Re: Defense requested


"Zoe" <muze10@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:2h7pi1p6rd3ip13e3tjakdh5kfavgu40hs@xxxxxxxxxx
> On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 23:15:37 -0500, "Steven J."
> <sjt1957NOSPAM@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Zoe" <muze10@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>news:hutei1tmkbcgusbbrt2tqctapaq5hqsn4r@xxxxxxxxxx
>
-- [snip]
>
>>> first of all, can we be absolutely clear about what you mean by
>>> speciation? I agree with you that speciation has been observed --
>>> variations within a species, yes. But if by "speciation" you mean new
>>> life forms that have been OBSERVED to descend from ancestors that are
>>> now so different that they no longer can be classified in the same
>>> genus, then, no, that kind of speciation has not been observed. It is
>>> still in the realm of speculation.
>>>
>>By "speciation," I of course mean "speciation."
>
> question: What is speciation? Answer: Speciation. Right on,
> Steven.
>
>> Cladogenesis. One species
>>splitting into two species.
>
> please be more precise. Does this one species split into two species
> that are so radically different that they could be classified into
> different genuses? Or do you mean that if a species shows variation
> such as a shorter beak or a longer beak, that this difference
> immediately puts them into the category of a new species?
>
I mean neither of those things. If a sexually-reproducing species splits
into two groups that, even when the encounter one another, do not mate (so
that no exchange of genes, including new mutations, occurs between the
groups), then speciation has occurred. There must, of course, be some
difference perceptible to individuals in the two species that separates
them, but it can be small or great, and the difference itself does not
create a new species if, e.g. the short-beaked and long-beaked individuals
interbreed routinely.
>
> I am questioning that part of your theory that hypothesizes that, for
> instance, birds came from dinosaurs. If I ask for evidence of this
> kind of evolution, and you respond with, "See, this species has a
> slightly different tail length than its parents," then you have not
> answered my question. You have simply supplied an inadequate example
> to prop up a weighty proclamation.
>
You are not questioning it, you are flatly denying it because you find it
theologically unsatisfactory. The point is, we know that mutations exist.
We know that speciation exists. We know of no limits to the number of times
a lineage can branch off new species, or to how different they can become
over time.
>
>> It is no part of the definition that the new
>>species has to be different enough to be classed in a new genus.
>
> oh, so until they arrive at the point where they can be classed in a
> new genus, they could rightfully be considered variations of the same
> species?
>
Zoe, I spent a large part of my post setting forth reasons why they *cannot*
"rightfully be considered variations of the same species." Now, you may
reject my arguments, but I think it would be polite if you put a little more
effort into actually understanding them. But conversely, why should I
expect you to do this for me when you won't do it for Harshman or
Richardson?
>
> In other words, you have not yet provided evidence other than to ask
> me to accept your word that these small variations MUST some day,
> millions of years down the road, become something that belongs to
> another genus. Should I accept your word? Would you recommend that
> your children accept the word of anybody who presents that kind of
> evidence?
>
I see no necessity for such small disparities (between species, they are not
variations; I *told* you that) to increase to such a degree. They might or
they might not. In any case, as I explained to you, there is no particular
degree of difference which requires classifying two species in separate
genera. As for the argument that they can, we have, as noted, the evidence
from the nested hierarchy of life, shared pseudogenes and other vestigial
structures, and so forth for inferring that common descent occurred.
Nothing we know about genetics or biology implies any impassible barriers
between "kinds;" there is certainly ample grounds to infer that the
processes of evolution actually observe can extend to explain the degree of
divergence we actually observe.
>
>> How could
>>it be? There is no fixed amount of difference which requires or justifies
>>placing two species in different genera.
>
> are you saying that evolution is unobservable and unsupportable?
>
No, the statements mean entirely different things. Are you actually
familiar with the English language?
>
>> At the purely genetic level,
>>humans, chimps, and gorillas (which are usually placed in three separate
>>genera) are as similar as many sets of species (e.g. the horses, zebras,
>>donkeys, etc. that make up _Equus_) that are placed in one genus. At the
>>morphological level, you can find as much difference within some single
>>species (e.g. _Canis familiaris_) as you find between species that are
>>sometimes placed in different genera.
>
> we have barely begun to play in the shallows of the genetic ocean.
> Conclusions set in concrete would be as arrogant as picking up a shell
> from the seashore and expounding on all marine life, based on the
> empty shell. I think I would like to wait before jumping on such a
> bandwagon.
>
Epistomological nihilism: the mark of the modern creationist.
>
>>Your argument here depends on a principle (if we haven't directly observed
>>something, we have no grounds for inferring it has happened) that would
>>lead
>>us to doubt, e.g. that the planet Pluto actually orbits the sun (its
>>orbital
>>period is longer than the time humans have known the planet existed), or
>>that atoms exist.
>
> that is not the principle upon which my argument is based. But since
> you bring it up, how about turning that argument in the direction of
> an unseen Creator? If you haven't directly observed the Creator, does
> this mean there are no grounds for inferring His existence?
>
No, of course not. Evolutionary theory is not based on the inference that
there is no Creator; it is based on the inference that common descent has
occurred and on the observation of certain mechanisms that can account for
it. If you insist that the Creator has acted in certain ways that
contradict the evidence, then there are grounds for inferring that he has
not acted in those ways (unless you are willing to posit that the Creator
has tampered with the evidence, disguising His activities, in which case all
bets -- and all science -- are off).
>
>>Another note: "variation" refers to the differences among individuals
>>within
>>a species at any given point in time. That some human beings have blue
>>eyes, and others brown, is an example of variation. By that I do *not*
>>mean
>>that eyes started out one color, and other colors evolved (although I
>>think
>>that happened); I mean simply that that is one sort of difference that
>>exists right now among humans. "Variation" is not evolution, "micro,"
>>"macro," or "middle-sized." Evolution means that some variants become
>>commoner, and others rarer (and new variation can arise through mutation,
>>which, of course, is a case of a variation becoming more common --
>>increasing from 0 to some higher frequency). Finch beaks becoming bigger
>>over time is not "variation," but "microevolution."
>
> well, I don't quite follow you. Earlier you say that variation is
> speciation. And speciation, I gather, is your explanation for
> evolution. So why do you now say that variation is not evolution?
>
I say now the same things I said earlier. You use "variation" in an
incorrect manner, and refuse to be corrected on the fact.
>
> Instead, you are now saying that if a variation becomes commoner and
> others rarer, then evolution occurs. So apparently, evolution doesn't
> have to do with mutations, per se, but rather, with concentration of
> genetic traits within a gene pool through narrow interbreeding, or
> broadening of genetic traits within a gene pool due to interbreeding
> more widely. If so, then that kind of limited evolution would be
> acceptable to this creationist.
>
Mutations are one way a variation can become commoner (if there are no
instances of some variant in a population, and a mutation creates one, that
variation has increased from zero to some tiny percentage of the
population). Alleles (variants of a gene) can become rarer or commoner
without inbreeding; either differential survival of different alleles, or
simple genetic drift, can accomplish this. Science is not much interested
in what is "acceptable" to Zoe Althrop. At the risk of metaphysical
arrogance, I doubt the universe itself is much interested in what you find
acceptable, either.
>
-- [snip of matters which, astonishingly, do not seem to be in dispute]
>
>>Note that we have never observed Asian human populations giving rise to
>>American Indians. We have never observed Malaysian populations giving
>>rise
>>to the Polynesian peoples. We have never, in point of fact, observed all
>>modern human populations rising from a single population (and it was a
>>staple of a certain sort of racist antievolutionist a century back, that
>>we've never observed a white couple giving birth to a black child, or
>>vice-versa; no "race" has ever been observed to arise from another). Your
>>argument, here, can be extended in directions I am sure you would not like
>>to take it. Our assumptions of the common ancestry of humans and the
>>pattern of past human migrations and colonization are heavily dependent
>>upon
>>the same sort of analysis that leads us to conclude that all primates
>>share
>>a common ancestor.
>
> please note that you start with unfounded assumptions that all
> primates share a common ancestor, and then use that as a platform to
> form assumptions of the common ancestry of humans.
>
No, I do not. I use the same sorts of arguments in either case, but the
inferences can be made independently.
>
>>>>Third, humans and chimps, or humans and gibbons, *are* recognizable
>>>>copies
>>>>of the ancestor.
>>>
>>> hold up. Recognizable copies of which ancestor? The last common
>>> ancestor of all chimps, humans, and gibbons? Please present this
>>> ancestor for inspection so we can compare and see if humans are a
>>> recognizable copy of this ancestor.
>>>
>>Zoe, we don't even have fossils of the last common ancestor of all modern
>>humans (_Homo sapiens sapiens_). If you're going to demand that I show
>>you
>>a specimen before you acknowledge that there is sufficient evidence to
>>infer
>>an ancestor, then kiss goodbye to Adam and Eve, or any other ancestral
>>population of all modern humans. We cannot prove that any fossil has any
>>descendants today, even if we identify that fossil as our own species
>>(there
>>are humans who die childless, and ethnic groups that go extinct). So we
>>cannot show even that all humans are "recognizable copies of this [last
>>common modern human] ancestor."
>
> then please don't say that humans and chimps are recognizable copies
> of the ancestor. To have a recognizable copy, you have to have the
> original. If you claim that we are recognizable copies of our
> ancestor, it sounds as if you know what that ancestor was like in
> order to "RECOGNIZE" the copy. I would suggest that instead of
> backing away from your poorly phrased statement, and resorting to
> apologetics, it might be better to just admit that your statement was
> incorrect.
>
Zoe, are different manuscripts of the gospels recognizable copies of some
lost original? If we cannot locate that original, what grounds could
possible exist for the confidence either that they are accurate copies, or
that there even was an original manuscript? The similarities among the
Hominidae show that the differences between any of the hominid species and
the last common ancestor cannot be very great.
>
-- [snip]
>
>>> there you go again. We look like one another -- the similarity factor
>>> again. Since when is similarity sufficient evidence to determine
>>> relationship?
>>>
>>Does the phrase "paternity test" mean anything to you?
>
> is a paternity test used for checking if chimps and humans are
> related?
>
No, but it is based on the same sorts of assumptions about shared noncoding
genetic material indicating shared ancestry.
>
-- [snip]
>
>>> how can this superficial approach appeal to the rational, thinking
>>> person? You're still doing the "looks like" exercise.
>>>
>>You are concerned about rational, thinking persons? Have you actually met
>>such people, or merely heard of them?
>>
>>Your argument here, as I noted above, is a flat denial that we can know a
>>thing that we have not witnessed directly.
>
> that is definitely not my argument. I talk about a "looks like"
> approach and you diverge to a "not witnessed directly" approach. How
> did that switch happen?
>
> But since you've brought it up, do you deny that we can conclude a
> Creator without witnessing Him directly?
>
>> You hold this view
>>inconsistently, of course, which means that you accept some results of
>>science (those that agree with your theology) and arbitrarily reject
>>others
>>that disagree with your theology. Personally, I'd advise you to revise
>>your
>>theology, but alternatively you could simply consistently admit that you
>>don't have a theory of creation, that your viewpoint is incurably hostile
>>to
>>the very idea of theory, and that science and its results do not interest
>>you.
>
> I will admit to no such thing, Steven. You're trying to put words in
> my mouth.
>
Given that so many of the words from your mouth make so little sense, I'd
expect gratitude for that.
>
> I am 100 percent in support of real science and the theories of
> science. Evolutionary hypotheses are not science, and should not be
> foisted on an unsuspecting public as true science.
>
I stand by my statements, your refusal to concede them notwithstanding.
>
>>> snip>
>>>
>>>>Inheritance makes it easy to distinguish you from me. Does that mean we
>>>>share no common ancestors?
>>>
>>> you are talking about a single species or group -- human beings. Of
>>> course there is a common ancestor pair for humans. Just as other
>>> groups have their common ancestors.
>>>
>>Please provide me the evidence that there was ever a common ancstor pair
>>for
>>humans.
>
> trace back as far as you can, and there is always a common ancestor
> pair for humans. Why should it suddenly change somewhere back in the
> mists of time?
>
Trace back as far as you can, and there is always a common ancestral
population for genetically similar populations. Why should this suddenly
change, not at the species level (since you seem to admit that speciation --
within the genus -- is possible), but at some arbitrary level above that?

By the way, there isn't always a common ancestral "pair" for a population.
I give you, as a counterexample, the House of Saud, or even the House of
David in the Bible. In either case you have a population resulting from a
polygenous male.
>
> snip>
>
-- Steven J.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Defense requested
    ... >>splitting into two species. ... assertions of evolution. ... Humans and chimps share a common ancestor. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The Latest Problems with the "Man Evolved From Apes" Thesis
    ... One ancestral species expanded over a wide area. ... common ancestors that we humans can't tell the difference and call ... would be to obtain DNA from the fossil and draw an unrooted tree ... FossilA is a GorChiHum common ancestor, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Genetic proof for the origin of man
    ... that different species or "kinds" were created seperately, ... that is, the similar features of humans ... common ancestor: an ape-like creature that lived perhaps five to ten million ... We don't observe merely similarity: ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Defense requested
    ... >>> common ancestor? ... >>> characteristics of the ancestor is passed down to offspring, ... > variations within a species, ... humans, chimps, and gorillas (which are usually placed in three separate ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Missing links? Eh?
    ... Once you get down to the species level there are ... >>>all the descendants of that most recent common ancestor. ... > Phylogeny and Cladistics in Ancestral Primate Taxonomy." ... Why higher taxa are needed in evolutionary studies. ...
    (talk.origins)