generally, a species is "a population of organisms which are genetically similar enough to successfully interbreed and produce fertile offspring." there are a few hedges to that, of which I am not personally fond, but it is a good general working definition.
note: the species is defined by the fact of genetic compatability, not by human descriptors of that genetic compatability.
just as the color range of red would still be 650nanometers (+/-50nm), whether we called it "red" or "shub-nggrath"
No one has actually observed a main sequence star turning into a red giant.
No one has actually observed Proto-Indoeuropean being spoken or written.
So by your criteria, stellar astronomy and historical linguistics are not really sciences?
Has anyone actually seen an ice sheet covering Canada and the northern USA?
Um, excuse me, you have that exactly backwards. *YOU* have "neglected" to address in any way *MY* long list of reading material for you which explains to you exactly how and why your notions about the Second Law of Thermodynamics are completely and utterly wrong.
The Second Law of Thermo Dynamics blows away any chance that increasing complexity is possible.
This is entirely idiotic -- if your description were accurate, it would be impossible for snowflakes to form, and impossible for a fertilized egg cell to become a baby.
Isn't it true that as genes are transfered from one generation to the next that there is a loss of data?
No, and you'd know that if you had bothered to actually read the material I posted for you.
Has anyone ever observed an infusion of new data to one generation that didn't already exist in the generation that preceded it?
Yes, and you'd know that if you had bothered to actually read the material I posted for you.
Is it really possible to make something out of nothing? Is it really possible for EVERYTHING to spring from NOTHING as the Big Bang would have us believe.
Is there any particular reason you are REPEATING this falsehood after I have already explained to you that it's false, and provided you with additional reading material so that you could learn exactly how and why you're wrong on this point, and exactly what physicists *acutally* say about the Big Bang?
I eagerly await your answer.
*I* eagerly await your answer for why you have completely ignored the answers you've already been given, and why you pretend you haven't gotten any.
"The Scientific method as defined by webster "The rules and methods for the pursuit of knowledge involving the finding and stating of a problem, the collection of facts through observation and experiment, and the making and testing of ideas that need to be proved right or wrong."
This is an overly simplistic definition at best, as are most dictionary definitions. If you want a definition of science get it from a person who practices it, a scientist. Dictionaries reflect the language they do not define it.
"By your statement you are admitting that Evolution is not science since nobody has been around to observe or test the scope of "Evolution" throughout the supposed Billions and Billions of years that this is supposed to have been going on.
The requirement of direct observation for science to really be science is false. Many if not most sciences, including physics, do not make direct observations but rely on indirect observation.
In the case of the ToE, hypotheses are developed to explain an observation, such as the change in frequency of a specific allele in a population.
eg. We directly observe that a specific feature such as tusks is common among elephants but not among a specific group where the number of elephants without tusks is increasing. We suspect that some mechanism affects the number of tuskless members of a population. In this case we hypothesize that tusks are being selected against, animals with tusks are being weeded out. We can then test that hypothesis.
It would however be rather quite undesirable and time consuming to take a population of elephants, kill a few with tusks, let them breed and then repeat the sequence through a significant number of generations.
Because we have witnessed, during other tests, that organisms are very similar and respond in a similar manner to external events we conclude that a smaller, more numerous and faster reproducing organism will respond, if not identically, similarly enough to elephants to verify the hypothetical mechanism. If during the testing of this mechanism it is shown to be correct we can safely conclude that it will produce the same results with the elephants.
This is the way the ToE is tested (necessary in science), predictions are made (necessary in science) and theories developed (necessary in science).
Note:The ToE is a synthesis of a number of theories (each tested and verified) that is generally spoken of as a single theory.
There is no need to reproduce an entire lineage of organisms to verify the mechanisms of change from one 'kind' to another 'kind' in the lab. All that is necessary is to test the mechanisms and with the foreknowledge of existing physical laws, extrapolate our findings to the larger application.
By the way, argument by dictionary is an informal logical fallacy. (I believe a form of the genetic fallacy).
"Note: The definition of species is fluid not because taxonomists can't make up their mind (which is sometimes the case) but because in many cases the differences between real live animals are difficult to categorize (think platypus)"
"This statement is an admission of a key flaw in the so called "Science" of Evolution. What determines what animal belongs to what species. The answer? We do! I know there is a lot of study and comparison on the genetic level that are used to classify these animals but species when you get down to it is nothing more than a name given by a white coated person in a lab to life forms of similar makeup.
Species can be difficult to place in the sense that a group of organisms may constitute a genus, may constitute a species or a even group of subspecies, however being unsure of placing a specific organism in a specific spot is not a 'flaw' in the science of evolution, it is part of the process and is to be expected. Corrections to conclusions as new techniques develop is a vital part of all science. It is how science progresses. These corrections guarantee that our knowledge is becoming more and more precise.
Only in religions can there be the expectation of surety and stability of knowledge.
"I challenge you to prove it could not and has not happened."
"First of all it is not my burden to prove that evolution is not science based on observation and testing.
My comment was about macro-evolution, otherwise known as the accumulation of smaller micro-changes compiled into a larger macro-change. You are changing the subject.
Science has required the development of theories that are testable and make predictions. All of the sciences behind the ToE are individually and cumulatively practicing science. Science is a process, not a dictionary definition. This is not something new, it has been this way since before Newton formalized the process. Observe a phenomenon, develop as many hypotheses as possible to explain the observation, then one by one eliminate the hypotheses through testing until just one is considered to be the best explanation. This is science at its core. In evolution the observation is the variation in allele frequencies within a population. In evolution the observation is the fossil record. In evolution the observation is the shared ERVs in the genome of related organisms. In evolution the observation is a myriad of features, functions and processes expressed by the millions of extant and extinct species.
Contrary to what you have been told, evolution has many observations, including but not limited to variation in nature and variation in the lab.
"The burden is yours to prove that it is a "Science" since the final thrust of all your arguments when questioned by those of us who believe in intelligent design is that "Evolution is science". "You're just a religious nut." "Nyanya Nyanya Nya Nya" Again I challenge you. Show me a "Scientist" who has ever tested or observed an instance where one type of animal ever became another.
What you mean to say is that no one has ever observed an organism give birth to an organism we would classify as belonging to a different taxa higher than species. This will not happen nor does the ToE ever state that it will. What the ToE does state is that over time a species will change through numerous additive stepwise changes to a point where were the two species alive at the same time we would consider them to belong to different taxa above the species level.
We can show in the lab that species change through genetic mutation. We have witnessed beneficial germ cell mutations in the wild. We have shown, in the lab, that selection can result in a mutation becoming fixed within a population. We have shown, in the lab, that mutations can be accumulated in an organism.
If you accumulate mutations through selection over time what to you end up with? Logically you end up with an organism that is highly dissimilar to its original ancestor.
"If you can not do so, the claim that Evolution is Science falls flat on it's face.
As explained above, evolution is very much science, theories are developed, tested, and verified all the time.
I have a question for you. What advantage does ID gain if evolution is not science? Does this elevate ID to science?
"It is up to you to provide the mechanism that prevents accumulated 'micro' changes from becoming large 'macro' changes. The transitional sequences in the fossil record spanning the large jumps in time we are too transitory to witness, tell us that the small changes we see in extant species (and we do have examples of new species) do indeed accumulate and result in huge change. What we find in DNA verifies this accumulation of change and the relationship of apparently morphologically disparate extant species. (eg. artiodactyls and cetaceans)."
"I can't help but note that you neglected my question about the second law of thermo dynamics which states in a nut shell that all matter is breaking down and tending toward chaos. This is my answer to your challenge above. The Second Law of Thermo Dynamics blows away any chance that increasing complexity is possible. The idea that a single celled organism some how gathered enough new genetic data to become a fish is laughable. The Second Law of Thermo Dynamics and evolution are absolutely incompatible.
I'm afraid you misunderstand the 2LoT. Increasing complexity is not only possible within the 2LoT but requires the 2LoT. All it takes (over simplification alert) for complex molecules to form is the application of enough energy to overcome the 'activation energy' of chemical bonds. Take two simple hydrogen atoms, apply energy and you end up with a single, more complex helium atom, plus a little energy diffused as entropy. The helium atom, during its formation, accepted and stored some of the applied energy in its structure.
Biological systems do this as well. They accept energy, store some during the formation of complex molecules, and diffuse the rest as thermodynamic entropy - not once going against the 2LoT. At death, many of those complex molecules break down releasing their stored energy as entropy. This is why fossil fuels can be used to propel machines.
The post I responded to did not say anything about the 2LoT, so I did not 'neglect' the question.
"Let me ask you this as you are obviously more well versed in genetics than I am but I think I know the answer to this. Isn't it true that as genes are transfered from one generation to the next that there is a loss of data? Has anyone ever observed an infusion of new data to one generation that didn't already exist in the generation that preceded it? Is it really possible to make something out of nothing?
During the time the germ cells are being produced, genetic material can be added, subtracted or changed. A simple change, not necessarily an addition, to a gene can produce new segments to an organism. This is because some genes are control genes which determine the number or type of features produced during the development stage. The 'amount' of DNA is not as important as the availability of material and energy and the type of DNA, during the development stage. In fact the organism with the most DNA is the simple Amoeba dubia with 670,000,000,000 base pairs.
In some cases a nucleotide can be added. In some cases a codon can be added. In some instances an entire gene can be duplicated. In some cases an entire chromosome is added. In some cases an entire set of chromosomes can be added. Yes, through simple mistakes during meiosis genetic material can be added.
A point that should be made is that all that is necessary for an additional feature to be added to an organism is a point mutation - a change in a single nucleotide (which can result in a different codon (amino acid) (which can result in a new protein (which can result in a new feature ...))). Even when using K-C information theory, the change in a single nucleotide can increase the complexity of the gene, thus adding information.
"Is it really possible for EVERYTHING to spring from NOTHING as the Big Bang would have us believe.
You are again changing the subject. The BB is Cosmology not evolution. Let's stick with the subject at hand.
BTW, the BB has massive amounts of evidence for it.
Uh, that's not what the Big Bang theory says. The theory starts with something, not nothing. Granted it's a very, very small something, but also an extremely energetic something.
Basically the theory in itself doesn't trace the universe back to "nothing". It traces the universe back to a time a very small fraction of a second after it's (presumed) origination. As to what the universe might have originated from, whether something or nothing, the theory has nothing to say. (There are some scientific speculations about that, but AFAIK none have yet been elaborated, evaluated and implemented to the point of a full "theory". And none are strictly speaking part of the BB theory. They are additional or external to it.)