Posted on 02/12/2006 10:32:27 AM PST by PatrickHenry
Nitpick much? I answered the question he was actually asking, not his poor word choice while asking it.
Where's all the antiparticles btw?
All around us. Try reading the links again.
Gone walk-about. And actually, a non-testable obsevation. Therefore not science, eh?
Wow, you understand even less about physics than you do about biology. I hadn't thought that possible.
It is a belief system.
No, it's physics. I can understand how you'd be unclear on the concept, though, given how you've made it clear that to you, *everything* is "just a belief system", and all opinions on all matters are as valid as any other because they're just "belief systems" with no way to differentiate valid ones from invalid ones -- never mind the fact that some of us, unlike yourself, actually test our conclusions against the real world by a very effective method (working out the predicted consequences of those conclusions, then comparing those predictions against real-world evidence and tests, and rejecting, modifying, or accepting the conclusions based on the results). This is what validates the conclusions of science against untested beliefs held not only in the absence of evidence, but often in spite of contradicting evidence, such as religious beliefs. This is why your following bit of silliness is especially disingenuous:
Valid obseravtions, but to infer to totality from a limited set -- that's religion.
Sorry, no, but science doesn't work that way. But to someone who sees everything through the prism of religion, such as yourself, I can see how you'd presume that *everyone* does. But it's simply not true. When you folks finally grasp that fundamental point, you might begin to be able to hold up your end in a discussion about scientific issues, instead of endlessly making pointless rants and false accusations like this.
I am following up on your comments, seing if you can actually articulate your thoughts to follow up on them. It's called discussion.
You must already know, because you claim to understand evolution well enough to reject it.
Again, no. THis is beside the point, but not factual still.
Just look at all of this Bibble. Hes having an online meltdown.
You really know how to push this guy's buttons!
Interbreeding populations evolve through the process of replication, heritable difference and natural selection. Whenever a population splits into two geographically separated groups, each group will face different environmental challenges that drive selection in different directions. Unless the two groups can reconnect to interbreed, they will continue to evolve in different directions until they are no longer the same species.
How can it not be clear. I have never rejected evolution or even criticized it per se or advocated creatiosim or ID.
The reason for asking questions is to delve in to an issue on various levels.
How can new species be created if like only begets like, to use an old term?
Is the problem one of semantics?
OK. Do you reject evolution or not? If you do reject evolution then did you examine it carefully first?
I'm asking because I don't understand where your question is coming from. You appear to reject evolution, and I'm sure someone as clever as yourself wouldn't reject something accepted by most scientists without checking what the theory says first, yet your question about speciation implies an astounding level of ignorance on your part about the theory. Really strange.
So they are not new species, though, because they still could interconnect if they were geographically available to each other or one group in a separate geographic location had not become extinct?
When does the new species occur?
I wouldn't call it a non-sequitar, but yes. It's not really a realistic example, so why would you use it as the first example you have of how evolution could be contradicted?
Do you have a real example?
Yes, I've been suspecting that. Therefore, I try to capture for posterity only what seem to be genuinely deranged posts. Those that are merely contrived are usually obvious.
The ERV evidence could easily have falsified evolution. But it didn't. The ERV evidence matched the predictions of common descent.
Finding the same species of flightless bird on two different remote oceanic islands would have falsified evolution. But we didn't find that.
It's that fermented Velveeta in the omelet.
Imagine a bar of colour across your PC monitor. White at one end, black at the other, changing across a thousand or so pixels slowly from white to black. Where does white end, and black begin?
Not at all. The Chimp genome had a lot of unexpected findings.
And still, that has no bearing on contradicting evolution.
Not finding it wouldn't contradict it.
By change in the genepool across generations, to the point where a descendant population is sufficiently different from its ancestral population to warrant being considered a different species, due to breeding incompatibilities or significant differences in phenotype.
Factors which facilitate, induce, or accelerate this process in various ways include (but are not limited to) mutation, natural selection (both positive and negative), genetic drift, geographic isolation, sympatric isolation, sexual selection, hybridization, ecological opportunity, founder effects, parapatric isolation, and so on.
There is some overlap in the above list -- for example, founder effects are usually a special case of geographic isolation.
I was joking.
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.
