Songbirds for Sharkey [Archive] - Two Plus Two Newer Archives

chrisnice

03-20-2006, 11:55 AM

[ QUOTE ]
An example of one species evolving into two others through evolution (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/03/26/MN172778.DTL)

[/ QUOTE ]

Doubt your gonna have much success here. I cited several ring species for sharkey but apparently they dont meet his arbitrary definition of species. Dawkins has said it before and ill say it again...."the tyranny of the discontinious mind"

Copernicus

03-20-2006, 12:29 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
An example of one species evolving into two others through evolution (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/03/26/MN172778.DTL)

[/ QUOTE ]

Doubt your gonna have much success here. I cited several ring species for sharkey but apparently they dont meet his arbitrary definition of species. Dawkins has said it before and ill say it again...."the tyranny of the discontinious mind"

[/ QUOTE ]

It doesnt have to be a very arbitrary definition of species for these examples to fail to satisfy him

"Populations of warblers, like other birds, easily mate and interbreed with neighboring groups around the ring. But when Irwin studied two separate populations of the birds that coexist in Siberia far from their original range,

he found that they do not mate at all, and they differ strikingly in other characteristics."

Do they just not mate or are they incapable of producing offspring? I think that is Sharkey's bright line test, and I dont think its unreasonable.

chrisnice

03-20-2006, 12:48 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Do they just not mate or are they incapable of producing offspring? I think that is Sharkey's bright line test, and I dont think its unreasonable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its ridiculous. Species arent A,B,C unique and seperate, theres all types of in between and hybrids etc. Lions are not tigers, whales are not dolphins, poodles are not wolves even though all of the above mentioned can interbreed.

Copernicus

03-20-2006, 01:14 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Do they just not mate or are they incapable of producing offspring? I think that is Sharkey's bright line test, and I dont think its unreasonable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its ridiculous. Species arent A,B,C unique and seperate, theres all types of in between and hybrids etc. Lions are not tigers, whales are not dolphins, poodles are not wolves even though all of the above mentioned can interbreed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since he is discussing criteria for evidence that would give substantial support for evolution, and therefore challenge the veracity of the bible, I dont think you can say that demanding the strong definition of species is setting too high a bar, and certainly isnt "ridiculous".

Sorry if I'm mixing up sharkey's and NotReady's positions if they are different.

chrisnice

03-20-2006, 01:29 PM

All definitions of species are pretty ridiculous, animals are what they are independant of any labels us [censored] sapians construe for them.

Copernicus

03-20-2006, 01:39 PM

[ QUOTE ]
All definitions of species are pretty ridiculous, animals are what they are independant of any labels us [censored] sapians construe for them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Definitions are not ridiculous when you are discussing biology/evolution where classification is fundamental to their study. Yes, they are what they are, but understanding what they are (or arent) is what science (and communication in general) are all about.

One, two and three wheeled vehicles that achieve locomotion by pedaling are what they are, but without defining them as Unicycles, bicycles and tricycles it is cumbersome to discuss the differences in riding each one. Giving them names doesnt alter their nature but is far from ridiculous.

Sharkey

03-20-2006, 04:45 PM

It’s a good article, and saved to disk.

Surely even the most devout evolutionist must see some light breaking when they read that the case of these warblers is “the most compelling evidence yet” for their belief system. Think about that.

Maybe I missed it, but the author doesn’t seem to assert that any two “species” are mutually infertile. This is one of a few critical details any theory of evolution must include. Not a morphological judgment call, a hard fact.

At some point, internally fertile group A had to produce a separate internally fertile group B. Take as long as you want, but the theory requires it.

chrisnice

03-20-2006, 05:48 PM

[ QUOTE ]

At some point, internally fertile group A had to produce a separate internally fertile group B. Take as long as you want, but the theory requires it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Complete nonsense. It requires nothing of the sort. Speciation is a gradual process. In some examples, apes and humans from a common ancestor for example, the intermediaries arent around anymore. In others, like the subject of the article or any other ring species, two distinct species and all their intermediaries are still around.

Why do you insist that evolutionists prove something that they dont claim?

Sharkey

03-20-2006, 05:57 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

At some point, internally fertile group A had to produce a separate internally fertile group B. Take as long as you want, but the theory requires it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Complete nonsense. It requires nothing of the sort. Speciation is a gradual process. In some examples, apes and humans from a common ancestor for example, the intermediaries arent around anymore. In others, like the subject of the article or any other ring species, two distinct species and all their intermediaries are still around.

Why do you insist that evolutionists prove something that they dont claim?

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you claiming a mutually fertile group A can evolve into a non-overlapping mutually fertile group B without a first member that is not interfertile with A?

chrisnice

03-20-2006, 06:05 PM

They do overlap as any ring species demonstrates.

Sharkey

03-20-2006, 06:10 PM

Are you claiming the present diversity of species can be accounted for by a process in which a mutually fertile group A evolves into a non-overlapping mutually fertile group B without a first member that is not interfertile with A?

chezlaw

03-20-2006, 06:21 PM

chrisnice

03-20-2006, 06:27 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Are you claiming the present diversity of species can be accounted for by a process in which a mutually fertile group A evolves into a non-overlapping mutually fertile group B without a first member that is not interfertile with A?

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, they do overlap. But keep using technical terms and fancy sentances and im sure you will confuse someone. And then be sure to accuse me of an ad hominum attack on you here to completly avoid why you expect people to prove something that they dont claim.

Sharkey

03-20-2006, 06:32 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Are you claiming the present diversity of species can be accounted for by a process in which a mutually fertile group A evolves into a non-overlapping mutually fertile group B without a first member that is not interfertile with A?

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, they do overlap. But keep using technical terms and fancy sentances and im sure you will confuse someone. And then be sure to accuse me of an ad hominum attack on you here to completly avoid why you expect people to prove something that they dont claim.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes or No:

Are you claiming the present diversity of species can be accounted for by a process in which a mutually fertile group A evolves into a non-overlapping mutually fertile group B without a first member that is not interfertile with A?

chrisnice

03-20-2006, 07:12 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Yes or No:

Are you claiming the present diversity of species can be accounted for by a process in which a mutually fertile group A evolves into a non-overlapping mutually fertile group B without a first member that is not interfertile with A?

[/ QUOTE ]

The present diversity of species can be accounted for by a process in which group A evolves into an overlapping group B which evolves into an overlapping group C which evolves into an overlapping group D which evolves into an overlapping group E and E or somewhere further down the line is infertile with A.

Sharkey

03-20-2006, 07:45 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Yes or No:

Are you claiming the present diversity of species can be accounted for by a process in which a mutually fertile group A evolves into a non-overlapping mutually fertile group B without a first member that is not interfertile with A?

[/ QUOTE ]

The present diversity of species can be accounted for by a process in which group A evolves into an overlapping group B which evolves into an overlapping group C which evolves into an overlapping group D which evolves into an overlapping group E and E or somewhere further down the line is infertile with A.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is that a Yes or a No?

chrisnice

03-20-2006, 07:54 PM

Pretty clear that it is a no. But rather than tread into the false dilema youre about to set up I instead decided to clarify what exactly was wrong with your statement.

Sharkey

03-20-2006, 08:00 PM

So then your claim of “complete nonsense” directed toward my “at some point, internally fertile group A had to produce a separate internally fertile group B. Take as long as you want, but the theory requires it” was itself complete nonsense.

HLMencken

03-20-2006, 08:04 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Why do you insist that evolutionists prove something that they dont claim?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because he read that argument on some nonsense ID site and is mindlessly sticking to it--no matter how often it is refuted over and over again.

On the bright side, his posts are the finest example of the logical shenanigans inherent in such ideology.

chrisnice

03-20-2006, 08:05 PM

[ QUOTE ]
So then your claim of “complete nonsense” directed toward my “at some point, internally fertile group A had to produce a separate internally fertile group B. Take as long as you want, but the theory requires it” was itself complete nonsense.

[/ QUOTE ]

No the theory does not require that at all but thanks for setting up the false dilema that I predicted and for failing to ever address the point in contention.

Sharkey

03-20-2006, 08:10 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Because he read that argument on some nonsense ID site and is mindlessly sticking to it--no matter how often it is refuted over and over again.

On the bright side, his posts are the finest example of the logical shenanigans inherent in such ideology.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your tired tactic of empty personal attacks instead of cogent argument could use a little evolving.

HLMencken

03-20-2006, 08:13 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Because he read that argument on some nonsense ID site and is mindlessly sticking to it--no matter how often it is refuted over and over again.

On the bright side, his posts are the finest example of the logical shenanigans inherent in such ideology.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your tired tactic of empty personal attacks instead of cogent argument could use a little evolving.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have provided volumes of cogent arguments in past threads. You chose to ignore them all and instead propose intentionally obscure questions which are not relevant to the point at hand --- which is your obvious tactic against chrisnice in this thread, as well. In fact, this tactic combined with claiming personal attack are your only forms of argument to date.

Sharkey

03-20-2006, 08:20 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So then your claim of “complete nonsense” directed toward my “at some point, internally fertile group A had to produce a separate internally fertile group B. Take as long as you want, but the theory requires it” was itself complete nonsense.

[/ QUOTE ]

No the theory does not require that at all but thanks for setting up the false dilema that I predicted and for failing to ever address the point in contention.

[/ QUOTE ]

Q1: Are you claiming the present diversity of species can be accounted for by a process in which a mutually fertile group A evolves into a non-overlapping mutually fertile group B without a first member that is not interfertile with A?

A1: No.

Q2: In that case, since you don’t claim a first member infertile with A is necessary to account for the present diversity of species, do you claim that every current species (B1, B2, etc) is mutually fertile with some original ancestor?

Yes or No.

HLMencken

03-20-2006, 08:25 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Q2: In that case, since you don’t claim a first member infertile with A is necessary to account for the present diversity of species, do you claim that every current species (B1, B2, etc) is mutually fertile with some original ancestor?
Yes or No.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you insist on a claim about "every species" following the same possible path. Another false dilemma. You avoid the issue at hand by positing questions which are irrelevant in order to obfuscate the dialogue. Not every species needs to be fertile or infertile with its nearest related species. This whole path is irrelevant to the issue. Yet you continue to ignore these answers and stick with your ID talking points--which are unnecessary to the process of natural selection.

Sharkey

03-20-2006, 08:28 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Q2: In that case, since you don’t claim a first member infertile with A is necessary to account for the present diversity of species, do you claim that every current species (B1, B2, etc) is mutually fertile with some original ancestor?
Yes or No.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you insist on a claim about "every species" following the same possible path. Another false dilemma. You avoid the issue at hand by positing questions which are irrelevant in order to obfuscate the dialogue. Not every species needs to be fertile or infertile with its nearest related species. This whole path is irrelevant to the issue. Yet you continue to ignore these answers and stick with your ID talking points--which are unnecessary to the process of natural selection.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is that a Yes or a No?

HLMencken

03-20-2006, 08:30 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Q2: In that case, since you don’t claim a first member infertile with A is necessary to account for the present diversity of species, do you claim that every current species (B1, B2, etc) is mutually fertile with some original ancestor?
Yes or No.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you insist on a claim about "every species" following the same possible path. Another false dilemma. You avoid the issue at hand by positing questions which are irrelevant in order to obfuscate the dialogue. Not every species needs to be fertile or infertile with its nearest related species. This whole path is irrelevant to the issue. Yet you continue to ignore these answers and stick with your ID talking points--which are unnecessary to the process of natural selection.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is that a Yes or a No?

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL. Keep trying for yet another false dilemma rather than a logical debate.

chrisnice

03-20-2006, 08:32 PM

[ QUOTE ]

The present diversity of species can be accounted for by a process in which group A evolves into an overlapping group B which evolves into an overlapping group C which evolves into an overlapping group D which evolves into an overlapping group E and E or somewhere further down the line is infertile with A.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sharkster, Yes or No?

HLMencken

03-20-2006, 08:37 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The present diversity of species can be accounted for by a process in which group A evolves into an overlapping group B which evolves into an overlapping group C which evolves into an overlapping group D which evolves into an overlapping group E and E or somewhere further down the line is infertile with A.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sharkster, Yes or No?

[/ QUOTE ]

nh

Sharkey

03-20-2006, 08:39 PM

Sharkey

03-20-2006, 08:39 PM

Serious contributors are welcome to take up where others left off.

Q1: Are you claiming the present diversity of species can be accounted for by a process in which a mutually fertile group A evolves into a non-overlapping mutually fertile group B without a first member that is not interfertile with A?

A1: No.

Q2: In that case, since you don’t claim a first member infertile with A is necessary to account for the present diversity of species, do you claim that every current species (B1, B2, etc) is mutually fertile with some original ancestor?

Yes or No.

HLMencken

03-20-2006, 08:44 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The present diversity of species can be accounted for by a process in which group A evolves into an overlapping group B which evolves into an overlapping group C which evolves into an overlapping group D which evolves into an overlapping group E and E or somewhere further down the line is infertile with A.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sharkster, Yes or No?

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why "NO"? You mean that if evolution of species A into mutually fertile species B were possible, that eventually species Z couldn't be infertile to A?

Have you ever played telephone as a kid? If you mutate/garble enough times, eventually the message becomes completely different than what you started with--even if it was only slightly changed at each step.

This is the exact same principle. How do you simply dismiss it, assuming that evolution from A to B is possible? What is your rationale?

Rather than "yes/no" debate that you are fond of--let's hear some actual dialogue or rationale for your position.

Sharkey

03-20-2006, 08:52 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The present diversity of species can be accounted for by a process in which group A evolves into an overlapping group B which evolves into an overlapping group C which evolves into an overlapping group D which evolves into an overlapping group E and E or somewhere further down the line is infertile with A.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sharkster, Yes or No?

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why "NO"? You mean that if evolution of species A into mutually fertile species B were possible, that eventually species Z couldn't be infertile to A?

Have you ever played telephone as a kid? If you mutate/garble enough times, eventually the message becomes completely different than what you started with--even if it was only slightly changed at each step.

This is the exact same principle. How do you simply dismiss it, assuming that evolution from A to B is possible? What is your rationale?

Rather than "yes/no" debate that you are fond of--let's hear some actual dialogue or rationale for your position.

[/ QUOTE ]

I’m saying “no” because no such process has been demonstrated, accounting for any species A developing into any species Z.

There’s my straight answer with follow-up explanation as requested. Now how about you do the same:

Since you don’t claim a first member infertile with A is necessary to account for the present diversity of species, do you claim that every current species (B1, B2, etc) is mutually fertile with some original ancestor?

Yes or No.

HLMencken

03-20-2006, 08:57 PM

[ QUOTE ]
do you claim that every current species (B1, B2, etc) is mutually fertile with some original ancestor?

Yes or No.

[/ QUOTE ]

I claim the question is irrelevant and invalid. Obviously, every creature alive is a descendent from a fertile creature. Whether this creature is a different "species" from its "ancestor" is merely applying the labels "species" and "ancestor" to a process which does not recognize such labels. How far back do you have to go to define ancestor? 1 generation? 10 generations? How different a mutation do you need to use the term species? It is ultiumately an arbitrary definition used for human bookkeeping and nature is not required to pay it due.

HLMencken

03-20-2006, 09:00 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Chrisnice: The present diversity of species can be accounted for by a process in which group A evolves into an overlapping group B which evolves into an overlapping group C which evolves into an overlapping group D which evolves into an overlapping group E and E or somewhere further down the line is infertile with A. [Sharkey], yes or no?

Sharkey: I’m saying “no” because no such process has been demonstrated, accounting for any species A developing into any species Z.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you don't object that it's possible, only that you haven't seen it demonstrated in an environment where data can be recorded by a human observer each step along the way?

Sharkey

03-20-2006, 09:07 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I claim the question is irrelevant and invalid.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can only interpret that as a refusal to respond to the question. Serious contributors are welcome to take this issue up. The following is where the discussion stands.

Q1: Are you claiming the present diversity of species can be accounted for by a process in which a mutually fertile group A evolves into a non-overlapping mutually fertile group B without a first member that is infertile with A?

A1: No.

Q2: In that case, since you don’t claim a first member infertile with A is necessary to account for the present diversity of species, do you claim that every current species (B1, B2, etc) is mutually fertile with some original ancestor?

Yes or No.

HLMencken

03-20-2006, 09:09 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I claim the question is irrelevant and invalid.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can only interpret that as a refusal to respond to the question. Serious contributors are welcome to take this issue up. The following is where the discussion stands.

Q1: Are you claiming the present diversity of species can be accounted for by a process in which a mutually fertile group A evolves into a non-overlapping mutually fertile group B without a first member that is infertile with A?

A1: No.

Q2: In that case, since you don’t claim a first member infertile with A is necessary to account for the present diversity of species, do you claim that every current species (B1, B2, etc) is mutually fertile with some original ancestor?

Yes or No.

[/ QUOTE ]

That was a serious response. The question is meaningless. Define "ancestor" anbd "species" in a manner which is completely unambiguous before you request a reply to this question.

bunny

03-20-2006, 09:13 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Are you claiming the present diversity of species can be accounted for by a process in which a mutually fertile group A evolves into a non-overlapping mutually fertile group B without a first member that is infertile with A?

Yes or No.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. Evolution occurs gradually through many stages species 1 -> isolated subspecies 1b -> isolated subspecies 1c ->......-> species 2. Every member of species 2 (there is no first member) is unable to breed with species 1 (partly biological but principally because they exist millions of years apart).

Sharkey

03-20-2006, 09:30 PM

Without a first descendant outside mutually fertile group A, all descendants are (potentially) mutually fertile. You’re not claiming that, are you?

bunny

03-20-2006, 10:13 PM

I expect it's more gradual - a subspecies develops who can (but wont) breed with the original group, then they evolve further. I doubt it's a case of yes or no - more less and less likely to successfully breed until eventually there exist two groups who are 100% infertile (though as I mentioned the ancestor species is likely to be extinct by this time anyhow - a far more effective barrier to mutual fertility).