Posted on 04/08/2016 8:45:34 AM PDT by JimSEA
Of course there is.
Remember, it's strictly a matter or word definitions among such biological classifications as "species" "sub-species", "breed", "genus", "family", etc., etc.
Are two different populations separate "species" or just "breeds"?
Well, a major distinction is found in whether they can & do interbreed.
If they do (i.e., various dogs) then they are "breeds" but if not, they are separate "species".
Some species can interbreed, but only if forced in captivity, and then they produce unviable or infertile offspring, i.e., horse + donkey = mule.
So there are degrees of difficulty in interbreeding, and those tell us which biological categories each population occupies.
Bottom line: when two populations have reached the point where they barely can, or will, no longer interbreed, that is the point where evolution is in process of creating new species.
Examples of such are numerous in nature.
“The theory of evolution is constantly changing in detail but the core theory has never been disproven.”
That’s not how real science works, Jim. In science your hypothesis remains a hypothesis until it produces experimental confirmation. Only then can it be deemed a theory (if it’s an important enough hypothesis and there aren’t competing hypotheses that have a similar level of confirmation).
You don’t just call something a theory because it’s “never been disproven”. I could postulate that gravity is powered by fairy dust, and you’ll never disprove that, but it doesn’t make it a theory.
“If they do (i.e., various dogs) then they are “breeds” but if not, they are separate “species”.”
That used to be true, but not anymore. They’ve changed the standards of classification to better prop up their hypothesis.
Now, if two populations are capable of breeding and producing viable offspring, but simply don’t normally do so in nature (because they are separated by a geographical barrier, for example), then they are classified as separate species. Even populations that can breed viable offspring and DO breed viable offspring the wild are often classed as different species, simply because the scientists do not hold to that rule much anymore, and are instead focusing on trivial morphological differences.
If a species can no longer breed, they die off.
Someone should warn the e-Harmony guy.
Someone should warn the e-Harmony guy.
I said it’s never been disproven because it hasn’t On the other hands there are mountains of evidence that it’s true.
For yours to have any merit, you’d have to find fairy dust. Observation comes first, then hypothesis to explain your observation is next. Finally confirmation or rejection based on further evidence. Does the hypothesis work? In the theory of evolution the further observation has both supported evolution and has never contradicted. One contradiction throws the theory out. What has happened is years of refining of the basic theory.
"experimental" is not the only type of scientific confirmation.
Predictions found true also confirm hypotheses, making them theories.
To pick an example, Einstein's relativity hypothesis was confirmed as theory when it:
Those were all observations of nature, not laboratory experiments, and each new confirmation strengthen Einstein's theory.
Likewise, evolution theory makes many predictions, all confirmed daily by people working in related fields.
Here is a very partial listing of evolution predictions.
Boogieman: "You don’t just call something a theory because it’s 'never been disproven'. "
Sure, the correct word is "falsified", not "disproven", but otherwise JimSEA's post is correct.
Read it again, FRiend.
What JimSEA said, is evolution: "...has been fleshed out tremendously and continues to be."
I'd say "fleshed out" refers to both innumerable confirmations and expanded explanations for new data.
Regardless, we're quibbling over distinctions in word definitions, not serious errors in thinking.
Agreed, but that is a lot of words and I was hoping to be briefer.
A fantastic example of how this works is Polar Bears and Brown Bears.
Until recent years they were considered not just separate species, but also different genera of the Ursidae family.
Then in recent years hybrids have been found of Polar & Brown bears, and so they are re-classified as separate species in the Ursus genus.
Yes, the argument might be made they are really just sub-species of the same species, based on interbreeding, but the examples are very rare, and differences between Polar & Browns distinct enough that they are kept as separate species.
Bottom line: this example shows how the whole idea of "species", "sub-species", "genus", etc., is a matter of human definition and interpretation, not something hard and fast in nature.
Please see my response in the post above.
Polar Bears and Brown Bears are now classified as separate species, even though their DNA is identical enough for them to interbreed.
Many similar examples can be cited, where interbreeding is successful, or difficult, or produces non-viable offspring, or is physically impossible.
Each of those are evidence of stages in the process of speciation.
These stages of speciation go by the biological classifications of "breed", "sub-species", "species", "genus", etc.
I’m not saying species don’t change over time just that they don’t change into another species. Basically I don’t believe that we came from apes. And that bears will produce bears and birds will produce birds. Some of their characteristics may change but they will still be bears & birds.
I don’t believe God needed or used evolution in his creation. He made the animals and then he made man.
But the whole idea of "species" or "sub-species" or "genus" is strictly a matter of human definitions, not something innate to nature.
If two populations can and sometimes do interbreed, we call them "sub-species", i.e., as suggested by DNA analyses, humans and Neanderthals.
Even if two populations can but very seldom interbreed then we call them separate species, i.e., Polar & Brown bears.
But if they cannot biologically interbreed, regardless of how similar they look, then we call them separate genera, i.e., Indian & African elephants.
The differences between sub-species, species and genera are mostly a function of how similar their DNAs are.
And since each new generation is born with some small mutations, when populations reach the point of no longer interbreeding, then they change from one category to another.
Smittie: "Basically I don’t believe that we came from apes."
Of course we did not come from any ape you see in the world today.
But circa 7 million years ago, humans and chimpanzees had the same ancestor, which was neither human nor chimp.
And about 10 million years ago, humans and chimps had the same ancestors as gorillas, which were neither human, chimp nor gorilla.
And maybe 12 million years ago, humans, chimps and gorillas had the same ancestors as orangutans, which were neither human..... and so on.
Smittie: "...bears will produce bears and birds will produce birds.
Some of their characteristics may change but they will still be bears & birds."
Sure, that is the straw-man argument anti-evolutionists frequently throw out, but it fundamentally misrepresents evolution theory.
Evolution theory never says that "birds turned into bears", that's ridiculous.
What it does say is that around 225 million years ago, the common ancestors of mammals first split apart from the common ancestors of birds.
These common ancestors were neither mammals nor birds, they were more like reptiles, but each population having separated from others evolved it's own distinct characteristics.
Of course, you are free to believe whatever you wish on this subject, but the Bible says nothing to contradict the idea of God using evolution to accomplish His purposes.
Smittie: "He made the animals and then he made man."
Yes, and that is also what evolution theory says.
The Bible tells us we were created in God's image,that He formed man from the sand. Why would he need evolution? He is all powerful and nothing is impossible for Him.
Evolution would also mean that death occurred before sin entered the world, which contradicts the Bible.
For a good explanation of the case against evolution you may want to Youtube "The Creation Series" by Kent Hovind.
You mean "dust of the ground", which is just what evolution theory tells us, isn't it?
Smittie: "Why would he need evolution?"
Of course, we don't know if God "needed" evolution, because we don't fully know the Mind of God.
But physical evidence in the ground suggests that's just what He did, and why would such evidence lie to us?
Smittie: "He is all powerful and nothing is impossible for Him."
Of course, including: it's not impossible that God would use evolution to accomplish His purposes.
Smittie: "Evolution would also mean that death occurred before sin entered the world, which contradicts the Bible."
But suppose "death" in those days was not really death, but something else, for example, a temporary stopping point before which life returned reborn?
And what if without sin there was no real death, just eternal life, one generation after the next?
But with sin, the dead became truly dead, never reborn, never returning, never eternal?
I'm not saying that's what happened, because I don't know what happened, I'm only saying it could have, and therefore science and Bible are not necessarily in conflict.
Smittie: "For a good explanation of the case against evolution..."
As long as that "case" is based in religion, I have no problem with it, since everyone is entitled to their religious opinions.
So, if you openly say, "I can't believe science because my Bible tells me differently", then that's fine, go in peace.
But if you claim some superior form of anti-evolution "science" then I'd say you are trafficking in rubbish & nonsense.
By common sense and US law, science is what it is, so you don't get to redefine science for your own religious purposes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.