the discussion.

Accepting any random change of the genetic code as an addition of information still requires a discriminator of at least the complexity of the resultant organism to determine which random changes will be accepted and which won't. What is the source of the organization of this discriminator?

Borodog

02-27-2006, 11:00 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But what happens when the changes in two isolated populations accumulate to the point that they are no longer interfertile?

[/ QUOTE ]

To that same extent, the populations are no longer internally fertile either.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong. Why would this be the case? It doesn't even make sense. A breeding population cannot become uniformly less reproductively successful. This would require a population to become dominated by variants that are by definition less reproductively successful than other variants, which is impossible.

[ QUOTE ]
This entire discussion has been in the context of speciation according to a specific definition which I obviously shouldn’t have to repeat again. Since bacteria are not mutually fertile, they fall outside the scope the discussion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bacteria have genomes. Their phenotype depends on their genotype. There are random changes in their genotype that lead to variations in phenotype that lead to differential reproductive success. You seem to have conceded this. What magic mechanism allows this for bacteria but disallows it in other species?

[ QUOTE ]
Accepting any random change of the genetic code as an addition of information

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not a matter of accepting it. It just is. More code is more information. More genetic code allows more proteins to be coded for. Random changes to the code changes what proteins are coded for. Which proteins get coded for changes the phenotype. Reproductive success depends on phenotype. Ergo, some variants will have higher reproductive success than other variants, and the former will become numerically dominant in the population. Hence that which is more reproductively "fit" is selected for and that which is less reproductively fit is selected against.

WHAT MAGIC MECHANISM STOPS THIS?

[ QUOTE ]
still requires a discriminator of at least the complexity of the resultant organism to determine which random changes will be accepted and which won't. What is the source of the organization of this discriminator?

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. There is no "discriminator". None is required. It is just mathematics. If there is a population of 100 organisms and each organism on average leaves 1.1 descendents, then after 1 generation there will be 110 organisms. The next generation there will be 121 organisms, etc. If when there are 100 organisms of the 1.1 variant there is just 1 variant that manages to average 1.11 descendents per generation, then after 600 generations there will be more of the 1.11 variant than there are of the 1.1 variant. After 1000 generations there are 100 times as many 1.11 variants than there are 1.1 variants.

There's no discriminator. There is only differential reproductive success.

hmkpoker

02-27-2006, 11:11 PM

Hey, remember when you said you were learning your lesson about arguing with people like NotReady?

/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Borodog

02-27-2006, 11:14 PM

Hey, I'm still having fun. When it's not fun, I'll quit.

bunny

02-27-2006, 11:18 PM

I'm finding your insights valuable so thanks!

miketurner

02-27-2006, 11:29 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Hey, I'm still having fun. When it's not fun, I'll quit.

[/ QUOTE ]

This thread actually got too big, too quick for me to have the desire to catch up... but thanks for your response to me back on page 3 or 4 or whatever that was. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

Sharkey

02-27-2006, 11:41 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But what happens when the changes in two isolated populations accumulate to the point that they are no longer interfertile?

[/ QUOTE ]

To that same extent, the populations are no longer internally fertile either.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong. Why would this be the case?

[/ QUOTE ]

Give me an example of where it is not the case.

If your theory of evolution is so lacking in robustness as to be unable to address sexually reproductive species, then I suggest you ask for your money back.

The following paragraph is a repost with “accepted” changed to “successful”:

Accepting any random change of the genetic code as an addition of information still requires a discriminator of at least the complexity of the resultant organism to determine which random changes will be successful and which won't. What is the source of the organization of this discriminator?

Borodog

02-28-2006, 12:22 AM

Why are you so intellectually dishonest? Why did you snip all of the answers to your questions from the post that you are responding to? Is it that scary to actually allow yourself to think?

[ QUOTE ]
Give me an example of where it is not the case.

[/ QUOTE ]

A breeding population cannot become uniformly less reproductively successful. This would require a population to become dominated by variants that are by definition less reproductively successful than other variants, which is impossible.

[ QUOTE ]
If your theory of evolution is so lacking in robustness as to be unable to address sexually reproductive species, then I suggest you ask for your money back.

[/ QUOTE ]

What mechanism magically prevents variation from random genetic change and differential reproductive success from operating in sexually reproductive species? What mechanism prevents genetic change from accumulating in two reproductively isolated populations to the point that they are no longer interfertle? Why can't you just answer the question instead of evading, evading, evading?

[ QUOTE ]
Accepting any random change of the genetic code as an addition of information still requires a discriminator of at least the complexity of the resultant organism to determine which random changes will be successful and which won't. What is the source of the organization of this discriminator?

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. There is no "discriminator". None is required. It is just mathematics. If there is a population of 100 organisms and each organism on average leaves 1.1 descendents, then after 1 generation there will be 110 organisms. The next generation there will be 121 organisms, etc. If when there are 100 organisms of the 1.1 variant there is just 1 variant that manages to average 1.11 descendents per generation, then after 600 generations there will be more of the 1.11 variant than there are of the 1.1 variant. After 1000 generations there are 100 times as many 1.11 variants than there are 1.1 variants.

There's no discriminator. There is only differential reproductive success.

bunny

02-28-2006, 12:30 AM

Hi Sharkey - what do you think is going on here:

"The final form of speciation is called sympatric speciation. This type of speciation occurs when a subpopulation that occupies the same niche as the remainder of the species develops a unique mutation that prevents it from mating with the original population. That new species may also have an ecological advantage which permits its establishment as a species in the same niche. A good example of this method of speciation is the development of the new saltmarsh species Spartina townsendii, that was derived from S. alterniflora (American saltmarsh grass) and S. maritima (European saltmarsh grass), but is reproductively incompatible with either parent. This new species is better adapted to the coastal regions of Holland than either of the parental species and was able to better establish itself in that niche."

From this guy's site (http://www.ndsu.nodak.edu/instruct/mcclean/)

Sharkey

02-28-2006, 12:43 AM

[ QUOTE ]
What mechanism magically prevents variation from random genetic change and differential reproductive success from operating in sexually reproductive species?

[/ QUOTE ]

Lack of information.

Honestly, this is like having a conversation with a block of concrete, but I’ll keep trying. And, incidentally, I’m not about to go to the trouble of any fancy formatting. If you want all of your questions addressed, I suggest the point-counterpoint format.

Greater complexity cannot be achieved without the input of information. We’ve already established that random mutations don’t provide that, yet we supposedly have this “evolution” from slime to man. A process called “differential reproductive success” is cited. In what form and medium was the information stored before it was transferred by “differential reproductive success” to achieve speciation?

Borodog

02-28-2006, 12:55 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What mechanism magically prevents variation from random genetic change and differential reproductive success from operating in sexually reproductive species?

[/ QUOTE ]

Lack of information.

Honestly, this is like having a conversation with a block of concrete, but I’ll keep trying. And, incidentally, I’m not about to go to the trouble of any fancy formatting. If you want all of your questions addressed, I suggest the point-counterpoint format.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK. Now I know you're just a troll. You had me going there for a while. I quote all of your ridiculously posts and respond to all points. You snip 90% and evade the other 10%.

[ QUOTE ]
Greater complexity cannot be achieved without the input of information. We’ve already established that random mutations don’t provide that, yet we supposedly have this “evolution” from slime to man.

[/ QUOTE ]

What thread are you reading? Seriously, are you mentally retarded? It's OK if you are. It's nothing to be ashamed of. Are you reading every fifth word or something? Random variation increases information. If you're going to change the definitions of simple words like information so you don't have to admit that you've lost an argument, then you're just a troll.

[ QUOTE ]
A process called “differential reproductive success” is cited. In what form and medium was the information stored before it was transferred by “differential reproductive success” to achieve speciation?

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh, the genome?

Putting "differential reproductive success" in "quotes" doesn't diminish it, you know. If one variant is more reproductively successful than another variant then the former will come to numerically dominate the population. It's called mathematics. But you probably don't believe in math either.

OK. It's no fun anymore. It's like shooting intellectually dishonest (not to mention challenged) fish in a barrel.

I'm done with you. Thank you for playing. Come back when your brainwashing allows you to think rationally.

Borodog

02-28-2006, 12:58 AM

Oh yeah! I forgot the best part!

Congratulations! You're Number Five!

[ QUOTE ]
*** You are ignoring this user ***

[/ QUOTE ]

Sharkey

02-28-2006, 01:04 AM

[ QUOTE ]
"The final form of speciation is called sympatric speciation. This type of speciation occurs when a subpopulation that occupies the same niche as the remainder of the species develops a unique mutation that prevents it from mating with the original population. That new species may also have an ecological advantage which permits its establishment as a species in the same niche. A good example of this method of speciation is the development of the new saltmarsh species Spartina townsendii, that was derived from S. alterniflora (American saltmarsh grass) and S. maritima (European saltmarsh grass), but is reproductively incompatible with either parent. This new species is better adapted to the coastal regions of Holland than either of the parental species and was able to better establish itself in that niche."

[/ QUOTE ]

Before I start looking into this, it appears from a cursory googling that townsendii is infertile. Do you claim it is not?

Sharkey

02-28-2006, 01:10 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Random variation increases information.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not necessarily in the expression of the genome!

My question: A process called “differential reproductive success” is cited. In what form and medium was the information stored before it was transferred by “differential reproductive success” to achieve speciation?

Your answer: “the genome”

That’s circular causality!

Come back when your brainwashing allows you to think rationally.

flatline

02-28-2006, 01:17 AM

[ QUOTE ]
In what form and medium was the information stored before it was transferred by “differential reproductive success” to achieve speciation?

[/ QUOTE ]

Think about this question for a minute. When you realize how stupid it is (and how many times it has already been answered), kill yourself. The elimination of the troll gene will do this species some good.

Sharkey

02-28-2006, 01:23 AM

Are you saying the information imparted by the transformation “differential reproductive success” was created at the time of speciation?

MidGe

02-28-2006, 01:35 AM

Sharkey,

Your entire argument or even arguments rest on a teleological intend to eveolution. Meaning, intend, direction are not part of it. Success is totally accidental. Information value is even accidental.

I think, unfortunately this may be beyond you.

Sharkey

02-28-2006, 01:42 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Information value is even accidental.

[/ QUOTE ]

That’s exactly where you’re wrong.

Information Theory 101.

MidGe

02-28-2006, 01:46 AM

[ QUOTE ]
That’s exactly where you’re wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll be kind for a change and say that is where we differ in opinions. But I did guess it would be beyond you.

Sharkey

02-28-2006, 02:05 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I'll be kind for a change and say that is where we differ in opinions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Go ahead and be mean. I’m not an insulting kitty posing as a dog.

Sharkey

02-28-2006, 04:35 PM

What is the best example of two species related by speciation, i.e. the process of one species (mutually fertile group) developing into another?

1. ____________________

2. ____________________

bunny

02-28-2006, 06:38 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Before I start looking into this, it appears from a cursory googling that townsendii is infertile. Do you claim it is not?

[/ QUOTE ]
No, I dont make any claim - I am no expert and was just looked around when this seemed relevant. I am more interested in understanding what you think is happening here - I didnt check up on whether it was a fertile species. (Or rather whether it was a species under your definition).

Sharkey

02-28-2006, 07:21 PM

The “species” is infertile, so it doesn’t fit my functional definition. I appreciate your effort in any case. My own study of the subject doesn’t extend to an explanation of this particle hybridization, but I imagine townsendii caries a chromosomal defect, as is often the case under similar circumstances.

bunny

02-28-2006, 10:15 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Larus argentatus and Larus fuscus are not mutually infertile.

[/ QUOTE ]
Do you have a source where you found this? The sources I can find say they are (and are a good example of the speciation you are looking for).

Sharkey

02-28-2006, 10:35 PM

Paste the following line into Google:

"Hybrid Gulls Breeding in Belgium" "All three species may interbreed"

AceofSpades

03-01-2006, 12:29 AM

AceofSpades

03-01-2006, 12:57 AM

[ QUOTE ]
What is the best example of two species related by speciation, i.e. the process of one species (mutually fertile group) developing into another?

1. ____________________

2. ____________________

[/ QUOTE ]

You didn't read the talk origins site did you?
This is one of the many examples on that site. And before you say that intell. design caused this, the fact that this was able to happen through a breeding process means that it could happen on its own.

5.1.1.4 Raphanobrassica
The Russian cytologist Karpchenko (1927, 1928) crossed the radish, Raphanus sativus, with the cabbage, Brassica oleracea. Despite the fact that the plants were in different genera, he got a sterile hybrid. Some unreduced gametes were formed in the hybrids. This allowed for the production of seed. Plants grown from the seeds were interfertile with each other. They were not interfertile with either parental species. Unfortunately the new plant (genus Raphanobrassica) had the foliage of a radish and the root of a cabbage.

Sharkey

03-01-2006, 01:19 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What is the best example of two species related by speciation, i.e. the process of one species (mutually fertile group) developing into another?

1. ____________________

2. ____________________

[/ QUOTE ]

You didn't read the talk origins site did you?
This is one of the many examples on that site. And before you say that intell. design caused this, the fact that this was able to happen through a breeding process means that it could happen on its own.

5.1.1.4 Raphanobrassica
The Russian cytologist Karpchenko (1927, 1928) crossed the radish, Raphanus sativus, with the cabbage, Brassica oleracea. Despite the fact that the plants were in different genera, he got a sterile hybrid. Some unreduced gametes were formed in the hybrids. This allowed for the production of seed. Plants grown from the seeds were interfertile with each other. They were not interfertile with either parental species. Unfortunately the new plant (genus Raphanobrassica) had the foliage of a radish and the root of a cabbage.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you are attempting to respond to the question, provide the species designation of the resultant hybrid. Then I will follow up.

AceofSpades

03-01-2006, 03:00 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What is the best example of two species related by speciation, i.e. the process of one species (mutually fertile group) developing into another?

1. ____________________

2. ____________________

[/ QUOTE ]

You didn't read the talk origins site did you?
This is one of the many examples on that site. And before you say that intell. design caused this, the fact that this was able to happen through a breeding process means that it could happen on its own.

Raphanobrassica
The Russian cytologist Karpchenko (1927, 1928) crossed the radish, Raphanus sativus, with the cabbage, Brassica oleracea. Despite the fact that the plants were in different genera, he got a sterile hybrid.

If you are attempting to respond to the question, provide the species designation of the resultant hybrid. Then I will follow up.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is the species name...Raphanobrassica

Since Genus is classification of closely simular plants, and in this instance two different genus combined to make a new species, I believe it is the Genus name as well.

Sharkey

03-01-2006, 03:26 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What is the best example of two species related by speciation, i.e. the process of one species (mutually fertile group) developing into another?

1. ____________________

2. ____________________

[/ QUOTE ]

You didn't read the talk origins site did you?
This is one of the many examples on that site. And before you say that intell. design caused this, the fact that this was able to happen through a breeding process means that it could happen on its own.

5.1.1.4 Raphanobrassica
The Russian cytologist Karpchenko (1927, 1928) crossed the radish, Raphanus sativus, with the cabbage, Brassica oleracea. Despite the fact that the plants were in different genera, he got a sterile hybrid. Some unreduced gametes were formed in the hybrids. This allowed for the production of seed. Plants grown from the seeds were interfertile with each other. They were not interfertile with either parental species. Unfortunately the new plant (genus Raphanobrassica) had the foliage of a radish and the root of a cabbage.

[/ QUOTE ]

I’ll look into the production of offspring by way of unreduced gametes. This is at least sometimes a laboratory technique, so maybe it isn’t part of the fertility of the plant itself. I bring this up because it says “sterile hybrid”, which suggests to me it fails the “mutually fertile group” criterion.

Sharkey

03-01-2006, 03:50 AM

Wait a minute. 1928?

Have those results been duplicated since?

AceofSpades

03-01-2006, 01:57 PM

[ QUOTE ]

I’ll look into the production of offspring by way of unreduced gametes. This is at least sometimes a laboratory technique, so maybe it isn’t part of the fertility of the plant itself. I bring this up because it says “sterile hybrid”, which suggests to me it fails the “mutually fertile group” criterion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unreduced gametes is a diploid gamete (2n). Normal gametes have half the number of chromosomes (n) which combine to from a diploid (2n) plant. The actual cross-bred plant was infertile but it produced eggs (gametes). The offspring resulting from those seeds were fertile but only with each other, which would meet your criteria.

As to whether plants produce 2n gametes as part of the plant itself, (without outside interference) I found a scientific article that supports that conclusion at:
http://www.naaic.org/TAG/TAGpapers/barcaccia/Baraccia.htm.

A few samples of it:

Investigations on the reproductive system provided insights into the types of meiotic alteration responsible for the production of 2n gametes. Research on wild diploid relatives of cultivated alfalfa (M. sativa ssp. sativa L., 2n=4x=32) revealed that the formation of 2n gametes is due to cytological alterations genetically equivalent to first division restitution (FDR) and second division restitution (SDR). In particular, 2n pollen formation was shown to be due to the disorientation of spindles at metaphase II or abnormal cytokinesis, whereas 2n egg production was mainly associated with the absence of cytokinesis after telophase II, but the omission of the first and second meiotic divisions was also documented.

Other examples were newer but I choose that one because I thought it was interesting.

Joseph

Sharkey

03-01-2006, 02:18 PM

Technically, I suppose you may have cleared the bar with your example, that is if the results were confirmed by later attempts, which they don’t seem to have been.

If you really wanted to stretch, maybe the “one species” asked for could be either of the parents, while the other parent was just a means to the offspring. However, the criterion of “one species (mutually fertile group) developing into another” was made in the context of mutation and selection.

Can you direct me to any photographs of this amazing plant with “the foliage of a radish and the root of a cabbage”? What is the status of the seeds now? Pardon my skepticism.

AceofSpades

03-01-2006, 02:44 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Technically, I suppose you may have cleared the bar with your example, that is if the results were confirmed by later attempts, which they don’t seem to have been.

If you really wanted to stretch, maybe the “one species” asked for could be either of the parents, while the other parent was just a means to the offspring. However, the criterion of “one species (mutually fertile group) developing into another” was made in the context of mutation and selection.

Can you direct me to any photographs of this amazing plant with “the foliage of a radish and the root of a cabbage”? What is the status of the seeds now? Pardon my skepticism.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, if a lion bred with a tiger produced a liger and then ligers were able to reproduce among themselves, to make baby ligers. Then it just would be [ QUOTE ]
“one lion” asked for could be either of the parents, while the other (tiger) was just a means to the offspring.

[/ QUOTE ]

Also, here is a site that talks about the speciation of goatsbeard via polyploidization http://www.wsu.edu/NIS/Universe/instant.html

and here is a creationist site that agrees the speciation (according to your definition) occurs in that way. It argues that no new information was created due to this, so that isn't macroevolution. However I believe that (new information) issue was addressed earlier in this thread. (the dog example). But it also fails to address that sometimes different polyploid strains can interbreed with each other. And thus "new information" content from mixing genes via recombination.

Sharkey

03-01-2006, 03:08 PM

Show me evidence of a liger, and we’ll talk.

What about this raddage from the 1920s? Replication, pictures, seeds, anything?

AceofSpades

03-01-2006, 03:36 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Show me evidence of a liger, and we’ll talk.

What about this raddage from the 1920s? Replication, pictures, seeds, anything?

[/ QUOTE ]

Did they even have photography in the 1920s? I don't think it exists today, my fault for choosing an example that is not more recent. However there is an abundance of information about that process (polypoloid) (sp) read my post above (I edited it) about the goatsbeard. This is the creationist site that accepts that process occuring:

http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/deception.html

This is from a site which I think explains the process pretty well:

"When a newly-arisen tetraploid (4n) plant tries to breed with its ancestral species (a backcross), triploid offspring are formed. These are sterile because they cannot form gametes with a balanced assortment of chromosomes.

However, the tetraploid plants can breed with each other. So in one generation, a new species has been formed."
- http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/P/Polyploidy.html

AceofSpades

03-01-2006, 03:41 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Show me evidence of a liger, and we’ll talk.
http://home.blarg.net/~wayule/graphics/liger1.jpg

Like Mules, Ligers can't interbreed, though. I was using it as an example to show how your refutation about stretching it doesn't apply. It's not possible to say that this is a lion but the tiger was just the means to the end. Isn't that an awesome animal though?

Sharkey

03-01-2006, 04:21 PM

That’s something I would step right up and pay to see it.

If tetraploidy is what you want to go with as providing the “best example”, what are the names of the two species?

Since the question was made in the context of evolution by mutation and selection, I might have to rephrase it to include those parameters explicitly.

Sharkey

03-01-2006, 06:45 PM

Since the topic was the purported evolution of simple species into complex ones, and the former ones from no species at all, I supposed the answers to my question would be confined to processes necessary to account for such a development. Since that hasn’t been the case, a clarification is necessary:

What is the best example of two species connected by a process through which one mutually fertile group is developed into another by the effects of mutation and selection?

1. ____________________

2. ____________________

I think the above better represents the issue in context of the discussion.

AceofSpades

03-01-2006, 08:36 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Since the topic was the purported evolution of simple species into complex ones, and the former ones from no species at all, I supposed the answers to my question would be confined to processes necessary to account for such a development. Since that hasn’t been the case, a clarification is necessary:

One of the processes in plants is Polyploidy. That is what happens when an abnormality occurs "or mutation" in the process of forming gametes. Plants often do not undergo complete monoploidy during meiosis (during the formation of the sex cells, or gametes). This means that the gametes may remain diploid. When diploid gametes fuse, a new polyploid "species" is formed.

What is the best example of two species connected by a process through which one mutually fertile group is developed into another by the effects of mutation and selection?

1. Epilobium angustifolium
2. No new species name is given because it is consider a "race" of that species. However it does meet the critera you require.

This is from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

Evidence that a species of fireweed (Epilobium angustifolium) formed by doubling of the chromosome count, from the original stock. (Note that polyploids are generally considered to be a separate "race" of the same species as the original stock, but they do meet the criteria which you suggested.)
(Test for speciation: cannot produce offspring with the original stock.)

Mosquin, T., 1967. "Evidence for autopolyploidy in Epilobium angustifolium (Onaagraceae)", Evolution 21:713-719

You do understand that species is largely an arbitary distinction, based on shape, ability to interbreed and produce viable offspring, and adaption to environment, and amount of genetic code in common with other like organisms, right?

Sharkey

03-01-2006, 09:55 PM

[ QUOTE ]
2. No new species name is given because it is consider a "race" of that species. However it does meet the critera you require.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not to be difficult about this, but if you’ll read the clarification, I ask for two species. “Mutually fertile group” is part of the description of the developmental process. This is a minor point though, considering.

A more significant issue is, if your mechanism is to account for the development of the species from mud, how many chromosomes will the final ape have?

Yes, I know about the incompletely defined nature of “species”.

AceofSpades

03-01-2006, 11:00 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
2. No new species name is given because it is consider a "race" of that species. However it does meet the critera you require.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not to be difficult about this, but if you’ll read the clarification, I ask for two species. “Mutually fertile group” is part of the description of the developmental process. This is a minor point though, considering.

A more significant issue is, if your mechanism is to account for the development of the species from mud, how many chromosomes will the final ape have?

Yes, I know about the incompletely defined nature of “species”.

[/ QUOTE ]

I gave you two organisms as according to your definition of species. Perhaps you could explain how this is a more significant issue about the monkey and mud? Because frankly I'm baffled at what you are talking about.

chrisnice

03-01-2006, 11:25 PM

Oh my goodness. Please let this thread die. It has been established that Sharkey has no interest in an honest debate or questions.

Sharkey

03-01-2006, 11:44 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
2. No new species name is given because it is consider a "race" of that species. However it does meet the critera you require.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not to be difficult about this, but if you’ll read the clarification, I ask for two species. “Mutually fertile group” is part of the description of the developmental process. This is a minor point though, considering.

A more significant issue is, if your mechanism is to account for the development of the species from mud, how many chromosomes will the final ape have?

Yes, I know about the incompletely defined nature of “species”.

[/ QUOTE ]

I gave you two organisms as according to your definition of species. Perhaps you could explain how this is a more significant issue about the monkey and mud? Because frankly I'm baffled at what you are talking about.

[/ QUOTE ]

I apologize for being obscure.

For convenience, the question again:

“What is the best example of two species connected by a process through which one mutually fertile group is developed into another by the effects of mutation and selection?”

What this means to me is three stages:

1. Species One.

2. One or more steps of “a process through which one mutually fertile group is developed into another by the effects of mutation and selection”.

3. Species Two.

But rather that quibble about that, let’s move on. To what extend do you consider a doubling of chromosome count sufficient to explain the progress of life to its current state from whatever its original condition was?