Now evolving in biology classes: a testier climate - students question evolution

Christian Science Monitor ^ | May 3, 2005 | G. Jeffrey MacDonald

[Dimensio]

Oh for crying out loud, this is one of the more dishonest cop-outs I've seen in these discussions.

Not as dishonest as some of Dataman's, gore3k's or nmh's lies, but still a shameless attempt to distract attention from the fact that you've refused to examine evidence that is offered.

PatrickHenry is a FReeper who posts here. He's made numerous postings in this very discussion, provided links in his postsings and his FR page has a long list of links that you can follow -- a fact advertised in his tagline.

This is just one of the links that will provide "evidence" for which you have asked.

[PatrickHenry]

The List-O-Links. Direct link to the right part of my homepage.

[MacDorcha]

"If we can't observe them, then they're fundamentally meaningless as explanations."

I'll keep that in mind durring my next quantum mechanics discussion.

Here's a question for you then: what would this world be like if everyone who now "answers to a higher authority" suddenly *realized* they only had themselves to think of?

---

"It might exist, but we cannot, with any degree of
certainty, claim to "know" that it exists."

Empirical Philosophy! How ya doin'?

[bobdsmith]

One problem with finding observed speciations, or any changes is that even if one new mammal species was expected to appear every 10 years that would mean 500,000 mammal species in the last five million years. Yet there are only about 4,500 mammal species on Earth today.

So it seems more likely that we should not expect to see dramatic changes in mammals in observable times even if evolution is true.

[bobdsmith]

I made a mistake I meant plants not mosquitos

[Dimensio]

I'll keep that in mind durring my next quantum mechanics discussion.

I probably should have made an addendum about having observable effects.

Here's a question for you then: what would this world be like if everyone who now "answers to a higher authority" suddenly *realized* they only had themselves to think of?

That depends. Are you suggesting that most people of faith are sociopaths? Moreover, isn't this just an appeal to the consequences -- a logical fallacy?

[JeffAtlanta]

Ring Species

Ring species show the process of speciation in action. In ring species, the species is distributed more or less in a line, such as around the base of a mountain range. Each population is able to breed with its neighboring population, but the populations at the two ends are not able to interbreed. (In a true ring species, those two end populations are adjacent to each other, completing the ring.)

link

[MacDorcha]

"Wolves into dogs."

Don't get fooled here. All canines are the same if they can breed and haev viable offspring. My neighbor has a husky/wolf that had puppies a few years back.

Wolves, dingos, domestic dogs. They're all the same, just bred by man to look different.

[From many - one.]

Here's one link.

http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/irwin.html

googling on "ring species" nets many more articles.

Since wolves can breed with some dogs speciation is not complete. That's why I asked you about fertility rates.
Lions and tigers, horses and zebras also have some interbreeding potential.

The definition of a species is a population that, in nature, does not breed with another.

[plain talk]

Thanks, Dimensio. I'll check it out.

We all come at these issues with preconceptions. But during this discussion I put them down, attempted to be open minded and try to see what you guys had. It was pitiful. You offered nothing. If you all really expect to persuade people you need to come up with convinving nuggets and stop hiding behind big brother (Patrick Henry). Wolves into dogs. OK. I'll study that. Thanks. Just pitiful.

[bobdsmith]

As they can interbreed, I wonder if everyone here accepts a lion evolving into a tiger, or vice-versa.

[MacDorcha]

"That depends. Are you suggesting that most people of faith are sociopaths? "

No, I'm just trying to put it into your reasoning.

---

"Moreover, isn't this just an appeal to the consequences?"

Not really, no. If man were made to know things (as is evident by our asking) then "knowing" the opposite of our deeply seeded wisdom would not produce a negative result.

I assume that if God doesn't exist, this "knowledge" would not affect mine, nor anybody else's lives nor motives.

[From many - one.]

It just means that their differentiation from a common ancestor is not complete. No big deal.

[JeffAtlanta]

The definition of a species is a population that, in nature, does not breed with another.

That is not actually true. The ability to interbreed is often used as in indication but is not a determining factor. Ring species and asexual organisms demonstrate that the ability to interbreed is not an acceptable criteria.

In reality, there really is no such thing a concrete line that defines a "species". Evolution predicts that the the concept of a species will be murky and, in fact, it is.

[MacDorcha]

Ligers/Tigrons are mostly sterile. So "interbreeding" is not accurate, as it stops there.

[bobdsmith]

I wouldn't say it predicted it but expected it.

[bobdsmith]

Ligers

"Ligers are not sterile, and they can reproduce. If a liger were to reproduce with a tiger, it would be called a titi, and if it were to reproduce with a lion, it would be call a lili."

[JeffAtlanta]

Here is an even better explanation (complete with graphics) of ring species. Wikipedia link

[bobdsmith]

(well at least not all of them are sterile)

[From many - one.]

That which cannot interbreed is a species.

Limited fertility represents not-yet-complete speciation.