Evolution of The Beetles [Archive] - Page 3

ericmurphy

March 5th 2011, 06:23 PM

I went back to check on where we were at with the Beetles example. I had asked Eric to explain step-by-step how 'Two parents give birth to children and the result is different groups of different animals.'
And you seemed to be hung up on the birds-and-bees part of the process, Magellan. I wasn't about to explain sex to you.

I wanted to know how we could start with a parent pair (of some animal) and end up with say, a group of elephants and a group of camels; or a group of Brown Beetles and a group of Green Beetles.
Which I've explained to you repeatedly. I can't help it if you don't even recognize my explanation as an explanation, let alone understand it, Magellan. It would be one thing if you could at least say what part of it is giving you trouble, and maybe I could elaborate on that particular part of it. But you can't seem even to do that, except that you seem to be having trouble with the "reproduction" part of it, which any slack-brained creationist should at least be able to understand.

This is part of what Sylas said in Post 461 -
The last paragraph is of course the ‘End-Game’ – Having worked out whether or not speciation is possible do we actually see it taking place?

Yes, Magellan, we do. (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html) But we don't see it the way this process describes it. Why? Because that process takes hundreds of thousands of generations to go from initial isolation to complete lack of interfertility. Do I really need to explain why we cannot observe a process that takes hundreds of thousands of years to complete?

We can, however, infer that it happens. I've already explained how we do that (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section5.html#genetic_rates), which of course you completely failed to comment on, as usual.

First we need to deal with the question of whether Speciation is possible and if it is possible, under what circumstances could it arise?
We've already done this, Magellan. So far, you haven't criticized any of those explanations; you've simply ignored their existence. You can't even give us a reason why you doubt speciation can happen.

Looking back over the Beetle discussion made me realise that there was a lot of confusion about terminology, groups , individuals etc. so I am going to try to be clearer.

Magellan, the last thing you want is clarity. You refuse to even clarify whether you're talking about individual organisms or entire groups of organisms.

Let’s take a Group of Individual Brown Beetles living on a shrub at Year Tx and which can all interbreed. I want to know whether it is conceptually possible that at a later date (Year Ty) we could end up with two groups of Beetles where a number of individuals of one group could not interbreed with one or a number of Beetles in the other group. In particular-

If we start off with Group A of Brown Beetles where each individual in that group can interbreed with all other individual Brown Beetles – can and how would we later find that we have two Groups – Brown Beetles and Green Beetles where no individual Green Beetle can interbreed with an individual Brown Beetle?
Recently I did say that it was impossible but Lao Tzu pointed out one situation where it could be possible.

It's possible. It's also unlikely. There needs to be some mechanism, process, or even that reduces gene flow between subpopulations. Without a reduction in gene flow, speciation is possible, but is unlikely.

I am going to assume that it is possible for a child to be born with a feature, a character, a difference, a variation, a mutation, a change that neither of the child’s parents had.
Possible? It happens all the time. It happens with every single child; in the case of complex eukaryotes, typically in hundreds of different places along the genome.

This has also been pointed out to you repeatedly. Does it make any impression on you? Of course not.

In particular I will assume that it is possible that a pair of Non-Green Parents can give birth to a Green Beetle and that any particular individual Beetle is either Green or Not Green (Green is measurable and detectable).

Let’s say there has been a geographic split between Brown Beetles into two groups – Left Group and Right Group. Right Group is always made up only of Brown Beetles.
That's a pretty unrealistic model—what caused all the brown beetles to end up one side of this geographic barrier?—but that's the least of your problems.

We know that there must have been a first child Beetle born with a difference that meant it that was unable to breed with any Brown Beetle. We know this because
1. There would have been a time when any and all individual Beetles could breed with Brown Beetles and
2. There would have been a later time when some Beetles could not breed with Brown Beetles.

But what you're missing is there is a long period of declining interfertility. You seem to think there's some sort of switch where, at one time, all of the beetles can interbreed, and then in the next generation none of them can. Why would you think this? The biosphere is replete with examples of less-than-complete interfertility but also less-than-complete reproductive isolation. It's like there's this mental block where all you can conceive of is all-or-nothing scenarios.

And I don't think it's inadvertent.

So whether or not there was a "first green beetle" that couldn't interbreed with brown beetles is irrelevant. For one thing, long before that "first green beetle" showed up, there were innumerable brown beetles that couldn't interbreed with other brown beetles. Is this news to you? You are away of human beings who were born infertile, right? Or who difficulty conceiving? I can't believe someone could grow up in modern society without being aware of the existence of fertility clinics.

Now from my calculations,
Your "calculations"? Would you care to share these "calculations"?

the difference that caused the first child to be unable to mate with a Brown Beetle must have been its Green difference.[/quote]
Why? On what are you basing this notion? It's extremely unlikely that color, all by itself, could cause reproductive isolation. Much more likely would be a change in chromosome count, for example.

In other words the one difference – ‘Greenness’ had two unconnected consequences –
1. Favoured by the environment and
2. Inability to breed with Brown Beetles.
On what do you base your assumption that "greenness" prevents interbreeding with brown beetles, Magellan?

That sort of combination effect is (unless I am wrong somewhere) a strict requirement for Speciation.
It's certainly conceptually wrong. Look at lions and tigers, Magellan. Look at the differences between them. I don't think anyone would have any trouble telling them apart on sight. There are certainly many, many more than just two differences between them. And yet they are already having difficulty interbreeding.

Horses and donkeys. Do they look like there are only two differences between them? Probably the most important difference with respect to interfertility is differing chromosome count. Horses have 62 chromosomes and donkeys have 62.

Another issue with speciation that occurred to me was this –
There would have been a stage where in the Left Group there were only a few Green individuals that could not breed with Brown Beetles. Later there would have been lots of Green Beetles in Left Group that could not breed with Brown Beetles. But in the overall scheme of things there is an equal chance that in that latter stage, Non-Green Beetles could have again taken over. So we could have in Left Group -
1. Not many Green Beetles as a percentage of the Left group and lots of Non-Green Beetles
2. More Green Beetles
3. All Green Beetles
But we could equally have had –
1. Not many Green Beetles and lots of Non-Green Beetles
2. More Green Beetles
3. Almost all Green Beetles as a percentage of the Left group.
4. Less Green Beetles and lots of Non-Green Beetles
5. No Green Beetles. All Non-Green Beetles. All Individuals in Left and Right Group able to interbreed.
As usual, you're leaving out selection. In a situation like this, usually there are slightly different environments for each population, and hence different selection pressures, which will lead to divergence. Lions live in the savannah; tigers live in the jungle. Stripes wouldn't do lions much good, and the uniform dun color of lions wouldn't work too well in southeast Asian jungles.

But even in the absence of selection pressures, you have failed to identify any force that could prevent two genomes in two subpopulations from eventually drifting apart. What would do that, Magellan?

Why does that matter? Because I have not seen evidence showing that sort of re-emergence is common in animals.

Except what force is keeping the left group and the right group of beetles from diverging genetically, Magellan? The problem for you is that the evidence for speciation is so overwhelming that the only way you can make a remotely persuasive argument is to show speciation is impossible. In order to do that, you have to identify some process that can prevent two genomes from diverging.

What is that mechanism, Magellan?

Faid

March 5th 2011, 06:43 PM

Now from my calculations, the difference that caused the first child to be unable to mate with a Brown Beetle must have been its Green difference.:lol:

lao tzu

March 5th 2011, 10:13 PM

ericmurphy

March 5th 2011, 11:22 PM

I have to go with Mags on this one. Sure you do. In the process of speciation, larger and larger proportions of the greens and browns become unable to interbreed. Assuming, with very little loss of generality, that the entire first generation was interfertile, there was a first beetle that was not interfertile with some of the other group, and a first beetle that was not interfertile with any of them. I'd go further and say that whatever it was that caused that first beetle to lack fertility with some of the other group was passed on, combined with other factors that spurred increased infertility in later generations, and eventually became fixed within the population as it evolved into a separate species.

As ever, Jesse

Maybe, but pointless. There were certainly brown beetles which were unable to interbreed with other brown beetles long before the first green beetle even appeared. Magellan's obsession with pinpointing some notional "first" organism that could do this or that (or couldn't do this or that) is utterly pointless and meaningless. Organisms follow a continuum from very fertile to very infertile before you even start talking about speciation.

lao tzu

March 6th 2011, 12:27 AM

Maybe, but pointless.

I don't agree, Eric. Independent of what value Mags may pull from the discussion, I think there's a lot of value in following evolution one generation at a time. It's wonderfully intuitive when we look at it on our own generation by generation scale. And more, that's where much of the research in biology is going today. Chris (sylas) was pointing out earlier that's how the biological clock for our own species has been calculated. Biology has entered the age of genomics.

That brings up another point, as well. In order to see small changes, we have to look very closely. That's true in general, and true in biology as well. Differences in shell colors visible to the naked eye just won't cut it. We've got to look inside the DNA. That's where we'll find Magellan's discontinuous jumps, which simply must exist in a process that encompasses only a finite number of steps.

There were certainly brown beetles which were unable to interbreed with other brown beetles long before the first green beetle even appeared.

Well, yeah, but those beetles don't matter. Even after the original population was separated into two, there would have been a largest group of interfertile beetles between the two populations, and we can start with them. There'll be a first beetle descended from those separated populations that cannot breed with the other population. Perhaps in the very next generation, and perhaps the first would be part of a cohort.

Speciation still requires the overall trend be toward beetles that can only breed with their own population. That's what I meant by "without loss of generality."

Magellan's obsession with pinpointing some notional "first" organism that could do this or that (or couldn't do this or that) is utterly pointless and meaningless. Organisms follow a continuum from very fertile to very infertile before you even start talking about speciation.

Forgive the math-babble, but a continuum is defined as a well-ordered sequence in which there is always an intermediate between any two elements. This is not the case with biological organisms. There are approximately a million generations between modern humans and chimpanzees, counting back to the most recent common ancestor and forward again on the other branch. That's a lot of generations, and looking at them one by one would take a lot of time, but, conceivably, it could be done.

On a last point, just for fun, Dawkins has suggested more than once, quite subtly, and no doubt mischievously, that we don't really know that humans and chimps are universally infertile. Polyploidy is not sufficient to prevent breeding. There was a first ape whose second chromosome was fused together from the ancestors of chimp chromosomes 2a and 2b, née 12 and 13. It obviously didn't have any meaningful troubles. I think I've heard that the record separation for mammals still able to hybridize was around 20 million years.

It's possible.

Have you ever taken a really good look at Ken Ham?

You think maybe he's compensating?

As ever, Jesse

Tiggy

March 6th 2011, 12:33 AM

Have you ever taken a really good look at Ken Ham?

Separated at birth?

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3505/3178905480_3ff14e56eb.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3364/3178068399_b3a01eed58.jpg

:teeth:

- T

ericmurphy

March 6th 2011, 01:44 AM

I don't agree, Eric. Independent of what value Mags may pull from the discussion, I think there's a lot of value in following evolution one generation at a time. It's wonderfully intuitive when we look at it on our own generation by generation scale. And more, that's where much of the research in biology is going today. Chris (sylas) was pointing out earlier that's how the biological clock for our own species has been calculated. Biology has entered the age of genomics.

It's still pointless. It's like trying to determine the temperature of a single molecule.

That brings up another point, as well. In order to see small changes, we have to look very closely. That's true in general, and true in biology as well. Differences in shell colors visible to the naked eye just won't cut it. We've got to look inside the DNA. That's where we'll find Magellan's discontinuous jumps, which simply must exist in a process that encompasses only a finite number of steps.

Right. You can't have a nucleotide change halfway. In the same way the a digital datastream encoding an analog waveform involves discontinuous steps. But we don't hear those steps; we hear a continuous waveform.

Well, yeah, but those beetles don't matter.
How are they any less (or more) important than the first green beetle that cannot interbreed with other beetles of either color? Isn't it more important why it can't interbreed? Is it simply sterile? Can it no more interbreed with other green beetles than with brown beetles? I think that's actually a more likely scenario.

Even after the original population was separated into two, there would have been a largest group of interfertile beetles between the two populations, and we can start with them.
Sure. We see what is for all intents and purposes a continuous decline in interfertility between the two populations. In a population of millions or more, whatever discontinuities recede into complete insignificance.

There'll be a first beetle descended from those separated populations that cannot breed with the other population. Perhaps in the very next generation, and perhaps the first would be part of a cohort.

Or, there will be a first beetle which cannot interbreed followed by many generations which still can.

Speciation still requires the overall trend be toward beetles that can only breed with their own population. That's what I meant by "without loss of generality."

Yes. But there's a trend. There doesn't suddenly come a point where before, lots of beetles in the two populations could interbreed, and after none could.

Forgive the math-babble, but a continuum is defined as a well-ordered sequence in which there is always an intermediate between any two elements. This is not the case with biological organisms. There are approximately a million generations between modern humans and chimpanzees, counting back to the most recent common ancestor and forward again on the other branch. That's a lot of generations, and looking at them one by one would take a lot of time, but, conceivably, it could be done.

In principle? Yes? As a practical matter: no. And what additional information would be provided? We have an estimate of mutation rates. We have an estimate of the actual differences. We have an estimate of the time since initial separation. If we had perfect knowledge, we could reduce the uncertainty in all of these estimates to zero.

But that's pretty much always the case.

On a last point, just for fun, Dawkins has suggested more than once, quite subtly, and no doubt mischievously, that we don't really know that humans and chimps are universally infertile. Polyploidy is not sufficient to prevent breeding.
Horses and donkeys differ more in chromosome number, for example. BTW, typo in my earlier post: horses have 64 chromosomes, not 62.

There was a first ape whose second chromosome was fused together from the ancestors of chimp chromosomes 2a and 2b, née 12 and 13.
Right. But the actual last common ancestor of all hominins more closely related to humans than to chimps almost certainly was not that ape. The same fusion might have happened countless times before that last common ancestor lived.

It obviously didn't have any meaningful troubles. I think I've heard that the record separation for mammals still able to hybridize was around 20 million years.

It's possible.

Someone wrote a paper not too long ago (sorry, can't remember the source) which claimed evidence for reticulation among the ancestors of humans and the ancestors of chimps which went on for possibly more than a million years. Kind of kills the whole notion of which was the "first" ancestor of all hominins closer to humans and australopithecines than to chimps.

ericmurphy

March 6th 2011, 01:47 AM

Cue Magellan claiming that Jesse and I are "totally contradicting each other," and therefore evolution is wrong.

magellan004

March 6th 2011, 02:00 AM

Maybe, but pointless.

Not pointless at all.

Now from my calculations, the difference that caused the first child to be unable to mate with a Brown Beetle must have been its Green difference.
In other words the one difference – ‘Greenness’ had two unconnected consequences –
1. Favoured by the environment and
2. Inability to breed with Brown Beetles.

An example might be - Two monkey-like groups of individuals, all able to interbreed. In one group a child is born with a new mutation - opposable thumbs which are not only useful but render the Child unable to mate with individuals in the other group (and yet continue to be able to mate with monkey-like creatures in the child's group.)

I hope you see that examining this 'double-barreled' requirement of the mutation is anything but pointless. It's dynamite!

Magellan

ericmurphy

March 6th 2011, 02:38 AM

Not pointless at all.

An example might be - Two monkey-like groups of individuals, all able to interbreed. In one group a child is born with a new mutation - opposable thumbs which are not only useful but render the Child unable to mate with individuals in the other group (and yet continue to be able to mate with monkey-like creatures in the child's group.)

I hope you see that examining this 'double-barreled' requirement of the mutation is anything but pointless. It's dynamite!

It's wrong. You have zero reason to think that a single mutation confers opposable thumbs and an inability to interbreed. You don't have any "calculations." You're just making stuff up.

And you're still assuming that speciation always happens in a single generation. That's no more correct now than it was the first time you came up with it.

But it's nice to see you're starting to realize that speciation happens.

phaedrus

March 6th 2011, 07:18 AM

I'm using your concept of speciation. I never defined it.

Here is a simple diagram to show how I think speciation works .

Magellan

We've been explaining now ... for freaking pages ... that fertility is not an individual by individual basis in terms of speciation but rather the statistical likelihood that members of 2 groups of organisms can breed and produce fertile offspring. It's simply not a yes/no change over a single generation but instead ... as we've all said for freaking pages now ... a gradual change in the interfertility ratios. Why can't you see that? Why do you keep arguing for and against proposals that nobody is making? You still, after all this time, have absolutely no idea what biologists mean when they explain speciation. It's not that you don't agree with the explanations or find flaws in them, you just don't seem to understand what anyone is saying. You've had any number of clear and articulate explanations. Do you wonder why people lose patience with you and fall back to insulting you? You apparently aren't willing to honestly try to understand what anyone, anyone including other Christians, anyone including other Christians who are YEC are actually saying to you. You have to make an attempt to understand the opposition position BEFORE you criticise it. But you won't.

sylas

March 6th 2011, 07:21 AM

You don't ever get a case where there is a first beetle of group A that is not interfertile with group B.
I have to go with Mags on this one. Sure you do. In the process of speciation, larger and larger proportions of the greens and browns become unable to interbreed. Assuming, with very little loss of generality, that the entire first generation was interfertile, there was a first beetle that was not interfertile with some of the other group, and a first beetle that was not interfertile with any of them. I'd go further and say that whatever it was that caused that first beetle to lack fertility with some of the other group was passed on, combined with other factors that spurred increased infertility in later generations, and eventually became fixed within the population as it evolved into a separate species.

As ever, Jesse

I stand by my comment without reservation. You and mags are incorrect on this, and for the same reason as usual. You are taking a simple binary division where there is in fact a spectrum.

On the other hand, you bring up a very important point in a later post, which is completely true. There ARE discontinuous jumps here, and they are going on all the time. They are the mutations. There are cases where one mutation can do something really drastic, but that isn't required, and (in sexually reproducing animals, at least) even a drastic mutation does not give a new species in one step, and is most unlikely to remove fertility with a closely related group while keeping it unaffected for another.

But getting back to being fertile or not... for speciation, this is more than being able to get chromosomes matched to give a successful fertilization. There's also mate recognition; a very important part of speciation for animals; and the requirement that the offspring itself be fertile. In all of these things -- being able to recognize a potential mate; being interfertile with with another group or another individual, there are gradations.

Nearly always, fertility corresponds to some probability of success. You get reduced probabilities of recognizing mates, or having a viable birth, or having a fertile offspring. Take the donkey/horse cross. It's nearly always an infertile mule. But not always. You can get a fertile offspring from such a cross. (link to a paper about such a case (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1289946/). Interestingly, this only occurs with a female mule, apparently.

The quality of being interfertile with another group is not a hard and sharp yes/no division, so I stand by my original remark.

Even gross mutations within a single generation, such as the chomosomal fusion in our own ancestry, would be highly unlikely to introduce interfertility with a group. It DOES lead to lower fertility generally, usually, but it is possible to have such a fusion and remain fertile. Your offspring may or may not get the same fusion themselves, or may get even worse chromosomal mix ups.

There are species where the chromosome number varies with individuals. This can contribute, eventually, to a speciation; but it does not define a point of speciation. Such fusions are surprisingly common. Almost certainly, there will be a number of TheoWeb members who have fused chromosmes, and who will never even know.

For humans, it is something like 1 in 1000 individuals who get a chromosome change of this kind, called "Robertsonian translocations". Such individuals have 45 chromosomes, not 46; but still with all the genetic material, and hence no apparent effect.

Cheers -- sylas

phaedrus

March 6th 2011, 07:21 AM

Where did Magellan's post go that I just quoted and responded to ... you know, the one with another pre-school drawing in it?

phaedrus

March 6th 2011, 07:22 AM

Ah, it came back, changed, but back.

phaedrus

March 6th 2011, 07:25 AM

Nope gone again, he must keep editing it as he realises each new error.

magellan004

March 6th 2011, 07:28 AM

It's wrong. You have zero reason to think that a single mutation confers opposable thumbs and an inability to interbreed. You don't have any "calculations." You're just making stuff up.

And you're still assuming that speciation always happens in a single generation. That's no more correct now than it was the first time you came up with it. .

Here is a simple diagram showing how I think the process of/towards Speciation must take place according to evolution.

Magellan

magellan004

March 6th 2011, 07:30 AM

I had to fix the colours a few times hence I deleted the diagram twice.. Sorry about that.

Magellan

phaedrus

March 6th 2011, 07:30 AM

Here is a simple diagram showing how I think the process of/towards Speciation must take place according to evolution.

Magellan

I'm quoting this version in case it too disappears.

sylas

March 6th 2011, 08:32 AM

Faid

March 6th 2011, 01:37 PM

I had to fix the colours a few times hence I deleted the diagram twice.. Sorry about that.

MagellanAre you sure you fixed it? Because it still makes no sense.

ericmurphy

March 6th 2011, 01:47 PM

Here is a simple diagram showing how I think the process of/towards Speciation must take place according to evolution.

Magellan

I thought you said you had "calculations"? A "simple diagram" is not a "calculation."

We've already explained how speciation happens dozens of times. I personally have given you at least half a dozen explanations over the past year how it happens. But instead of actually reading and understanding those explanations and coming up with potential problems or objections, you instead keep coming up with these horribly wrong childishly-drawn diagrams that have nothing to do with any of those explanations. It's like you're just guessing what our explanations are without even reading them.

None of your little groups have anything to do with speciation. There's no indication what your differently-colored individuals even represent.

What do you even think your "diagram" says? It looks like the only two individuals which cannot mate are the blue empty circles and the green filled circles. What do you think that says about anything? What's up with diagram E? Why do you have two groups, if they're interfertile anyway? In fact, the only two groups that can't interbreed don't even appear as separate groups on your diagram.

Maybe that's your attempt to show speciation is impossible?

magellan004

March 6th 2011, 01:53 PM

Your diagram completely misses the definition of speciation. No surprise there.

Speciation has to do with interbreeding; not with what color something is. There are LOTS of species where you get a number of different colours. Colours can be used to recognize a species, but only if the two colours happen be a distinguishing feature of the two populations which don't interbreed.

You also have the usual issue with green or not green as a sharp binary division. You do sometimes get a discrete jump in colors, but if you do, this usually means that the color does not indicate a different species. A one step color change is usually pretty trivial genetic change somewhere, and does not prevent interbreeding. It's also not usually the way you would get a population of green beetles from brown beetles. It's more usual to be a gradual change in coloration. It might not be; but you most definitely can't presume it!

More detail then, for people who been actually paying attention.

The actual fact of the matter is that speciation nearly always occurs gradually, without ever getting a sharp line between having two species and having one. During the ambiguous intermediate stages, you will get reducing interfertility -- either by mate recognition or by being physically interfertile, or by have sterile or otherwise unviable offspring. This usually requires a whole suite of genetic differences. Color change may or may not be involved, and even when it is, there's no reason whatsoever to presume that the color difference has anything to do with helping form the species.

The question from a novice is usually about how you might get green beetles from brown. The answer is that as you get separated populations that are diverging from each other, there may well be changes of color showing up in one population but not in the other. Suppose, for example, that you DO have one single mutation that causes a color change. That won't cause speciation by itself. But by necessity, that mutation can only spread where there's gene flow, and so can easily become a MARKER for a species; a way for a biologist to identify which species, or which gene pool, an individual has come from.

Example. Fair hair does not cause speciation in humans. But the genes for fair hair are not part of the human gene pool of Chinese. We're all still the same species; there's no problem interbreeding whatsoever. But if you see a fair haired individual, or even brown hair, you know that their ancestry comes at least in part from outside the ethnic Chinese population.

In my diagram colour is a representation of the thing we were discussing - differences. from Post 499
I am going to assume that it is possible for a child to be born with a feature, a character, a difference, a variation, a mutation, a change that neither of the child’s parents had.

So for example a Green Smiley represents an individual that has something different to its parents.

If we substitue 'difference' for 'colour' in what you said - this is the result -

Your diagram completely misses the definition of speciation.

Speciation has to do with interbreeding; not with what difference something has. There are LOTS of species where you get a number of differences. Differences can be used to recognize a species, but only if the two differences happen be a distinguishing feature of the two populations which don't interbreed.

You also have the usual issue with there being a difference or there not being a difference as a sharp binary division. You do sometimes get a discrete jump in difference, but if you do, this usually means that the difference does not indicate a different species.

I won't finish the rest because I hope you can see that that version does not make any sense.

I have talked at length with Eric about his terminology and how it seems to get him into trouble. Here is an example of conflicting terminology from your post-

A. 'Colours can be used to recognize a species, but only if the two colours happen be a distinguishing feature of the two populations which don't interbreed.
But then you say -

The actual fact of the matter is that speciation nearly always occurs gradually, without ever getting a sharp line between having two species and having one.
So you can't really talk about 'Populations which don't interbreed' since that is not the mark of Speciation. As my diagram shows- there can only be one mark of Speciation - When some individuals in one group cannot interbreed with some individuals in another group.

Just how many individuals that includes is arbitrary.
As long as -

1. One original group of individuals (that can all interbreed) has split into two physically separate groups and
2. One of the individuals in one group cannot mate with one individual in the other group
then
The process of Speciation is occurring.

The odd thing is that, with the 'fuzzy boudaries' concept of species we don't necessarily start with 'One original group of individuals that can all interbreed.'

This is more realistic - 'Speciation is the process of one physically isolated group of individuals that can mate with some others in that group , physically splits into two groups of individuals where the individuals in one group can interbreed with some individuals in the other group.'

So 'Population' doesn't mean 'A Group of individuals that can all interbreed' at all.
Population means 'A group of individuals that can interbreed to varying extents.'

Not a good look.

(This is all with the disclaimer 'according to Evolution')

Magellan

ericmurphy

March 6th 2011, 01:55 PM

Here's a better diagram of how speciation happens:

http://www.planet-deepblu.com/~eric/graphic_links/phylo/Speciation.png

magellan004

March 6th 2011, 02:16 PM

Let me check my colour codes in my diagram. I may have messed up the combinations (yet again).

Magellan

magellan004

March 6th 2011, 02:22 PM

Apologies to all. This Diagram is the one I should have posted -

Magellan

ericmurphy

March 6th 2011, 02:27 PM

In my diagram colour is a representation of the thing we were discussing - differences. from Post 499

So for example a Green Smiley represents an individual that has something different to its parents.

All organisms have something from from their parents, Magellan, so that can't be what a green smiley represents. What do the other smileys represent? Fictional organisms which are identical to their parents? Clones?

If we substitue 'difference' for 'colour' in what you said - this is the result -

Your diagram completely misses the definition of speciation.

Speciation has to do with interbreeding; not with what difference something has. There are LOTS of species where you get a number of differences. Differences can be used to recognize a species, but only if the two differences happen be a distinguishing feature of the two populations which don't interbreed.

You also have the usual issue with there being a difference or there not being a difference as a sharp binary division. You do sometimes get a discrete jump in difference, but if you do, this usually means that the difference does not indicate a different species.

I won't finish the rest because I hope you can see that that version does not make any sense.

Actually, it makes perfect sense, and I imagine everyone else here agrees that it makes perfect sense.

I have talked at length with Eric about his terminology and how it seems to get him into trouble.
My terminology doesn't get me in trouble, Magellan. You'll note that no one else here has any trouble with it. Your unwillingness or inability to understand my terminology (which, in the age of Google, is inexcusable) gets YOU into trouble.

Here is an example of conflicting terminology from your post-

A. 'Colours can be used to recognize a species, but only if the two colours happen be a distinguishing feature of the two populations which don't interbreed.
But then you say -

The actual fact of the matter is that speciation nearly always occurs gradually, without ever getting a sharp line between having two species and having one.
I don't know what you think is "conflicting terminology" here, Magellan, but both statements are perfectly in accord with each other. Just because they aren't worded identically (and they wouldn't be, because they are not expressing identical concepts) does not mean they are "totally contradictory," as you usually seem to think is the case.

So you can't really talk about 'Populations which don't interbreed' since that is not the mark of Speciation.
Says who, Magellan? If two populations can't interbreed, they're almost certainly not the same species. But just because they don't (e.g. two members of the same rat species, one in Mumbai and one in Chicago) does not necessarily mean they're not the same species. This is exactly why "population" and "species" have different meanings.

And they DO have meanings. Just because you can't puzzle those meanings out doesn't mean they don't mean anything to anyone.

But you're still doing the same thing: arguing that the ambiguity as to what a species is is a problem for evolutionary theory. As has been explained to you over and over and over again, that ambiguity is a prediction of the theory.

As my diagram shows- there can only be one mark of Speciation - When some individuals in one group cannot interbreed with some individuals in another group.

No. That's always the case, even in members of the same species. Have you ever heard of fertility clinics, Magellan? Are you aware that some humans are simply infertile, for one reason or another? Does that make them a different species?

Just how many individuals that includes is arbitrary.
As long as -

1. One original group of individuals (that can all interbreed) has split into two physically separate groups and
2. One of the individuals in one group cannot mate with one individual in the other group
then
The process of Speciation is occurring.

Really? So you've got a group of humans living in northern Europe, and another group of humans living in Madagascar. One of the individuals in northern Europe cannot successfully interbreed with one of the individuals in Madagascar (possibly because of Rh-factor incompatibility), that means humans are speciating? Is that what you think?

The odd thing is that, with the 'fuzzy boudaries' concept of species we don't necessarily start with 'One original group of individuals that can all interbreed.'

This is more realistic - 'Speciation is the process of one physically isolated group of individuals that can mate with some others in that group , physically splits into two groups of individuals where the individuals in one group can interbreed with some individuals in the other group.'

So 'Population' doesn't mean 'A Group of individuals that can all interbreed' at all.
Population means 'A group of individuals that can interbreed to varying extents.'

Not a good look.

What's "not good" about it, Magellan? It sure looks catastrophically bad for special creation, but it looks pretty much like what evolutionary theory would predict.

The problem, Magellan, is you have no idea what evolutionary theory says or what it predicts. This trips you up time after time after time.

ericmurphy

March 6th 2011, 02:35 PM

Let me check my colour codes in my diagram. I may have messed up the combinations (yet again).

Magellan

Unsurprising, Magellan, since you seem not to have bothered specifying what your color codes mean, and you seem extremely unclear on what your diagram actually even diagrams.

Faid

March 6th 2011, 02:36 PM

Here is an example of conflicting terminology from your post-

A. 'Colours can be used to recognize a species, but only if the two colours happen be a distinguishing feature of the two populations which don't interbreed.

But then you say -

The actual fact of the matter is that speciation nearly always occurs gradually, without ever getting a sharp line between having two species and having one. How on Earth is that "an example of conflicting terminology"? Can you explain it in plain English?

BTW, your diagram is better, but it's still quite ambiguous. Does it depict stages in a temporal process, yes or no? If it does, shouldn't the brown smileys accumulate changes as well?

ericmurphy

March 6th 2011, 02:40 PM

Sometimes it seems that Magellan forgets that time is involved in evolutionary change. When he's not forgetting mutations, or drift, or selection, or reproduction.

Sparko

March 6th 2011, 03:12 PM

Tiggy

March 6th 2011, 03:25 PM

if a single offspring is born unable to breed with the previous generation or its own, then that mutation would just die out. You would always have to have offspring that was able to breed with others of its own generation or the previous one. A single mutation that couldn't breed with anything else would just be a dead end.

I think Clownshoes is getting his information about mutations and breeding from the 'sexperts' at Answers In Genesis. In particular, their claim about the "Baboon dog" breed.

Is Your Dog Some Kind of Degenerate Mutant?

"In this mutant, the entire backbone of the dog is shortened, but the legs and skull are normal. Such mutations kill most dogs, with an interesting exception being the female Baboon dog. The male Baboon dog dies before reaching maturity, so it should be obvious that this breed has not got much going for it."

AIG link (http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v4/n1/dog-degenerate-mutant)

The male dies before reaching sexual maturity, so this breed has not much going for it. Brilliant.

:lol::lol::lol:

- T

Faid

March 6th 2011, 03:31 PM

And as Dave Hawkins helped us establish, it's not a "breed" at all, but a genetic disorder. :hehe:

sylas

March 6th 2011, 05:23 PM

So for example a Green Smiley represents an individual that has something different to its parents.

Then everything should be green. As you have been told, mutations show up in every generation, in every individual. You yourself have of the order of 150 new mutations showing up in your genome which are not from either of your parents.

The description of how speciation occurs that you have been given now, endlessly, is that speciation arises by the accumulation of lots of differences. Each generation is a little bit different from the previous. Each individual is a little bit different from parents.

It is the ACCUMULATION OF MANY DIFFERENCES which means that eventually you get ENOUGH difference that the generations would no longer be able to interbreed with the generation you start with, if it was somehow restored into the present. More practically; it can no longer interbreed with a different group that has been doing the same thing. You get two species, from one.

There is no single change which prevents interbreeding. A change that drastic makes an individual infertile altogether. Physically, what prevents inter-fertility is too much difference. Not one particular difference.

.... I won't finish the rest because I hope you can see that that version does not make any sense.

You "hope" I can "see" that what I have just explained for you doesn't make sense.... man that's chutzpa.

It does make sense. I stand by what I said without change and without reservation as a good account of how new species arise by divergence of two lineages.

I have talked at length with Eric about his terminology and how it seems to get him into trouble. Here is an example of conflicting terminology from your post-

A. 'Colours can be used to recognize a species, but only if the two colours happen be a distinguishing feature of the two populations which don't interbreed.
But then you say -

The actual fact of the matter is that speciation nearly always occurs gradually, without ever getting a sharp line between having two species and having one.
So you can't really talk about 'Populations which don't interbreed' since that is not the mark of Speciation. As my diagram shows- there can only be one mark of Speciation - When some individuals in one group cannot interbreed with some individuals in another group.

The only one having problems with terminology is you, and the last sentence is just ridiculous. You are explicitly ignoring the definitions used by scientists and applied in the example you have requested, and iinventing one all by yourself which cannot ever be useful applied and which makes no sense given the example you requested and still don't understand*.

As you have been told, being able to interbreed -- even between two individuals -- is not a binary yes no proposition. It has shades of gray as well.

The aim of this exercise was to show how speciation can occur. The specific illustration given is that we have a single population of individuals all from a single species, and note that each generation of this population is just a little bit different from the previous.

We then introduce a separation of some kind, so that there are two populations, both of the same species, but no longer interbreeding for some reasons. Physically separated populations is the simplest case, and the one used in our examples.

We then note that the two populations continue to change very slightly from each generation to the next, but no longer do the differences exchange between the two populations.

Over lots and lots of time, the two populations slowly, gradually, become more and more different from each other until in the end they are unambiguously two species by any definition you like.

Along the way, you ALWAYS get gray areas; you cannot identify a single generation where there was one species before, and two species after.

The examples you have been given do not involve a single gross change that prevents interbreeding. They involve lots and lots of little changes.
The quality of being able to interbreed is not a simple true false proposition. ANY two individuals may fail to mate successfully for some reason. A failed mating is more common than a successful one, even normally. When the probability of this becomes sufficiently high then the individuals are not-interfertile. As with everything else in this example, this occurs gradually; not as a single step.

Cheers -- sylas

* I take "don't understand" to include trolling by someone who merely refuses to use the examples given and keeps distorting them deliberately.

lao tzu

March 6th 2011, 05:38 PM

I stand by my comment without reservation. You and mags are incorrect on this, and for the same reason as usual. You are taking a simple binary division where there is in fact a spectrum.

Ah, Chris, then we disagree, and I believe I have the stronger hand. I'm a finite, pure mathematician, and I know my stuff. There is, in fact, no spectrum, only the appearance of a spectrum due to an inability to resolve individual organisms at larger and larger scales. We are in effect discussing the difference between the factorial and Gamma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma_function) functions. While they agree on the integers, the extension to the continuum is not a reflection of any property of the integers. It introduces elements that are not, in fact, part of the domain.

The biological model may indeed be a spectrum, but the underlying process that is the subject of modeling remains discrete. As in Eric's beautifully-colored diagram posted later, when we examine it more closely, we discover it is in fact composed of individual pixels. The "spectrum" of biological diversity is likewise composed of individual organisms which, during the course of speciation, become individually incapable of interbreeding with larger and larger groups of individuals from a separate population.

During the course of speciation that proceeds toward mutual infertility, then, there was a first beetle (whose line did not die out, and any other pedantic tweaks we find it necessary to introduce), who could not breed with any member of the separate population. It was preceded by a first individual beetle who could not breed with some members of the separate population. It could well be preceded by a long line of individuals whose progeny with the separate population would be less fit. The progression of fitness in this line of progeny need not even be monotonic. (As Eric suggested, it's possible that this trait was not present in the following generation, while its underlying genetic base was passed on.) But, as there is indeed only a finite number of generations, this long line of individuals must eventually come to an end.

I'm not saying anything remarkable here. Infertility between the populations occurs gradually in any case. But there's no bar to drawing any line in the progression from here to there and noting that it is an individual that first crosses that line.

As ever, Jesse

magellan004

March 6th 2011, 05:41 PM

We've been explaining now ... for freaking pages ... that fertility is not an individual by individual basis in terms of speciation but rather the statistical likelihood that members of 2 groups of organisms can breed and produce fertile offspring. It's simply not a yes/no change over a single generation but instead ... as we've all said for freaking pages now ... a gradual change in the interfertility ratios. Why can't you see that? Why do you keep arguing for and against proposals that nobody is making? You still, after all this time, have absolutely no idea what biologists mean when they explain speciation. It's not that you don't agree with the explanations or find flaws in them, you just don't seem to understand what anyone is saying. You've had any number of clear and articulate explanations. Do you wonder why people lose patience with you and fall back to insulting you? You apparently aren't willing to honestly try to understand what anyone, anyone including other Christians, anyone including other Christians who are YEC are actually saying to you. You have to make an attempt to understand the opposition position BEFORE you criticise it. But you won't.

I have looked for, and haven't found any definition of Speciation which refers to fertility rates or probabilities.

This is Eric's definition of Speciation -
Speciation is the process whereby one group of individual organisms which can freely interbreed splits into two different groups of individuals between which interbreeding is no longer possible.

To me that means 100% - Every individual in a group (allowing for male and female) can breed with every other individual. No rates, no probabilities.

That necessarily means that the starting group (a Species) does not have fuzzy boundaries and the end groups (Two Species) do not have fuzzy boundaries. If an organism cannot breed with another organism they do not not belong to the the same species.

When I attempt to show how we can get to that situation (of 100%) I am met with the 'Fuzzy Boundaries' defence. 'Evolutionists don't really mean 'all' individuals.'

But feel free to give a definition of Speciation and Species that is clear and logical.

Whatever you decide is the 'real definition' of speciation - it is a process and that process involves individuals and the only way change can take place is on an individual by individual basis. We can look at the overall effect - but the mechanics of the process happen at the individual level. A Group cannot breed with another Group. Only individuals mate.

Magellan

rogue06

March 6th 2011, 05:54 PM

Hush m004. Some of the grown ups are actually having a discussion.

phaedrus

March 6th 2011, 06:04 PM

I have looked for, and haven't found any definition of Speciation which refers to fertility rates or probabilities.

This is Eric's definition of Speciation -
Speciation is the process whereby one group of individual organisms which can freely interbreed splits into two different groups of individuals between which interbreeding is no longer possible.

To me that means 100% - Every individual in a group (allowing for male and female) can breed with every other individual. No rates, no probabilities.

That necessarily means that the starting group (a Species) does not have fuzzy boundaries and the end groups (Two Species) do not have fuzzy boundaries. If an organism cannot breed with another organism they do not not belong to the the same species.

When I attempt to show how we can get to that situation (of 100%) I am met with the 'Fuzzy Boundaries' defence. 'Evolutionists don't really mean 'all' individuals.'

But feel free to give a definition of Speciation and Species that is clear and logical.

Whatever you decide is the 'real definition' of speciation - it is a process and that process involves individuals and the only way change can take place is on an individual by individual basis. We can look at the overall effect - but the mechanics of the process happen at the individual level. A Group cannot breed with another Group. Only individuals mate.

Magellan

The bolded word is apparently invisible to you.

ericmurphy

March 6th 2011, 06:07 PM

I have looked for, and haven't found any definition of Speciation which refers to fertility rates or probabilities.

That's because you're looking at definitions, rather than explanations.

This is Eric's definition of Speciation -
Speciation is the process whereby one group of individual organisms which can freely interbreed splits into two different groups of individuals between which interbreeding is no longer possible.

To me that means 100% - Every individual in a group (allowing for male and female) can breed with every other individual. No rates, no probabilities.

That's because you're looking at a definition rather than an explanation. When you read the F1 definition for what is allowed in Formula One racing, it doesn't explain how to build the engine in an F1 race car.

That necessarily means that the starting group (a Species) does not have fuzzy boundaries
It means no such thing.

and the end groups (Two Species) do not have fuzzy boundaries.
It means no such thing.

If an organism cannot breed with another organism they do not not belong to the the same species.

Really? So a man who gets a vasectomy is no longer a human being? What about a woman who is born infertile? Is she not human?

The same old RWA issue: an inability to see anything except in binary terms.

When I attempt to show how we can get to that situation (of 100%)
You can't even get into that situation. There will always be individuals who are inarguably members of the same species who still cannot, for one reason or another, interbreed. You've been given countless examples of groups of organisms (horses and donkeys are simply the handiest example) where interfertility is not a simple yes-or-no proposition. Horses and donkeys frequently can interbreed and produce viable offspring, except those offspring are frequently sterile. But not always.

So your whole insistence on yes-or-no, definitely-are or definitely-aren't the same species is simply wrong. There is no question that whales and mice are different species. There IS a question whether or not lions and tigers (or lions and leopards) are the same species. Which is exactly what evolutionary theory predicts.

I am met with the 'Fuzzy Boundaries' defense.
It's not a "defense." Evolutionary theory doesn't needed to be "defended" from you, Magellan. You can't even construct a coherent criticism of it.

'Evolutionists don't really mean 'all' individuals.'

It means "most," or "effectively all." A distinction that you, like many if not most creationists, simply cannot make.

As a certain American president once said, you "don't do nuance."

But feel free to give a definition of Speciation and Species that is clear and logical.

After we've told you a million times already that there IS no clear and unambiguous definition of "species"? There's no ambiguity about the definition of "speciation": it's "the process where through different mechanism a single parent species diversifies into two more daughter species." Where's the "ambiguity" in that definition, Magellan? Just because the definition doesn't contain within it an explanation of the specific processes and mechanisms by which it occurs doesn't make it ambiguous or "unclear" or "illogical."

Whatever you decide is the 'real definition' of speciation - it is a process and that process involves individuals and the only way change can take place is on an individual by individual basis. We can look at the overall effect - but the mechanics of the process happen at the individual level. A Group cannot breed with another Group. Only individuals mate.

So where's the problem, Magellan? Except once can perfectly reasonably say that "no members of this group can interbreed with this other group." No mouse can interbreed with any whale.

Is that clear and unambiguous enough for you?

sylas

March 6th 2011, 06:12 PM

Ah, Chris, then we disagree, and I believe I have the stronger hand. I'm a finite, pure mathematician, and I know my stuff. There is, in fact, no spectrum, only the appearance of a spectrum due to an inability to resolve individual organisms at larger and larger scales. We are in effect discussing the difference between the factorial and Gamma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma_function) functions. While they agree on the integers, the extension to the continuum is not a reflection of any property of the integers. It introduces elements that are not, in fact, part of the domain.

I'm a pure mathematician also -- or was originally. My PhD was in automata theory.

Sometimes my mathematical background is a help; but generally speaking I recognize that when I am dealing with biology, I need to learn about it from people who know THAT stuff -- not trust in my knowledge of the discrete maths stuff.

Sometimes my mathematical background is a help in a way that there's a particular problem or issue where biologists can use help from a mathematician. I can almost claim to have been there as well, having done a little work many years ago with algorithms and methods for interpreting results of some physical experiments with DNA.

But generally speaking, an appeal to authority here isn't going to work very well. I'm not a biologist, or an expert in biology. Neither are you, it seems.

[...] The "spectrum" of biological diversity is likewise composed of individual organisms which, during the course of speciation, become individually incapable of interbreeding with larger and larger groups of individuals from a separate population.

Yes. I acknowledged previously the underlying discrete nature of the changes which occur. The genetic information that is passed from generation to generation is discrete, and the changes that occur are discrete, like pixels are discrete.

And, like in Eric's diagrams, when we talk about gross properties rather than sequence properties -- such as "species" or "fertile", there is not a sharp dividing line, contra what you are saying here.

During the course of speciation that proceeds toward mutual infertility, then, there was a first beetle (whose line did not die out, and any other pedantic tweaks we find it necessary to introduce), who could not breed with any member of the separate population.

No, there wasn't. As has been pointed out already, you can still get interbreeding between species, with viable fertile offspring. Lions and tigers, for example; or horses and donkeys (in the latter case, the only cases known of a fertile "mule" is when the child is female).

I'm not saying anything remarkable here. Infertility between the populations occurs gradually in any case. But there's no bar to drawing any line in the progression from here to there and noting that it is an individual that first crosses that line.

The thing that you're saying is wrong, because it presumes that there's a sharp dividing line between a case where two individuals are inter-fertile, and a case when two individuals are not interfertile.

There isn't. This is not one of the discrete jumps in evolution. The discrete jumps are at the levels of genes and genetic sequence, and the fertility of two individuals falls along a spectrum from being totally unable to interbreed to being quite successful at interbreeding.

Just to confound things; typically, in closely related species the individuals nearly always ARE interfertile, but in practice they don't mate even given the opportunity.

This is all pretty much inevitable, given the way biology works. You do get discrete jumps at the levels of the genome, and you get cumulative differences and change at the level of individuals or species.

We have been using a particular basic example for Magellan, of cumulative divergence in separated populations. In this example, there IS NO single discrete change that is crucial to speciation. There IS NO single discrete change which separates individuals able to cross breed into the other incipient species.

This is, for animals, the most common case. Sharp dividing lines in fertility such as you are proposing are almost never involved in speciation of sexually reproducing animal species, to the best of our knowledge.

-----

To get concrete -- how do you reconcile your remarks with the fact that tigers and lions can cross breed in captivity?

Cheers as ever -- sylas

ericmurphy

March 6th 2011, 06:25 PM

Also, keep in mind that even when you're talking about the same two individuals, many if not most matings (at least with humans!) do not result in offspring. If two individuals meet once and no offspring result, do we conclude the two individuals are not the same species? Or even that they are not interfertile?

The problem is that when you get to the level of detail where there really is discontinuity, you're not longer talking about anything relevant to the larger issue of speciation. Speciation is an emergent phenomenon, and just because particular events from which it emerges may be discontinuous doesn't mean that speciation itself is a discontinuous process.

It's like talking about the temperature of an individual water molecule. Sure; that molecule has a certain thermal energy of vibration. But is it really meaningful to talk about its "temperature," which is defined as an emergent phenomenon?

magellan004

March 6th 2011, 07:24 PM

Tiggy

March 6th 2011, 07:36 PM

That's why we need an intermediate between Brown Beetles and green Beetles.
(In fact your question answers Sylas's comment about my diagram and the Green Smiley being 'different' because of colour).

Brown Beetles < - (can mate) -> . Blue Beetles < - (can mate ) - > Green Beetles < - (cannot mate) - > Brown Beetles.

Thanks. Now I know how to answer Sylas's point in Post 535.

Magellan

LOL! After being shown the examples a dozen times, the 10 watt bulb in Clownshoes' noggin finally starts to light on the meaning of ring species. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species)

- T

PS. Does anyone know why the search function doesn't work anymore since this new SW version was installed? Is anyone from TWeb staff working the issue?

magellan004

March 6th 2011, 08:06 PM

rogue06

March 6th 2011, 08:37 PM

PS. Does anyone know why the search function doesn't work anymore since this new SW version was installed? Is anyone from TWeb staff working the issue?
I understand its on The ListTM

ericmurphy

March 6th 2011, 09:11 PM

That's why we need an intermediate between Brown Beetles and green Beetles.
There are millions of intermediates between brown beetles and green beetles, as has been pointed out to you ad nauseam.

(In fact your question answers Sylas's comment about my diagram and the Green Smiley being 'different' because of colour).

What makes you think the only difference between them is color?

Brown Beetles < - (can mate) -> . Blue Beetles < - (can mate ) - > Green Beetles < - (cannot mate) - > Brown Beetles.

Sounds like an example of a group of ring species. Assuming they all exist at the same time. And if they don't, then what's your point, exactly?

Thanks. Now I know how to answer Sylas's point in Post 535.

No you don't.

ericmurphy

March 6th 2011, 09:14 PM

I am not sure that anyone was disputing 'able to interbreed, able to mate, able to breed, able to have children ' as meaning 'the potential or ability to have children'.

Magellan

Once again, Magellan demonstrates his astonishing capacity for missing the point.

The point is about emergent properties and the distinction between continuous and discontinuous processes. It has nothing to with the distinction between demonstrated and potential interfertility.

Stop trying to explain what are conversations about when you have no idea yourself what they're about, Magellan.

Astra49

March 6th 2011, 09:22 PM

The only one having problems with terminology is you, and the last sentence is just ridiculous. You are explicitly ignoring the definitions used by scientists and applied in the example you have requested, and iinventing one all by yourself which cannot ever be useful applied and which makes no sense given the example you requested and still don't understand*.

This reminds me of Keys in the drawer and or the pockets, where falsification was a problem.
Re: On drawing keys out of pockets

Jump to Post (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?p=3129827#post3129827)
Originally posted by FreezBee
Originally posted by ericmurphy Magellan has finally admitted that finding his keys in his drawer confirms the hypothesis that his keys are in his drawer. "One little step for a man, ..." Originally posted by ericmurphy However, he will NOT admit that finding his keys in his pocket falsifies that hypothesis, nor that looking in his drawer and not finding them there will also falsify that hypothesis. It is very important to Magellan that falsification be impossible, so that he don't have to worry about intelligent design being unfalsifiable.
The word falsifies is a word that is abhorrent to Magellan. Its a word he doesn't like at all. Most of the posts about his keys are about the fact he doesn't want to use the word falsifies to describe the hypothesis about his keys. :smile:

Astra49

March 6th 2011, 09:39 PM

magellan004

March 6th 2011, 09:52 PM

Speciation is an emergent phenomenon, and just because particular events from which it emerges may be discontinuous doesn't mean that speciation itself is a discontinuous process.

You Sir are using Jargon to beg the question. I can only guess at what you mean by 'emergent phenomenon' but if it is a label that means 'A process that does not involve changes to individuals in a group' then you are begging the question.

Speciation is 'A population of individuals splitting ... etc '.

I have explained the requirements for that process.

Whacking a fancy label on Speciation does not show how my argument is wrong.

No matter how you manoeuver you will never be able to get away from the fact that Organisms are Individuals and only individuals can mate.

Magellan's Law of Groups - 'A group cannot mate.'

Magellan

Tiggy

March 6th 2011, 10:03 PM

You Sir are using Jargon to beg the question. I can only guess at what you mean by 'emergent phenomenon' but if it is a label that means 'A process that does not involve changes to individuals in a group' then you are begging the question.

Speciation is 'A population of individuals splitting ... etc '.

I have explained the requirements for that process.

Whacking a fancy label on Speciation does not show how my argument is wrong.

No matter how you manoeuver you will never be able to get away from the fact that Organisms are Individuals and only individuals can mate.

Magellan's Law of Groups - 'A group cannot mate.'

Magellan

We'll add asexual reproduction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asexual_reproduction) to the ever expanding list of topics that Clownshoes is clueless on. :ahem:

- T

ericmurphy

March 6th 2011, 10:21 PM

You Sir are using Jargon to beg the question.
One of these days you're actually going to identify some question I'm "begging," maybe by accident, but so far it's not even clear you understand what "begging the question" even means.

I can only guess at what you mean by 'emergent phenomenon'
That's because you don't know how to Google. I guarantee you everyone else here understands what an emergent phenomenon is. Your ignorance simply is not my problem. If you don't understand words, then either look them up or get lost.

but if it is a label
It's not a "label"; it's a term with a well-defined meaning. If you could be bothered to actually, you know, look it up, you'd know what that meaning is.

Since my post wasn't even addressed to you, and I knew before I even typed it up there's essentially no chance you'd be able to figure out what I was talking about, I didn't feel the need to define terms everyone else already knows.

that means 'A process that does not involve changes to individuals in a group' then you are begging the question.

Since that's NOT what it means, then I'm NOT begging the question.

Speciation is 'A population of individuals splitting ... etc '.

It's pretty comical watching Magellan trying to tell me what speciation means. And the comedic coup de grace is, of course, the ellipses.

I have explained the requirements for that process.

Oh, really? Now you're telling us how speciation happens?

Whacking a fancy label on Speciation does not show how my argument is wrong.

No one is "whacking a fancy label" on anything, Magellan. But every time you whine and complain about yet another term whose meaning you're completely ignorant of, you look just a little bit dumber.

No matter how you manoeuver you will never be able to get away from the fact that Organisms are Individuals and only individuals can mate.

Since I don't have to get away from that fact, it would seem I have nothing to worry about.

You, on the other hand…

Magellan's Law of Groups - 'A group cannot mate.'

Magellan's restatement of the obvious with an air of discovery, you mean.

magellan004

March 6th 2011, 10:23 PM

Here's a better diagram of how speciation happens:

I can't understand your diagram.
You say that Block D is the Ancestral Species.
What is Block B ?
What is Block C?
WHat is the division at Point A? Is it a geographic split ? Is it the point where Species Blue splits into Three Species?

How is your Diagram different to my Diagram on the right?

Magellan

Tiggy

March 6th 2011, 10:29 PM

I can't understand your diagram.

You record of being 100% clueless is therefore intact.

How is your Diagram different to my Diagram on the right?

Magellan
Eric's is an accurate representation of the population distributions during an actual speciation event.

Your mish-mash looks like something my cat barfed up on the rug.

- T

magellan004

March 6th 2011, 10:38 PM

Sorry about the above post, but the discussion so far has reminded me of this thread way back in December 2010.

I, on the other hand, have enjoyed the tooing and frooing immensley and have learnt so much about these little critters "The Brown Beetle" , and for this I do thank you all.

There are two main types of arguments that evolutionists in in TWeb use to refute me -
1. 'Look everyone at what Magellan said.' and
2. 'The reason why Magellan's argument is wrong is ... '

No prizes for guessing which approach is very rare.
(At least Eric goes for a Combo-approach.)

Magellan

phaedrus

March 6th 2011, 10:53 PM

There are two main types of arguments that evolutionists in in TWeb use to refute me -
1. 'Look everyone at what Magellan said.' and
2. 'The reason why Magellan's argument is wrong is ... '

No prizes for guessing which approach is very rare.
(At least Eric goes for a Combo-approach.)

Magellan

I think you might be confusing refutation (which happens all the time but you refuse to see it) and pointing out how ludicrous your posts often are. Two separate things. Both fun though.

ericmurphy

March 6th 2011, 11:04 PM

I can't understand your diagram.
Imagine my surprise. I wonder if you even remember that when I posted this same diagram months ago (and interesting that you used that diagram, rather than the one I posted yesterday), I explained what it means in detail, and you didn't understand it any better back then.

You say that Block D is the Ancestral Species.
What is Block B ?
Block B is one half of the population after some of event or process occurs that reduces or eliminates gene flow between the two populations represented by the arms of the 'Y.' During the time represented by "B," there is declining interfertility between the population members represented by the blue color and the members represented by the magenta color.

What is Block C?
Same thing except for the population on the other side of the event or process that reduces or eliminates gene flow between the two subpopulations.

WHat is the division at Point A? Is it a geographic split ? Is it the point where Species Blue splits into Three Species?

It could be a geographic split (which could be caused either by a new geographic feature, or simply due to increasing distance from one region of the original species' range to another), or it could be result of different populations having different circadian rhythms, or difficulties in mate recognition among different morphotypes, etc. It could be any event or process which reduces or eliminates gene flow between subpopulations.

There is no "point" where one species splits into two other species. We've been telling you that for pages now.

How is your Diagram different to my Diagram on the right?

My diagram has something in it that represents something that could actually cause speciation. Yours does not.

Ever wonder why I answer your questions fully and completely, Magellan, while you ignore the existence of mine?

It's because one of us has some intellectual honesty and integrity, and one of us does not.

ericmurphy

March 6th 2011, 11:06 PM

There are two main types of arguments that evolutionists in in TWeb use to refute me -
1. 'Look everyone at what Magellan said.' and
2. 'The reason why Magellan's argument is wrong is ... '

No prizes for guessing which approach is very rare.
(At least Eric goes for a Combo-approach.)

I dismember every single argument you make, Magellan. In over a year, you have not made a single argument yet I haven't been able to obliterate.

But as for 1., above, a lot of what you say is so profoundly stupid there's no need in going any further. Your arguments are frequently self-refuting.

magellan004

March 7th 2011, 12:07 AM

Then everything should be green. As you have been told, mutations show up in every generation, in every individual. You yourself have of the order of 150 new mutations showing up in your genome which are not from either of your parents.

The description of how speciation occurs that you have been given now, endlessly, is that speciation arises by the accumulation of lots of differences. Each generation is a little bit different from the previous. Each individual is a little bit different from parents.

It is the ACCUMULATION OF MANY DIFFERENCES which means that eventually you get ENOUGH difference that the generations would no longer be able to interbreed with the generation you start with, if it was somehow restored into the present. More practically; it can no longer interbreed with a different group that has been doing the same thing. You get two species, from one.

There is no single change which prevents interbreeding. A change that drastic makes an individual infertile altogether. Physically, what prevents inter-fertility is too much difference. Not one particular difference.

You "hope" I can "see" that what I have just explained for you doesn't make sense.... man that's chutzpa.

It does make sense. I stand by what I said without change and without reservation as a good account of how new species arise by divergence of two lineages.

The only one having problems with terminology is you, and the last sentence is just ridiculous. You are explicitly ignoring the definitions used by scientists and applied in the example you have requested, and iinventing one all by yourself which cannot ever be useful applied and which makes no sense given the example you requested and still don't understand*.

As you have been told, being able to interbreed -- even between two individuals -- is not a binary yes no proposition. It has shades of gray as well.

The aim of this exercise was to show how speciation can occur. The specific illustration given is that we have a single population of individuals all from a single species, and note that each generation of this population is just a little bit different from the previous.

We then introduce a separation of some kind, so that there are two populations, both of the same species, but no longer interbreeding for some reasons. Physically separated populations is the simplest case, and the one used in our examples.

We then note that the two populations continue to change very slightly from each generation to the next, but no longer do the differences exchange between the two populations.

Over lots and lots of time, the two populations slowly, gradually, become more and more different from each other until in the end they are unambiguously two species by any definition you like.

Along the way, you ALWAYS get gray areas; you cannot identify a single generation where there was one species before, and two species after.

The examples you have been given do not involve a single gross change that prevents interbreeding. They involve lots and lots of little changes.
The quality of being able to interbreed is not a simple true false proposition. ANY two individuals may fail to mate successfully for some reason. A failed mating is more common than a successful one, even normally. When the probability of this becomes sufficiently high then the individuals are not-interfertile. As with everything else in this example, this occurs gradually; not as a single step.

I have a four part question for you.

Question 1.

Let’s say someone (Person A) had gathered together 100,000 or so organisms and had put them in a football field (or in a jar or in a cage) and said to you –
‘All of these individuals are members of one population.’

Let’s assume –

1. You have a reliable, swift and practical test for checking whether one individual can mate and produce viable offspring with another individual. (If you think such a test is not conceptually possible then there is no need to answer any of these questions.)

What would you look for to verify Person A’s claim the individuals are members of one population?

Question 2.

Let’s say someone (Person A) had gathered together 100,000 or so organisms and had put them in a football field and said to you –
‘All of these individuals are members of one species.’

Let’s assume –

1. You have a reliable, ultra-swift and practical test for checking whether one individual can mate and produce viable offspring with another individual.

What would you look for to verify Person A’s claim the individuals are members of one species?

Question 3.

Let’s say someone (Person A) had gathered together 100,000 or so organisms and had put them in a football field and said to you –
Person A – ‘All of these individuals are descended from one population originally. They have speciated and now all individuals belong to one of two species.

Let’s assume –

1. You have a reliable, swift and practical test for checking whether one individual can mate and produce viable offspring with another individual
2. The individuals were indeed descended from the one population.

What would you look for to verify Person A’s claim that there are two species?

Question 4.

Let’s say someone (Person A) had gathered together 100,000 or so organisms and had put them in a football field and said to you –
Person A – ‘All of these individuals are descended from one population originally. They are in the process of speciating (into two species).

Let’s assume –

1. You have a reliable, swift and practical test for checking whether one individual can mate and produce viable offspring with another individual
2. The individuals were indeed descended from the one population.

What would you look for to verify Person A’s claim that the organisims are in the process of speciating (into two species)?

(End of questions)
I’m guessing that to determine speciation we have to test individuals for something.

I’m happy to give my answers if/whenever you like.

Magellan

ericmurphy

March 7th 2011, 01:25 AM

sylas

March 7th 2011, 01:36 AM

I have a four part question for you.

Good. Questions like this are a great way to make progress. Thanks.

-----

Question 1.

Let’s say someone (Person A) had gathered together 100,000 or so organisms and had put them in a football field (or in a jar or in a cage) and said to you –
‘All of these individuals are members of one population.’

Let’s assume –

1. You have a reliable, swift and practical test for checking whether one individual can mate and produce viable offspring with another individual. (If you think such a test is not conceptually possible then there is no need to answer any of these questions.)

What would you look for to verify Person A’s claim the individuals are members of one population?

There are a couple of problems with the assumptions and terminology there, which I'll address in a tick; but we are playing with simple examples, so I'll go with those assumptions at first.

Roughly speaking, we first identify and ignore all those individuals that are not fertile; who cannot interbreed with ANYTHING, whether it is in the group or not. Then, for all the rest, if everyone is interfertile with every other one (gender permitting), you have a population.

A minor terminological quibble... the word "population" in biology is usually used for a group which actually is all breeding interchangeably in roughly this way; rather than a group which potentially might be interbreeding given the opportunity. Here, for example is the definition or "population" from biology-online (http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Population).

A group of organisms of one species that interbreed and live in the same place at the same time (e.g. deer population).

It's a minor point, but you are speaking of a "potential" population.

And the technical issue. The quality of being able to interbreed is not a binary yes/no proposition. I have mentioned this already a number of times in the thread.

One of the ways you identify a population which is somewhere in the middle of splitting into two distinct populations and two distinct species is when there are subgroups within the population such that interbreeding between subgroups has a measurably reduced fertility.

An interesting example of this occurs when the hybrids (cross breed between the two subgroups) are less fit in the environment... less likely to survive and breed. There may be no loss of fertility involved whatever; but the reduced fitness of the hybrids means that the geneflow between the sub-populations is limited. It also means there is a selective pressure for individuals who can identify and prefer to mate with others in the same subgroup.

This is a slightly different case from the geographical isolation of populations we considered previously; it's just another way in which the geneflow gets restricted between populations and contributes to divergence and eventual speciation.

An example from the scientific literature: Jones, F.C. et. al. (2006) Reproductive isolation in a threespine stickleback hybrid zone. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16910983), J. Evol. Biol 19(5) pp 1531-44. The abstract is full of technical terms and may appear a bit daunting; but it's pretty much what I describe above.

Abstract: In many estuarine sites, morphological and genetic differences between anadromous and freshwater threespine sticklebacks are maintained despite breeding in sympatry. Here, we investigate the maintenance of this morphological divergence in a natural hybrid zone in the River Tyne, Scotland. We provide a morphological description of the hybrid zone, and using a Bayesian MCMC approach, identified distinct anadromous and freshwater genetic clusters. Anadromous and freshwater sticklebacks breed in spatial and temporal sympatry in the lower reaches of the River Tyne. The frequency of hybrids within these sites (33%) indicates prezygotic isolation is not complete, and suggests that assortative mating is not strong. However, significant heterozygote deficit and cytonuclear disequilibrium in juveniles collected from sympatric sites confirms that barriers to gene flow exist between the morphs in the wild. In addition, we found no evidence of a directional bias in hybridisation, although hybrids with anadromous mothers were more common because anadromous females outnumbered freshwater females within the hybrid zone. We discuss the potential contribution of temporal, spatial, and sexual prezygotic barriers to the observed reproductive isolation as well as postzygotic selection against hybrid zygotes or fry.

Question 2.

Let’s say someone (Person A) had gathered together 100,000 or so organisms and had put them in a football field and said to you –
‘All of these individuals are members of one species.’

Let’s assume –

1. You have a reliable, ultra-swift and practical test for checking whether one individual can mate and produce viable offspring with another individual.

What would you look for to verify Person A’s claim the individuals are members of one species?

Same as before. Added to this, you should also check that the individuals actually do interbreed in the wild. Very often the lack of interbreeding between two species is entirely a consequence of mate selection, rather than actual biological interfertility. The previous example shows why and how this can arise, and why natural selection may work to maintain this mating choice.

The usual caution applies about the fact the being fertile or not is not a simple binary proposition.

Question 3.

Let’s say someone (Person A) had gathered together 100,000 or so organisms and had put them in a football field and said to you –
Person A – ‘All of these individuals are descended from one population originally. They have speciated and now all individuals belong to one of two species.

Let’s assume –

1. You have a reliable, swift and practical test for checking whether one individual can mate and produce viable offspring with another individual
2. The individuals were indeed descended from the one population.

What would you look for to verify Person A’s claim that there are two species?

You check whether there is geneflow between the two groups when placed in their natural environment.

The usual caveat applies, in that being separated into two species or not is not a binary yes/no proposition, but something that occurs gradually and so has a gray area where you speak of "incipient speciation". A classic example of this is "assortative mating"; though it's not the only way in which you get an intermediate case.

We often speak of "subspecies" when a species has identifiable subgroups which tend to breed within the subgroup and have identifiable differences; but will mix with the rest of the species when the opportunity arises. In such cases, IF the lack of geneflow with the rest of the species persists, that the subspecies will tend to diverge and eventually be recognizable as a clearly distinct species.

Question 4.

Let’s say someone (Person A) had gathered together 100,000 or so organisms and had put them in a football field and said to you –
Person A – ‘All of these individuals are descended from one population originally. They are in the process of speciating (into two species).

Let’s assume –

1. You have a reliable, swift and practical test for checking whether one individual can mate and produce viable offspring with another individual
2. The individuals were indeed descended from the one population.

What would you look for to verify Person A’s claim that the organisims are in the process of speciating (into two species)?

Usually: assortative mating, or reduced fitness of hybrids, or reduced fertility between the subgroups. Also reduced geneflow, as shown by a suite of genetic markers unique to each group.

Good questions. The real benefit of a discussion like this is for the people who are reading along or disputing details. Such as the exchange between lao tze and myself. We'll benefit from the exchange, even if you are never convinced of anything much.

So thanks. Cheers -- sylas

lao tzu

March 7th 2011, 01:59 AM

I'm a pure mathematician also -- or was originally. My PhD was in automata theory.

Algebraic coding theory.

Sometimes my mathematical background is a help; but generally speaking I recognize that when I am dealing with biology, I need to learn about it from people who know THAT stuff -- not trust in my knowledge of the discrete maths stuff.

Sometimes my mathematical background is a help in a way that there's a particular problem or issue where biologists can use help from a mathematician. I can almost claim to have been there as well, having done a little work many years ago with algorithms and methods for interpreting results of some physical experiments with DNA.

But generally speaking, an appeal to authority here isn't going to work very well. I'm not a biologist, or an expert in biology. Neither are you, it seems.

Bioengineering undergrad.

Yes. I acknowledged previously the underlying discrete nature of the changes which occur. The genetic information that is passed from generation to generation is discrete, and the changes that occur are discrete, like pixels are discrete. And, like in Eric's diagrams, when we talk about gross properties rather than sequence properties -- such as "species" or "fertile", there is not a sharp dividing line, contra what you are saying here.

In the evolution of modern horses, there was a first horse who topped two meters.

No, there wasn't. As has been pointed out already, you can still get interbreeding between species, with viable fertile offspring. Lions and tigers, for example; or horses and donkeys (in the latter case, the only cases known of a fertile "mule" is when the child is female).

That doesn't even qualify as contradiction. To justify the claim that two distinct species can interbreed is to exhibit one individual that is interfertile with another individual. It does not deny the existence of other individuals who cannot.

The thing that you're saying is wrong, because it presumes that there's a sharp dividing line between a case where two individuals are inter-fertile, and a case when two individuals are not interfertile.

There isn't. This is not one of the discrete jumps in evolution. The discrete jumps are at the levels of genes and genetic sequence, and the fertility of two individuals falls along a spectrum from being totally unable to interbreed to being quite successful at interbreeding.

Would you care to clarify "two individuals ... totally unable to interbreed" or would your prefer to simply concede that I've won this mock battle?

Just to confound things; typically, in closely related species the individuals nearly always ARE interfertile, but in practice they don't mate even given the opportunity.

This is all pretty much inevitable, given the way biology works. You do get discrete jumps at the levels of the genome, and you get cumulative differences and change at the level of individuals or species.

And these same cumulative changes will eventually result in species that are entirely incapable of interbreeding, assuming that neither branch dies off. Which, again, implies there was a first individual entirely incapable of doing so.

We have been using a particular basic example for Magellan, of cumulative divergence in separated populations. In this example, there IS NO single discrete change that is crucial to speciation. There IS NO single discrete change which separates individuals able to cross breed into the other incipient species.

You'll find, upon checking, that I have made NO such claim, either in common script, all-caps, bold-face, or italics.

Magellan's example must be heavily massaged before it even begins to make sense. The change in carapace colors must stand in for multiple changes at the genetic level that impact breeding behavior. The population size must be expanded by many orders of magnitude. (Pedants who wish to insert isolated counter-examples are invited to await hanging at dawn.) The timeline must be stretched sufficiently to allow speciation to proceed beyond the boundaries of any interfertility, which, as you note, is generally well beyond what most biologists would recognize as a speciation boundary. A raft of processes enabling genetic isolation and genetic diversity must be inserted.

And, in order for any of these emendations to be made meaningful, we must take advantage of the tightly defined vocabulary that's been created in order to speak of them cogently. We must use "evo-babble," as the folks at EFT like to call it.

This is, for animals, the most common case. Sharp dividing lines in fertility such as you are proposing are almost never involved in speciation of sexually reproducing animal species, to the best of our knowledge.

How is the difference between an interspecific fitness of 10^-50 and a fitness of zero a sharp dividing line? The only sharp dividing lines in dispute are those between individual genomes and the individuals who transport them in their germ lines. Their generations represent discrete dividing lines. (Pedants frantically waving retro-viral insertions as a rallying flag are invited to transmit their exact coordinates to the mortar teams.)

-----

To get concrete -- how do you reconcile your remarks with the fact that tigers and lions can cross breed in captivity?

Wait another 30 million years.

Cheers as ever -- sylas

Always a pleasure, Jesse

ericmurphy

March 7th 2011, 02:34 AM

What's entertaining about this whole discussion is Magellan's apparent belief that if we cannot determine conspecificity in some cases, then we can never do it. If we cannot determine for a certainty whether or not lions and tigers constitute separate species, then we cannot determine for a certainty whether lions and gray wolves constitute separate species.

It's a RWA thing. No nuance.

magellan004

March 7th 2011, 02:40 AM

Once more, Magellan just doesn't get it.

So let's try it one more time, in large, My Weekly Reader Print:

Every time you imply it's hard to determine conspecificity, you strengthen the argument for evolutionary theory and weaken the argument for special creation.

Why on earth is this so hard for you to grasp, Magellan?

I am sorry.
I have no idea what you are blabbering about - nor why you are blabbering.

If you need to tell me something you will have to find another means of communication.

Magellan does large gestures in sign language drawing question marks in the air and using puzzled facial expressions)

Magellan

phaedrus

March 7th 2011, 02:56 AM

pssst, he doesn't know what 'conspecifity' means. Nor can he draw inferences.

ericmurphy

March 7th 2011, 03:25 AM

I am sorry.

Don't be sorry. Be smarter.

I have no idea what you are blabbering about - nor why you are blabbering.

I hope you are at least smart enough to realize I would not be surprised by this.

If you need to tell me something you will have to find another means of communication.

I don't "need" to tell you anything, Magellan. You need to understand what I am saying, if you are to have any hope of stopping embarrassing yourself like this.

Magellan does large gestures in sign language drawing question marks in the air and using puzzled facial expressions)

As befits a cargo-cult "scientist."

ericmurphy

March 7th 2011, 03:26 AM

pssst, he doesn't know what 'conspecifity' means. Nor can he draw inferences.

I know that. But for some reason I don't feel motivated to explain to Magellan what conspecificity means.

And I certainly cannot help him with his inability to draw inferences. His god will have to help him with that; no one else can.

Faid

March 7th 2011, 06:04 AM

Whacking a fancy label on Speciation does not show how my argument is wrong.WHAT "argument"? I bet the farm that you can't phrase it in one clear paragrarh.

Faid

March 7th 2011, 06:07 AM

There are two main types of arguments that evolutionists in in TWeb use to refute me -
1. 'Look everyone at what Magellan said.' and
2. 'The reason why Magellan's argument is wrong is ... '

No prizes for guessing which approach is very rare.
(At least Eric goes for a Combo-approach.)

MagellanSince you never present a single, concise argument, but rather various attempts to obfuscate terms and definitions and get everyone to "contradict" themselves, it wouldn't be too risky to say that the second respond to your posts is EXTREMELY rare.

magellan004

March 7th 2011, 07:05 AM

Good questions. The real benefit of a discussion like this is for the people who are reading along or disputing details. Such as the exchange between lao tze and myself. We'll benefit from the exchange, even if you are never convinced of anything much.
I agree - it can be good to dispute details if the discussion is conducted evenly.

I have read through your Post. Thank you for your thoughts. I intend to reply soon.
I thought it might be a good idea to check on the basic foundation of our discussions – ‘What are we talking about?’.

David Attenborough has recently presented a show on Australian TV called ‘First Life’. In that program he has been explaining how all life on Earth came from creatures that once lived in the sea. He showed a mocked up graphic presentation of sea-insect thing with lots of legs and he, David Attenborough, proclaimed that ‘We had come from this creature’ .

To me David Attenborough is presenting what I understand evolution to mean – ‘One animal ( e.g. A creepy crawly sea insect thing) turned into some other animal’ ( a horse, us, a jelly fish – whatever).

If someone were to say to me ‘See that Elephant over there? I bred that from a pair of mice.’ I would say ‘A mouse turned into an elephant.‘ That’s my phrase, my expression for what is presented.

When I talk about Evolution, the above concept of one animal turning into another animal is what I am referring to. You might not use the same words I do but what matters is if you understand the concept I am speaking about. If you do know what my fundamental understanding of ‘Evolution’ means then we can discuss things.

If you do not know what I mean then we don’t have any basis for discussion. If ‘Evolution’ means something else to you then we have no foundation. There is no point in discussing ‘it’ because there is no ‘It’ to discuss.

A person might think, for example , that ‘Evolution is a change in the vibration of alleles in a population. ‘ AND not what I said above. In that case (and that’s only an illustration) we would have no basis for a discussion. If that person understood my expressions and thought that changes in alleles etc was related to my concept then we would have the basis of a discussion – because we would be talking about the same foundation.

The other thing I want to clear up is use of terminology.

If a person asserts, for example – ‘That (thing) is caused by (say) Genetic Drift’ they are asserting a premise about Genetic Drift. If I were to disagree with whatever that premise was then there is no discussion. Premises have to be agreed and if someone wants to assert an un-agreed premise then they need to show the underlying argument that led to that premise being a conclusion so that an agreement can be reached about the terms used.

Here’s another example –

Person A and Person B are discussing why a vehicle moved –
Person A. ‘I can show that the vehicle moved due to x,y,z.’
Person B – ‘The vehicle moved due to a, b, c.’
Person B is arguing from un-agreed premises and needs to show how the premises were established.

It is no good saying - ‘You have to understand my terminology’. If someone wants to use un-agreed terms then there is no discussion.

In our particular case you have asserted that ‘being fertile or not is not a simple binary proposition’. I disagree. If that is a premise of yours which you feel does not need to be established and agreed on then there is no point in us discussing anything. It may well be that you can establish ‘being fertile or not is not a simple binary proposition’. It may also be that I can establish that it is a binary proposition. I am happy to discuss the underlying arguments in the hope of reaching an agreement about the term ‘fertility’. But that’s for later.

So my request is that you only discuss these ‘evolution’ things with me if you understand my fundamental view of evolution and you only use agreed terms.

Magellan

magellan004

March 7th 2011, 07:16 AM

Since you never present a single, concise argument,

Here's one -

Faid doesn't understand what a concise argument is.
This is a concise argument.
Therefore Faid doesn't understand.

Magellan

phaedrus

March 7th 2011, 07:25 AM

I agree - it can be good to dispute details if the discussion is conducted evenly.

I have read through your Post. Thank you for your thoughts. I intend to reply soon.
I thought it might be a good idea to check on the basic foundation of our discussions – ‘What are we talking about?’.

David Attenborough has recently presented a show on Australian TV called ‘First Life’. In that program he has been explaining how all life on Earth came from creatures that once lived in the sea. He showed a mocked up graphic presentation of sea-insect thing with lots of legs and he, David Attenborough, proclaimed that ‘We had come from this creature’ .

To me David Attenborough is presenting what I understand evolution to mean – ‘One animal ( e.g. A creepy crawly sea insect thing) turned into some other animal’ ( a horse, us, a jelly fish – whatever).

If someone were to say to me ‘See that Elephant over there? I bred that from a pair of mice.’ I would say ‘A mouse turned into an elephant.‘ That’s my phrase, my expression for what is presented.

When I talk about Evolution, the above concept of one animal turning into another animal is what I am referring to. You might not use the same words I do but what matters is if you understand the concept I am speaking about. If you do know what my fundamental understanding of ‘Evolution’ means then we can discuss things.

If you do not know what I mean then we don’t have any basis for discussion. If ‘Evolution’ means something else to you then we have no foundation. There is no point in discussing ‘it’ because there is no ‘It’ to discuss.

A person might think, for example , that ‘Evolution is a change in the vibration of alleles in a population. ‘ AND not what I said above. In that case (and that’s only an illustration) we would have no basis for a discussion. If that person understood my expressions and thought that changes in alleles etc was related to my concept then we would have the basis of a discussion – because we would be talking about the same foundation.

The other thing I want to clear up is use of terminology.

If a person asserts, for example – ‘That (thing) is caused by (say) Genetic Drift’ they are asserting a premise about Genetic Drift. If I were to disagree with whatever that premise was then there is no discussion. Premises have to be agreed and if someone wants to assert an un-agreed premise then they need to show the underlying argument that led to that premise being a conclusion so that an agreement can be reached about the terms used.

Here’s another example –

Person A and Person B are discussing why a vehicle moved –
Person A. ‘I can show that the vehicle moved due to x,y,z.’
Person B – ‘The vehicle moved due to a, b, c.’
Person B is arguing from un-agreed premises and needs to show how the premises were established.

It is no good saying - ‘You have to understand my terminology’. If someone wants to use un-agreed terms then there is no discussion.

In our particular case you have asserted that ‘being fertile or not is not a simple binary proposition’. I disagree. If that is a premise of yours which you feel does not need to be established and agreed on then there is no point in us discussing anything. It may well be that you can establish ‘being fertile or not is not a simple binary proposition’. It may also be that I can establish that it is a binary proposition. I am happy to discuss the underlying arguments in the hope of reaching an agreement about the term ‘fertility’. But that’s for later.

So my request is that you only discuss these ‘evolution’ things with me if you understand my fundamental view of evolution and you only use agreed terms.

Magellan

'Vibration of alleles'?????

http://b.vimeocdn.com/ps/601/601897_300.jpg

phaedrus

March 7th 2011, 07:33 AM

I would now like to engage in a mature mutually satisfying discussion about relativity. Of course when I say 'relativity' I mean my relatives coming over and eating me out of house and home. Others might have definitions of 'relativity' that include wacky ideas about inertial frames of reference around nice photos of Einstein but that's not what I mean.

And of course, in our discussion you may not use words that I do not know the meaning of like inertia, calculus, velocity, observation, cat, dimensions, of, light, dark, mathematics or doodoohead. These only serve to confuse me and make proper discussion of this topic impossible. Let's remember, I'm in charge of the words, and I make up the definition of processes I'm trying to disprove. Your role is to agree with me. I hope we have that clear now.

magellan004

March 7th 2011, 08:00 AM

Tiggy

March 7th 2011, 08:38 AM

That's not my up-of-tea but do you have any vacancies for a barnacle that wants to sit on the sidelines and occasionally interrupt with the most vacuous blabber about 'My teaching days'?

Magellan

How about a trolling attention whore clown who makes up his own definitions of scientific terms and his own stupid analogies about alien space beetles? Fantasy beetles on a different planet who have one trait per gene and who can't mate if they're a different color?

- T

Tiggy

March 7th 2011, 08:46 AM

So my request is that you only discuss these ‘evolution’ things with me if you understand my fundamental view of evolution and you only use agreed terms.

Magellan

Big problem here Clownshoes is what you are calling 'evolution' is not what everyone else means by the term. You want to discuss some idiot fantasy world with alien space beetles who can't mate and horses with four different length legs, each length caused by a separate gene.

Our request is that if you want to discuss reality instead of your Clownshoes cartoon, you learn some of the real terminology and real scientific evidence. The discussion of your Clownshoes fantasy world is quite pointless.

- T

sylas

March 7th 2011, 09:17 AM

I thought it might be a good idea to check on the basic foundation of our discussions – ‘What are we talking about?’.

I'm talking about evolution, as used in conventional biology. I really don't give a stuff anymore whether this is what you want to do or not. You asked some good questions. I answered them. The answers will be more useful to other people, however; folks with more capacity to learn new things than you appear to manage. Similarly, I'm interested in useful comments or criticisms. Some I learn from, and others are merely amusing.

If you want to talk about something else using your own words and assumptions -- no-one is going to be surprised.

I'll continue to interject when there's a useful point to talk about evolutionary biology; and you are welcome to engage THAT or not as you choose.

As for whether there a clear distinction between being interfertile with another group or not: I suggest you simply read along as lao tze and I engage the point where we seem to have run into a difference of opinion. If we are indeed talking about the same thing, then one of is wrong; and we both have the kind of background and experience which will allow us to actually make a bit of progress is sorting out what's what.

You can put in your own oar if you like; but until you learn more about real biology, there's not much point.

One point... on mouse into elephant. Once you have a clear speciation, thereafter the two species, and other species which arise in their descendents, continue to become more and more different, without bound. There are more than enough clear similarities between mice and elephants to establish that they are, in fact, very closely related when you look at the whole biosphere. They are both placental mammals (Eutheria); a group which is roughly a hundred million years old or so. That is, the more recent single species from which the many different placentals mammals are descended lived that long ago.

A recent paper: Kitazoe et. al. (2007) Robust Time Estimation Reconciles Views of the Antiquity of Placental Mammals (http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0000384). PLoS ONE 2(4): e384.

From the abstract:

New procedures for divergence-time estimation robust to abrupt changes in the rate of molecular evolution are described. We used a variant of the multidimensional vector space (MVS) procedure to take account of possible convergent evolution. Numerical simulations of abrupt rate change and convergent evolution showed good performance of the new procedures in contrast to current methods. Application to complete mitochondrial genomes identified marked rate accelerations and decelerations, which are not obtained with current methods. The root of placental mammals is estimated to be ~18 million years more recent than when assuming a log Brownian motion model. Correcting the pairwise distances for convergent evolution using MVS lowers the age of the root about another 20 million years compared to using standard maximum likelihood tree branch lengths. These two procedures combined revise the root time of placental mammals from around 122 million years ago to close to 84 million years ago. As a result, the estimated distribution of molecular divergence times is broadly consistent with quantitative analysis of the North American fossil record and traditional morphological views.

Cheers -- sylas

ericmurphy

March 7th 2011, 11:28 AM

Here's one -

Faid doesn't understand what a concise argument is.
This is a concise argument.
Therefore Faid doesn't understand.

That's not an argument at all, moron. That's a claim.

rogue06

March 7th 2011, 11:31 AM

Sylas, I really must ask whether you lost a bet with the consequences that you have to try to explain something to m004.

Sparko

March 7th 2011, 11:35 AM

isn't it time for Magellan004 to ignore this thread and start another one?

Tiggy

March 7th 2011, 11:41 AM

isn't it time for Magellan004 to ignore this thread and start another one?
Maybe it could be about space alien beetles with different lengths for each of their six legs.

Heaven help us if he decides to start using the example with millipedes. :lol:

- T

Sparko

March 7th 2011, 11:45 AM

I like his threads about physics better. Like the one about how wings can't fly. Maybe he could do one on proving bumblebees can't fly or some other urban legend.

Faid

March 7th 2011, 12:37 PM

Here's one -

Faid doesn't understand what a concise argument is.
This is a concise argument.
Therefore Faid doesn't understand.

MagellanFlawed premises.

Next.

(And BTW, if that was an actual argument, it would be self-referential and circular)

ericmurphy

March 7th 2011, 01:39 PM

Magellan:

Fish live in the ocean;
Sharks live in the ocean; therefore
Sharks are fish.

Do you agree?

magellan004

March 7th 2011, 01:49 PM

I'm talking about evolution, as used in conventional biology. I really don't give a stuff anymore whether this is what you want to do or not. You asked some good questions. I answered them. The answers will be more useful to other people, however; folks with more capacity to learn new things than you appear to manage. Similarly, I'm interested in useful comments or criticisms. Some I learn from, and others are merely amusing.

If you want to talk about something else using your own words and assumptions -- no-one is going to be surprised.

I'll continue to interject when there's a useful point to talk about evolutionary biology; and you are welcome to engage THAT or not as you choose.

As for whether there a clear distinction between being interfertile with another group or not: I suggest you simply read along as lao tze and I engage the point where we seem to have run into a difference of opinion. If we are indeed talking about the same thing, then one of is wrong; and we both have the kind of background and experience which will allow us to actually make a bit of progress is sorting out what's what.

You can put in your own oar if you like; but until you learn more about real biology, there's not much point.

One point... on mouse into elephant. Once you have a clear speciation, thereafter the two species, and other species which arise in their descendents, continue to become more and more different, without bound. There are more than enough clear similarities between mice and elephants to establish that they are, in fact, very closely related when you look at the whole biosphere. They are both placental mammals (Eutheria); a group which is roughly a hundred million years old or so. That is, the more recent single species from which the many different placentals mammals are descended lived that long ago.

A recent paper: Kitazoe et. al. (2007) Robust Time Estimation Reconciles Views of the Antiquity of Placental Mammals (http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0000384). PLoS ONE 2(4): e384.

From the abstract:

New procedures for divergence-time estimation robust to abrupt changes in the rate of molecular evolution are described. We used a variant of the multidimensional vector space (MVS) procedure to take account of possible convergent evolution. Numerical simulations of abrupt rate change and convergent evolution showed good performance of the new procedures in contrast to current methods. Application to complete mitochondrial genomes identified marked rate accelerations and decelerations, which are not obtained with current methods. The root of placental mammals is estimated to be ~18 million years more recent than when assuming a log Brownian motion model. Correcting the pairwise distances for convergent evolution using MVS lowers the age of the root about another 20 million years compared to using standard maximum likelihood tree branch lengths. These two procedures combined revise the root time of placental mammals from around 122 million years ago to close to 84 million years ago. As a result, the estimated distribution of molecular divergence times is broadly consistent with quantitative analysis of the North American fossil record and traditional morphological views.

Cheers -- sylas

Good.

Magellan

magellan004

March 7th 2011, 02:57 PM

Block B is one half of the population after some of event or process occurs that reduces or eliminates gene flow between the two populations represented by the arms of the 'Y.' During the time represented by "B," there is declining interfertility between the population members represented by the blue color and the members represented by the magenta color.

So at the time of Block B some members of the Species Blue are interbreeding some members of the Species Magenta.

Just before the division some members of Green Species were interbreeding with Blue Species and Magenta Species.

At the end of the forks we have Green Species and Magenta Species which can interbreed with each other. Or maybe Green Species can't interbreed with Magenta Species.

Magellan

ericmurphy

March 7th 2011, 03:14 PM

So at the time of Block B some members of the Species Blue are interbreeding some members of the Species Magenta.

Yes. Which, of course, means they're still the same species. By some definition of the term "species," but possibly not under other definitions.

Need I point out once again that "species" is not an unambiguous concept? Or have you learned that by now?

Just before the division some members of Green Species were interbreeding with Blue Species and Magenta Species.

They're all still the same species.

At the end of the forks we have Green Species and Magenta Species which can interbreed with each other.
Where do you get that from my diagram? Or even from your diagram? Both indicate two separate species which do not interbreed.

Or maybe Green Species can't interbreed with Magenta Species.

That would be the rational interpretation. The principal differences between my diagram and yours is that mine shows an event or process that could reasonably result in speciation, and yours does not, and my diagram shows a continuum of interfertility between populations, and yours does not.

Mine is a reasonable depiction of how speciation happens. Yours is not.

Faid

March 7th 2011, 03:43 PM

At the end of the forks we have Green Species and Magenta Species which can interbreed with each other.Um, no.

Or maybe Green Species can't interbreed with Magenta Species.Um, yes.

magellan004

March 7th 2011, 04:57 PM

Yes. Which, of course, means they're still the same species. By some definition of the term "species," but possibly not under other definitions.

Need I point out once again that "species" is not an unambiguous concept? Or have you learned that by now?

They're all still the same species.

Where do you get that from my diagram? Or even from your diagram? Both indicate two separate species which do not interbreed.

That would be the rational interpretation. The principal differences between my diagram and yours is that mine shows an event or process that could reasonably result in speciation, and yours does not, and my diagram shows a continuum of interfertility between populations, and yours does not.

Mine is a reasonable depiction of how speciation happens. Yours is not.

OK. A member of Green Species can breed with a member of Magenta Species at a certain stage. How might you identify a member of Green Species at that stage (rather than as a member of Mageneta Species) ?

Use my diagram if it helps -

Magellan

phaedrus

March 7th 2011, 05:05 PM

That's not my up-of-tea but do you have any vacancies for a barnacle that wants to sit on the sidelines and occasionally interrupt with the most vacuous blabber about 'My teaching days'?

Magellan

Poor boy. I explained reasonably and clearly in several posts how speciation developed. You had no criticism of them. Since you ignore clear and reasonable posts, why not entertain myself (and others) by pointing out how dumb so many of your posts are.

I am REALLY interested in knowing whether you ever attended public high school. You won't answer, which I find telling. Your conception of what teachers try to do (and scientists too) is so strange I find it hard to imagine you were ever exposed to actual normal education. Is this true. If you answer honestly I shall accept you at your word and stop bothering you.

Faid

March 7th 2011, 05:13 PM

OK. A member of Green Species can breed with a member of Magenta Species at a certain stage.Really? What stage? Because Eric just told you that Green species and Magenta species can NOT interbreed.
How might you identify a member of Green Species at that stage (rather than as a member of Mageneta Species) ?What stage are you refering to?

Use my diagram if it helps -

MagellanYour diagram has nothing to do with the example. Why don't you identify that stage for us in Eric's diagram, which refers to the actual example we're now discussing?

Oh right, obfuscation and ambiguity. Almost forgot.

Tiggy

March 7th 2011, 05:22 PM

OK. A member of Green Species can breed with a member of Magenta Species at a certain stage. How might you identify a member of Green Species at that stage (rather than as a member of Mageneta Species) ?

Use my diagram if it helps -

Magellan
It won't help anyone Clownshoes, because it's still wrong.

As you've been told a dozen times, speciation and breeding is not binary. It's "can produce offspring that are 99% as viable as purebreds", then in later generations "can produce offspring that are 98% as viable as purebreds", then 97%, 96%, ...75%...50%...25% until no offspring survive.

But you're an idiot who's only here to troll, so you don't care about learning.

- T

ericmurphy

March 7th 2011, 05:39 PM

OK. A member of Green Species can breed with a member of Magenta Species at a certain stage. How might you identify a member of Green Species at that stage (rather than as a member of Mageneta Species) ?

You might identify them as different morphotypes of the same species. If one rigorously applies the BSC to lions and tigers, one would describe them as different morphotypes of the same species. Someone who adds to the BSC the requirement that interbreeding occur in nature would characterize them as different species despite their (somewhat reduced level of) interfertility.

Use my diagram if it helps -

I'm trying to imagine circumstances under which your diagram would be helpful, and frankly the only one I can think of would be as an illustration of tragically-unclear thinking about what speciation means.

magellan004

March 7th 2011, 06:23 PM

There is no question that whales and mice are different species.
Of course there is. it has yet to be established.

I travelled to Planet Zardoz.
On Zardoz all life had sprung from one chunk of carbon interacting with hydrogen.
I pointer to some creatures that looked like whales and mice and asked whether they were whales and mice.

Dr Bronner from Zardoz explained -‘No. They are all the same organism. There are no categories. Everything belongs to Category One. Common ancestry explains this unity. All is one. If someone, say a scientist, has a particular purpose, they will assign a category; for example the category of ‘All animals with large ears and big bodies.’ Another scientist might assign a category ‘All animals with large ears and little bodies.’ Those arbitrary categories have no general purpose or meaning.

Then I travelled to Planet Bardoz.

On Bardoz all life had sprung from one chunk of carbon interacting with hydrogen.
I pointer to some creatures that looked like whales and mice and asked whether they were whales and mice.

Prof. Atomic from Bardoz explained -‘No. Every organism is different. There are no categories. Everything belongs to its own category. Common ancestry explains this diversity. Everything is different. If someone, say a scientist, has a particular purpose, they will assign a category; for example the category of ‘All animals with large ears and big bodies.’ Another scientist might assign a category ‘All animals with large ears and little bodies.’ Those arbitrary categories have no general purpose or meaning.

So I travelled to Planet Earth.

On Earth according to some, all life had sprung from one chunk of carbon interacting with hydrogen.

I pointer to some creatures that looked like whales and mice and asked whether they were whales and mice.
The Person in the Street, the Child, the Reasonable person said ‘Of course those things there are whales and over that way are mice.’

Prof. Evolutionist said – ‘Sheesh – we’d better get in on that act and impose those natural categories over a system that we have calculated can only have organisms.

Smithers Bones asked – ‘Won’t that be messy – leading to overlap and confusion?
Prof Evolutionist – ‘Not a problem.’ All we have to do is to say the magic words – ‘Evolution predicts fuzzy boundaries.’

Magellan

Faid

March 7th 2011, 06:29 PM

...And then You woke up in Magsworld, to the sound of another brown dino screaming in agony as it tried to escape a sentient asteroid with a vengeance.

Faid

March 7th 2011, 06:34 PM

Also, attempt to bait-and-switch the discussion away from your inability to dispute (or comprehend) the speciation example is duly noted.

ericmurphy

March 7th 2011, 06:36 PM

Of course there is. it has yet to be established.

It's established in the minds of everyone who isn't completely mentally retarded that whales and mice are different species. No sane person believes mice and whales are the same species.

Answer this, Magellan: do you think there is a nonzero chance that a mating between a blue whale and a mouse would lead to a viable offspring? If your answer to this question is "no," then you are just as aware as we are that whales and mice are different species.

If your answer is "yes," then you are either a liar or are insane.

I travelled to Planet Zardoz.
On Zardoz all life had sprung from one chunk of carbon interacting with hydrogen.
I pointer to some creatures that looked like whales and mice and asked whether they were whales and mice.

Dr Bronner from Zardoz explained -‘No. They are all the same organism. There are no categories. Everything belongs to Category One. Common ancestry explains this unity. All is one. If someone, say a scientist, has a particular purpose, they will assign a category; for example the category of ‘All animals with large ears and big bodies.’ Another scientist might assign a category ‘All animals with large ears and little bodies.’ Those arbitrary categories have no general purpose or meaning.

Then I travelled to Planet Bardoz.

On Bardoz all life had sprung from one chunk of carbon interacting with hydrogen.
I pointer to some creatures that looked like whales and mice and asked whether they were whales and mice.

Prof. Atomic from Bardoz explained -‘No. Every organism is different. There are no categories. Everything belongs to its own category. Common ancestry explains this diversity. Everything is different. If someone, say a scientist, has a particular purpose, they will assign a category; for example the category of ‘All animals with large ears and big bodies.’ Another scientist might assign a category ‘All animals with large ears and little bodies.’ Those arbitrary categories have no general purpose or meaning.

So I travelled to Planet Earth.

On Earth according to some, all life had sprung from one chunk of carbon interacting with hydrogen.

I pointer to some creatures that looked like whales and mice and asked whether they were whales and mice.
The Person in the Street, the Child, the Reasonable person said ‘Of course those things there are whales and over that way are mice.’

Prof. Evolutionist said – ‘Sheesh – we’d better get in on that act and impose those natural categories over a system that we have calculated can only have organisms.

Smithers Bones asked – ‘Won’t that be messy – leading to overlap and confusion?
Prof Evolutionist – ‘Not a problem.’ All we have to do is to say the magic words – ‘Evolution predicts fuzzy boundaries

This passage lends credence to the conclusion that you are in fact insane.

But I wonder. Who are these people according to whom "all life sprung from one chunk of carbon interacting with hydrogen"?

I'm guessing they're just as imaginary as everything else in this passage that appears to have originated in the mind of someone with profound undiagnosed paranoid schizophrenia.

ETA: I believe I predicted in an earlier post that Magellan would assert that since conspecificity is difficult to determine in some circumstances it is therefore difficult to determine in all circumstances. I believe this post from Magellan confirms that prediction.

rogue06

March 7th 2011, 06:40 PM

I travelled to Planet Zardoz.
Is it really wrong of me to pray for engine failure and for you to be permanently stranded there?

phaedrus

March 7th 2011, 06:43 PM

It's established in the minds of everyone who isn't completely mentally retarded that whales and mice are different species. No sane person believes mice and whales are the same species.

Answer this, Magellan: do you think there is a nonzero chance that a mating between a blue whale and a mouse would lead to a viable offspring? If your answer to this question is "no," then you are just as aware as we are that whales and mice are different species.

If your answer is "yes," then you are either a liar or are insane.

This passage lends credence to the conclusion that you are in fact insane.

But I wonder. Who are these people according to whom "all life sprung from one chunk of carbon interacting with hydrogen"?

I'm guessing they're just as imaginary as everything else in this passage that appears to have originated in the mind of someone with profound undiagnosed paranoid schizophrenia.

I really truly honestly think there are only a few possibilities:

1. Mags is enormously dumb.

2. Mags is an out and out dishonest troll who has no interest in meaningful dialogue.

3. Mags is a combination of 1 and 2.

4. Mags does indeed have some diagnosable disorder.

I used to think 1 was true. Then I shifted to 3. Finally after viewing the last few pages I've come down to 4. Really. When I thought he was dumb, I could engage to help him civilly. When I thought he was a dishonest troll I could engage with him by making fun of him. Now that I really believe he is disturbed, ethically I should leave him alone. And I will.

ericmurphy

March 7th 2011, 06:43 PM

There is a legitimate question to be asked about whether it's worthwhile to be discussing concepts like speciation with someone who doubts that whales and mice are different species.

Of course, the same question could have been asked about talking to someone who doesn't understand that the existence of a black swan falsifies the assertion that all swans are white, or indeed who cannot seem to distinguish black from white in the first place.

Faid

March 7th 2011, 06:44 PM

It's just that this year's Beauty Hive-Queen hasn't paid any attention to him, And his chances of passing his genetic variation in Magsworld remain slim.

rogue06

March 7th 2011, 06:53 PM

If only he hadn't left his keys in that drawer :no:

magellan004

March 7th 2011, 07:56 PM

Answer this, Magellan: do you think there is a nonzero chance that a mating between a blue whale and a mouse would lead to a viable offspring?

Following your rules I can use another definition of Species which doesn't hinge on 'Viable offspring'.

There is a palatte of definitions available for use whenever logic fails.

So whether whales and mice are different species (using definition 'X') is still in question.

Magellan

ericmurphy

March 7th 2011, 08:13 PM

Following your rules
Which "rules" are those, I wonder.

I can use another definition of Species which doesn't hinge on 'Viable offspring'.

If you can find one that doesn't also talk about morphological similarity. Or are you just planning on making up your own definition? But here's another question for you to ignore, Magellan: do you think you can just make up any definition you want for the term "species"? Do you think you can just make up any definition you want for any word?

If you were to find a fossilized mouse and a fossilized whale, would you infer that they're both the same species?

If you answer "no," then you are just as aware as we are that mice and whales are not the same species.

If you answer "yes," then you are either a liar or insane.

There is a palatte of definitions available for use whenever logic fails.

Evidently it's time to point out once again that every time you imply there's ambiguity in the definition or determination of conspecificity, you are strengthening the case for evolutionary theory and weakening the case for special creation.

So whether whales and mice are different species (using definition 'X') is still in question.

Not to anyone who isn't stupid, insane, or both.

ericmurphy

March 7th 2011, 08:21 PM

How about this, Magellan:

Are whales and ants the same species?

How about whales and bacteria?

And before you answer, read this:

I believe I predicted in an earlier post that Magellan would assert that since conspecificity is difficult to determine in some circumstances it is therefore difficult to determine in all circumstances. I believe this post from Magellan confirms that prediction.

Tiggy

March 7th 2011, 08:23 PM

Following your rules I can use another definition of Species which doesn't hinge on 'Viable offspring'.

There is a palatte of definitions available for use whenever logic fails.

So whether whales and mice are different species (using definition 'X') is still in question.

Magellan

From the Crackpot Index:

14. 10 points for each new term you invent and use without properly defining it.

Crackpot Index (http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html)

I haven't totaled up Clownshoes' overall score yet. Gotta be high 3-digits.

- T

magellan004

March 7th 2011, 08:26 PM

Which "rules" are those, I wonder.

If you can find one that doesn't also talk about morphological similarity. Or are you just planning on making up your own definition? But here's another question for you to ignore, Magellan: do you think you can just make up any definition you want for the term "species"? Do you think you can just make up any definition you want for any word?

If you were to find a fossilized mouse and a fossilized whale, would you infer that they're both the same species?

If you answer "no," then you are just as aware as we are that mice and whales are not the same species.

If you answer "yes," then you are either a liar or insane.

Evidently it's time to point out once again that every time you imply there's ambiguity in the definition or determination of conspecificity, you are strengthening the case for evolutionary theory and weakening the case for special creation.

'Are these green Thingies a different species to the Pink Thingies?'
Eric - Insane to use just one definition.
'How about whales and mice, are they different species?'
Eric - 'Insane not to use one definition.

Magellan

ericmurphy

March 7th 2011, 08:43 PM

'Are these green Thingies a different species to the Pink Thingies?'
Eric - Insane to use just one definition.
You never tire of misrepresenting others' positions, do you, Magellan?

Find any statement I've made that any sane person could interpret to mean you must use more than one definition of the term "species." Do you think you can manage that?

Because I'm telling you it's insane to say mice and whales might be the same species.

And what's truly bizarre is that I am making the case that there are times when you can say for certain whether or not two organisms are the same species, but Magellan is pretending I'm the one who's claiming that's not true. He's setting things up as if he's asking me if a whale and a mouse are the same species or not, and I'm telling him there's no way to say.

'How about whales and mice, are they different species?'
Eric - 'Insane not to use one definition.

Interesting. Magellan takes my question, answers it, and then pretends his answer is actually my answer.

I mean, I know Magellan has a difficult time keeping straight in his mind what his position is and what his opponents' positions are, but now he can't even seem to keep straight whether he's said something or someone else has said something.

Stupid troll? Insane troll? Stupid, insane troll?

You be the judge.

lao tzu

March 7th 2011, 08:58 PM

I travelled to Planet Zardoz.

Do you come here often, big boy?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/0d/Zardoz_zed.jpg

magellan004

March 7th 2011, 10:35 PM

You never tire of misrepresenting others' positions, do you, Magellan?

Find any statement I've made that any sane person could interpret to mean you must use more than one definition of the term "species." Do you think you can manage that?

Because I'm telling you it's insane to say mice and whales might be the same species.

And what's truly bizarre is that I am making the case that there are times when you can say for certain whether or not two organisms are the same species, but Magellan is pretending I'm the one who's claiming that's not true. He's setting things up as if he's asking me if a whale and a mouse are the same species or not, and I'm telling him there's no way to say.

Interesting. Magellan takes my question, answers it, and then pretends his answer is actually my answer.

I mean, I know Magellan has a difficult time keeping straight in his mind what his position is and what his opponents' positions are, but now he can't even seem to keep straight whether he's said something or someone else has said something.

Stupid troll? Insane troll? Stupid, insane troll?

You be the judge.

Yes I can find an example of where we have to use more than one definition - In your Green and Magenta example. For early Green and Magenta animals we use one definition. Later on, up the forks , we have to apply another definition to make your diagram work. That was probably one day ago but given your memory problems you might have forgotten about it.

This should help -

The general case is 'Are these two animals - X and Y, from different species ?
Perhaps we can use Test A and/or Test B and/or Test C and maybe the range of outcomes will be 'Different Species' , 'Same Species' or 'Unknown' or 'Cannot ever be known.' And as you said, maybe some tests will yield conflicting results.

You applied that sort of general case to the Green and Magenta organisms.

When it comes to a particular case you jettison the general case. That can mean that -
1. The general case was always unworkable,
2. The general case will give undesirable results.

(Both are actually true.)

If I (Magellan) want to find how you classify an animal I must use the general case.

If you (Eric and the evolution experts ) want to tell me how an animal is classified then you will use a different test.

That's a long-winded way of saying 'You are being inconsistent.'
And that's understandable because evolution requires inconsistency.

Magellan

Tiggy

March 7th 2011, 10:46 PM

Hey Clowshoes, here's more evidence!

Two of your bugs from the planet Zardoz just mated and gave birth to this!

http://ny-image2.etsy.com/il_570xN.186883130.jpg

Quick! Tell us how to classify it!

- T

ericmurphy

March 7th 2011, 11:09 PM

Yes I can find an example of where we have to use more than one definition
Why must you use more than one definition? By one definition, they're the same species. By a different definition, they might be different species. Where do you get the idea that you therefore have to use two definitions?

Do you understand the difference between "may" and must?

- In your Green and Magenta example. For early Green and Magenta animals we use one definition. Later on, up the forks , we have to apply another definition to make your diagram work. That was probably one day ago but given your memory problems you might have forgotten about it.

No we don't. We can use exactly the same definition throughout the diagram. Whether you'll be talking about one species or two will change throughout the diagram. That's sort of what "speciation" means. Using different definitions, you might come up with different answers depending on where in the diagram you're talking about. This is a problem? And before you answer, remember: ambiguity with regard to conspecificity is a prediction of evolutionary theory, but is fatal to the claims of special creation.

This should help -

It will help you look like an idiot.

The general case is 'Are these two animals - X and Y, from different species ?
The general case of what, Magellan?

Perhaps we can use Test A and/or Test B and/or Test C and maybe the range of outcomes will be 'Different Species' , 'Same Species' or 'Unknown' or 'Cannot ever be known.' And as you said, maybe some tests will yield conflicting results.

And this is a problem for evolutionary theory how?

It's certainly a problem for special creation. Which is why creationists can never agree on whether two organisms are the same "kind" or different "kinds."

You applied that sort of general case to the Green and Magenta organisms.

I told you that depending on what definition you use, you'll get different answers. This is a problem why?

When it comes to a particular case you jettison the general case. That can mean that -
1. The general case was always unworkable,
What's "unworkable" about asking a question, Magellan?

2. The general case will give undesirable results.

What's "undesirable" about it?

(Both are actually true.)

Neither are true.

If I (Magellan) want to find how you classify an animal I must use the general case.

You tell me which definition you're using, and I'll tell you whether they're conspecific or not.

If you (Eric and the evolution experts ) want to tell me how an animal is classified then you will use a different test.

How do you know? So long as everyone is open about what definition they're using—something you typically avoid like the plague—everyone should agree, within reasonable limits, whether two organisms are conspecific or not.

That's a long-winded way of saying 'You are being inconsistent.'

No: it's a stupid way of missing the point: that if evolutionary theory is correct, then conspecificity is predicted to be ambiguous.

How many times will this need to be repeated before you finally, at long last, understand what you're doing to your own argument?

And that's understandable because evolution requires inconsistency.

No. It PREDICTS AMBIGUITY.

magellan004

March 7th 2011, 11:58 PM

No: it's a stupid way of missing the point: that if evolutionary theory is correct, then conspecificity is predicted to be ambiguous.
It PREDICTS AMBIGUITY.

Therefore you have no problem with 'Whales and Mice' being an ambiguous case - no clear answer.

But you won't apply your ambiguity rule here - why not?

Magellan

Tiggy

March 8th 2011, 12:54 AM

Therefore you have no problem with 'Whales and Mice' being an ambiguous case - no clear answer.

But you won't apply your ambiguity rule here - why not?

Magellan

Eric correctly points out: "in real evolutionary theory there is often ambiguity - no clear dividing line- between closely related species."

Clownshoes dishonestly spins that to " there is ambiguity between every last species, even whales and mice".

Clownshoes complains that he can't understand why everyone considers him a dishonest trolling idiot. :ahem:

- T

ericmurphy

March 8th 2011, 01:29 AM

Therefore you have no problem with 'Whales and Mice' being an ambiguous case - no clear answer.

Of course there's a clear answer:

No one who isn't stupid or insane has any doubt that mice and whales are different species.

Read it again, moron:

I believe I predicted in an earlier post that Magellan would assert that since conspecificity is difficult to determine in some circumstances it is therefore difficult to determine in all circumstances. I believe this post from Magellan confirms that prediction.

How many freaking times am I going to have to repeat that, Magellan?

But you won't apply your ambiguity rule here - why not?

Read it again:

I believe I predicted in an earlier post that Magellan would assert that since conspecificity is difficult to determine in some circumstances it is therefore difficult to determine in all circumstances. I believe this post from Magellan confirms that prediction.

And again:

I believe I predicted in an earlier post that Magellan would assert that since conspecificity is difficult to determine in some circumstances it is therefore difficult to determine in all circumstances. I believe this post from Magellan confirms that prediction.

Is it any clearer now? No?

Well, that's hardly surprising.

ericmurphy

March 8th 2011, 01:33 AM

ericmurphy

March 8th 2011, 01:36 AM

Since Magellan will be unable to puzzle out my analogy, and will still complain that no reproduction is involved, I'll just go ahead and explain it:

You don't have to even look at a map at all to know a street address in San Francisco and another one in New York are not in the same zip code. In the same fashion, while it might be difficult to tell if two organisms in the same genus, or even the same family, are conspecific, ANYONE WHO ISN'T DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED OR INSANE CAN TELL IF ORGANISMS IN DIFFERENT ORDERS, CLASSES, OR PHYLA ARE IN THE SAME SPECIES.

magellan004

March 8th 2011, 02:56 AM

I'm going to give you two street address, Maegllan: one is 700 Stockton Street, San Francisco, CA and the other one is 1500 Stockton Street, San Francisco, CA.

Are they in the same zip code?

I live on Stockton Street in San Francisco, and I'd have to look at a zip code map to be sure.

Here are two other street addresses: 700 Stockton Street, San Francisco, CA, and 100 Fifth Ave., New York, NY.

Do you have to look at a map to tell if they're in the same zip code?

Now: see if you can explain the analogy I'm making here. And before you start, I will stipulate that street addresses do not mate and have children.

Yes , I get it. it's a good analogy.

We know that different kinds of animals are not related so asserting that 'That Whales and Mice are not closely related is beyond question' is as silly as asserting that 'That a house in SF and a house in NY are not closely related is beyond question.'

Magellan

ericmurphy

March 8th 2011, 03:42 AM

Yes , I get it.
Doubtful.

it's a good analogy.

How would you know? You couldn't explain it if your life depended on it.

We know that different kinds of animals are not related
Wrong. All animals—indeed all life on earth—is related.

so asserting that 'That Whales and Mice are not closely related is beyond question'
Whales and mice are closely related—compared to, e.g., either one of them to a cactus. Whales and mice are distantly related compared to, say, mice and rats.

Relationships: they're all relative.

But I imagine that's all a bit too nuanced to make any sense to you.

is as silly as asserting that 'That a house in SF and a house in NY are not closely related is beyond question.'

It doesn't even make sense to talk about houses in San Francisco and New York being "related," closely or otherwise, in the sense that living organisms are related.

As usual, Magellan is stumbling around in the dark.

Faid

March 8th 2011, 03:45 AM

Following your rules I can use another definition of Species which doesn't hinge on 'Viable offspring'.

There is a palatte of definitions available for use whenever logic fails.

So whether whales and mice are different species (using definition 'X') is still in question.

Magellan:lol:
OK, why don't you find us a definition of "species" that includes whales and mice as a single species?

And by "find" I don't mean "make one up", 'kay?

If you can't find one, you just pwnd yourself.

Faid

March 8th 2011, 03:48 AM

Therefore you have no problem with 'Whales and Mice' being an ambiguous case - no clear answer.

But you won't apply your ambiguity rule here - why not?

MagellanBecause we are not proposing that a single event of speciation gave rise to both mice and whales, moron. Anything else?

Faid

March 8th 2011, 03:52 AM

Yes , I get it. it's a good analogy.

We know that different kinds of animals are not related so asserting that 'That Whales and Mice are not closely related is beyond question' is as silly as asserting that 'That a house in SF and a house in NY are not closely related is beyond question.'

MagellanNice drop of "closely" in the start of the post, little weasel.

magellan004

March 8th 2011, 04:13 AM

Nice drop of "closely" in the start of the post, little weasel.

That was from Sylas.
But you are struggling to keep up.
Points for trying though.

Please don't insult and attack Eric for assuming that Species = Related when that is begging the question outlined in the Opening post.

I know you remained quiet on that point out of sympathy. We both hope that one day Eric (and Sylas) will come to understand their own assumptions.

Well done.

Magellan

Faid

March 8th 2011, 06:02 AM

That was from Sylas.
But you are struggling to keep up.
Points for trying though.

Please don't insult and attack Eric for assuming that Species = Related when that is begging the question outlined in the Opening post.

I know you remained quiet on that point out of sympathy. We both hope that one day Eric (and Sylas) will come to understand their own assumptions.

Well done.

MagellanNo, little weasel. Neither Eric nor sylas sneakily omitted the word "closely" from "closely related". YOU did.

Nice try though.

Now, about that argument?

Faid

March 8th 2011, 07:20 AM

magellan004

March 8th 2011, 08:36 AM

No, little weasel. Neither Eric nor sylas sneakily omitted the word "closely" from "closely related". YOU did.

Nice try though.

Now, about that argument?
I'm lost.

Do you mean -

'We know that different kinds of animals are not related so asserting that 'That Whales and Mice are not closely related is beyond question' is as silly as asserting that 'That a house in SF and a house in NY are not closely related is beyond question.'
compared to -

'We know that different kinds of animals are not closely related so asserting that 'That Whales and Mice are not closely related is beyond question' is as silly as asserting that 'That a house in SF and a house in NY are not closely related is beyond question.'
?
I can't see what difference that makes.
Sorry-you lost me.

Sylas and Eric have assumed that 'Zip Codes are based on biological relatedness.' and we know that they are not.

It seems simple to me. But feel free to explain what you are on about. it will be a first.

Then we'll tackle 'Now, about that argument?' which means nothing to mean. You could at least say what you mean. I'd like to help.

Thanks,

Magellan

magellan004

March 8th 2011, 09:12 AM

Oh I almost forgot: Remember to also check that "palatte of definitions" you mentioned, and dig one up that includes mice and whales in a single species. And no, I don't mean "make one up".

I could use any definition of species based on characters.

Because the whole point of all this is that when we catagorise animals we are using characters - not biological relatedness. A 'species' has nothing to do with relatedness. The evolutionist has superimposed 'Species = relatedness' onto a classification system that has nothing to do with relatedness.

Sylas , when saying 'There is no question that whales and mice are different species' wasn't saying 'There is no question that whales and mice belong to different character categories'. He was saying 'There is no question that Whales and Mice are not closely related.'

Here is the system.

1. We start with a collection of animals that are related and that are not related.
2. We sort them into categories based on physical features.
3. We call those categories Species.
4. Whales and mice are different species. All whales are related. All mice are related. Whales and mice are not related.
All is well and good.

Along comes the evolutionist.
He/she sees that classification system and wants to appropriate it.
How to do that?
Magically assume that Species = related. No evidence, no system, just a confused hotch-potch of definitions to make various combinations and instances of animals 'fit' into this aborted version of 'species.' In one case it can mean 'viable offspring' , in the next minute it means 'had string of descendants' , 'at this part of the 'speciation process' (have to laugh) they could mate, at that stage they can't interbreed '; 'They're fixed' and of course the evergreen 'About to speciate' On and on it goes.

And Bingo - All of a sudden Whales and Mice are related but are in different categories.

Want to test whether I am right? Take out any sense of 'related' from Species and then tell me what Sylas meant by 'There is no question that whales and Mice are in different species.'

Magellan

Faid

March 8th 2011, 09:53 AM

I'm lost.

Do you mean -

'We know that different kinds of animals are not related so asserting that 'That Whales and Mice are not closely related is beyond question' is as silly as asserting that 'That a house in SF and a house in NY are not closely related is beyond question.'
compared to -

'We know that different kinds of animals are not closely related so asserting that 'That Whales and Mice are not closely related is beyond question' is as silly as asserting that 'That a house in SF and a house in NY are not closely related is beyond question.'
?
I can't see what difference that makes.Sure you do- that's why you omitted the word in the first place. You sought to imply that, if it is difficult to determine the boundaries between closely related species (like lions and tigers), then it should be difficult to determine the boundaries between any species (like mice and whales), and therefore (through reductio ad absurdum) the claim that all life on Earth is related is "silly". You tried to pull a fast one and got caught, get over it.

Sorry-you lost me.
Actually, I caught you.

Sylas and Eric have assumed that 'Zip Codes are based on biological relatedness.' and we know that they are not.What.

It seems simple to me. But feel free to explain what you are on about. it will be a first.Lol. This, from Mags the King of Obfuscation and Ambiguity, who cannot even form a clear argument in proper English.

Then we'll tackle 'Now, about that argument?' which means nothing to mean. You could at least say what you mean. I'd like to help.
I mean exactly what you understand that I mean, that you never present a clear and concise argument. Feel free to prove me wrong.

Oh and, don't forget to find that definition by which whales and mice are the same species. Gogogo!

Faid

March 8th 2011, 09:56 AM

I could use any definition of species based on characters.[snip made-up stuff]Didn't I tell you not to make stuff up yourself, mags? I sure did, twice.

No hypotheticals, no what-ifs, no postcards from Magsworld. You're on Earth, act like an Earthling. Dig into that REAL-WORLD "palatte of definitions" and provide one in which whales and mice are the same species, please. My patience is infinite, but the Universe is not.

Faid

March 8th 2011, 10:07 AM

ericmurphy

March 8th 2011, 11:28 AM

That was from Sylas.
But you are struggling to keep up.
Points for trying though.

Your habit of condescending to your betters never gets any less nauseating, Magellan.

Please don't insult and attack Eric for assuming that Species = Related when that is begging the question outlined in the Opening post.

Wow—saying two organisms which are conspecific are related is "begging the question"—do you even have the slightest idea what question is being begged? Or do you just like the sound of the phrase?

I know you remained quiet on that point out of sympathy. We both hope that one day Eric (and Sylas) will come to understand their own assumptions.

Do you have ANY idea what you're talking about? Is it now your position that two organisms which are conspecific maybe aren't even related at all?

ericmurphy

March 8th 2011, 11:33 AM

I'm lost.

How surprising that Magellan would be lost.

Do you mean -

'We know that different kinds of animals are not related so asserting that 'That Whales and Mice are not closely related is beyond question' is as silly as asserting that 'That a house in SF and a house in NY are not closely related is beyond question.'
compared to -

'We know that different kinds of animals are not closely related so asserting that 'That Whales and Mice are not closely related is beyond question' is as silly as asserting that 'That a house in SF and a house in NY are not closely related is beyond question.'
?
I can't see what difference that makes.
Sorry-you lost me.

It's amazing how even the simplest arguments escape you.

Listen, idiot: all organisms are related. Do you understand that there are degrees of relatedness, or is that too nuanced for you? Do you get that you are more closely related to your siblings than to third cousins twice removed? Do you understand that whales and mice could be related, and be less closely related than whales and deer but more closely related than whales and palm trees?

Or do you just think two organisms are either "related" or "not related"?

That probably is what you think.

Sylas and Eric have assumed that 'Zip Codes are based on biological relatedness.' and we know that they are not.

Gee, I couldn't see this one coming, Magellan. Are you objecting that street addressed don't mate and have children?

It seems simple to me. But feel free to explain what you are on about. it will be a first.

As usual, Magellan is alone in his cluelesness about what anyone is on about.

Then we'll tackle 'Now, about that argument?' which means nothing to mean. You could at least say what you mean. I'd like to help.

The problem isn't people not saying what they mean. The problem is your inability to figure out what they mean.

ericmurphy

March 8th 2011, 11:47 AM

I could use any definition of species based on characters.

You could, if you were smart enough to understand such a definition.

Because the whole point of all this is that when we catagorise animals we are using characters - not biological relatedness. A 'species' has nothing to do with relatedness. The evolutionist has superimposed 'Species = relatedness' onto a classification system that has nothing to do with relatedness.

It's an inference, moron. We infer that organisms share character states (homologies) to the exclusion of other organisms due to common descent with modification. That inference is based on vast quantities of evidence (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/). It's not an "assumption." YOU assume, with no evidence to support it, that goddidit (or whoever you think didit).

Sylas , when saying 'There is no question that whales and mice are different species' wasn't saying 'There is no question that whales and mice belong to different character categories'. He was saying 'There is no question that Whales and Mice are not closely related.'

Yes, Magellan, he was saying what he was saying, not saying what he wasn't saying.

Here is the system.
1. We start with a collection of animals that are related and that are not related.
Wrong already. We don't have any animals that are not related.

2. We sort them into categories based on physical features.
Wrong again. We sort them into nested hierarchies based on shared character states.

3. We call those categories Species.
Wrong a third time. We call those nested groups clades. Species are merely the smallest of those groups; ones diagnosed in some cases by interfertility (for living organisms), in others by autoapomorphies not shared by any other groups.

4. Whales and mice are different species. All whales are related. All mice are related. Whales and mice are not related.

Wrong a fourth time. Whales and mice are related. They are not as closely related as whales and camels, but they are more closely related than whales and portabello mushrooms.

Four sentences. Every single one of them catastrophically wrong. Even by your standards, that's impressive.

All is well and good.

All is really, really stupid. But it's funny that you accused me of "begging the question" by assuming organisms in the same species are related, but then you go ahead and make exactly the same assumption.

Along comes the evolutionist.
He/she sees that classification system and wants to appropriate it.
Right. Taxonomists want to "appropriate" a system of taxonomy from…other taxonomists.

How to do that?
Magically assume that Species = related.
You just made the same assumption, moron.

No evidence, no system, just a confused hotch-potch of definitions to make various combinations and instances of animals 'fit' into this aborted version of 'species.'

Magellan, your failure to understand how something works does not mean it doesn't work.

In one case it can mean 'viable offspring' , in the next minute it means 'had string of descendants' , 'at this part of the 'speciation process' (have to laugh) they could mate, at that stage they can't interbreed '; 'They're fixed' and of course the evergreen 'About to speciate' On and on it goes.

Time to remind Magellan once again: evolutionary theory PREDICTS that the determination of conspecificity will often be difficult and ambiguous. Your buddies the creationists predict the OPPOSITE: that there will be clear and unambiguous barriers between "created kinds."

You're single-handedly making creationism look really, really bad. So pleas continue.

And Bingo - All of a sudden Whales and Mice are related but are in different categories.

Even Linneaus knew whales and mice are related but not in the same species. That was nearly two hundred fifty years ago

Want to test whether I am right?
We already know you're not right.

Take out any sense of 'related' from Species and then tell me what Sylas meant by 'There is no question that whales and Mice are in different species.'

Why would we want to do that, Magellan? Any reasonable definition of the word "species" will conclude that whales and mice are different species. Anyone who isn't insane understands that whales and mice are different species. But you might be unique even among creationists in not being sure that organisms in the same species are related.

ericmurphy

March 8th 2011, 11:48 AM

BTW, I gotta admit that your fevered imagination managed to provide us with another fine example of MagsLogic.

All animals in the same species are related.

Therefore, all animals that are related are the same species.

:lol:

How many times did you flunk Logic in highschool?

Magellan obviously does not understand that relationship is a matter of degree. Mice and whales are either the same species, or they're not related at all.

You can be related, or not related. Those are the only two possibilities.

magellan004

March 8th 2011, 12:59 PM

Listen, idiot: all organisms are related.

All this time you thought that the Opening Post, the point of this thread was to assume Species = Related.

I explained 'Begging the question' to you repeatedly and you couldn't understand why I was saying it. No wonder.

Well thank you and Faid and Sylas.
I didn't think people could be that dumb but I learned something.

Maybe you thought thread subject was about determining how 'closely related animals' speciated while assuming that 'distantly related animals' did speciate? I have no idea - its too bizarre to imagine what you thought.

See you all in a new thread.

Magellan

Faid

March 8th 2011, 01:14 PM

For reference, here's the OP of the thread:

I would like to introduce you to The Beetles. These little guys are going to walk us through a hypothetical simulation of evolution.

It all started in Year tx with about 10 brown Beetles living on an island that had no other beetles but was very close to the mainland.
These Beetles produce children about once a year and only have one breeding season..
Each beetle has an identifier on it which shows names of its two parents and their parents etc. . This identifier system is passed on to children so the ‘first generation’ children have a record or their own parents (the tx generation) and their parent’s parents etc.

Millions of years later , in say year ty, there are 20 Beetles.
Professor Smithers Bones examines all of the Beetles There are some brown Beetles. The rest are green.
He can trace each beetle back through time.

But something puzzles the good Professor- Have these Beetles evolved and are there different 'Species' of Beetles?

Any ideas how we might answer these questions?

We accept your conceding of the point, Mags.

ericmurphy

March 8th 2011, 01:41 PM

All this time you thought that the Opening Post, the point of this thread was to assume Species = Related.

I "assumed" no such thing. Your OP, lest you've forgotten, was intended to show us how evolution happens. How you expected to be able to do this, when you don't know the first thing about evolution, is a bit of a mystery.

I'm not going to cater to your requirements that we assume everything science claims is wrong, Magellan. The evidence that all organisms are related is overwhelming, and in over a year of trying, you haven't given the slightest reason to doubt that.

I explained 'Begging the question' to you repeatedly and you couldn't understand why I was saying it. No wonder.

I understand what "begging the question" means. You seem to think it means assuming anything science claims could possibly be correct.

Your issue was with speciation. At no point did you ever indicate you questioned whether organisms in the same species are even related. That "question" was never even on the table.

Well thank you and Faid and Sylas.
I didn't think people could be that dumb but I learned something.

Being called "dumb" by you is something of a compliment, Magellan.

Maybe you thought thread subject was about determining how 'closely related animals' speciated while assuming that 'distantly related animals' did speciate? I have no idea - its too bizarre to imagine what you thought.

You have no idea what I thought. How surprising.

Since you've completely forgotten what your own OP was about, let me remind you:

I would like to introduce you to The Beetles. These little guys are going to walk us through a hypothetical simulation of evolution.

Of course, your attempted "simulation" of evolution immediately ran aground when it became obvious that you have no idea how evolution is even supposed to work.

See you all in a new thread.

Aaaaand the inevitable bail-out.

magellan004

March 8th 2011, 02:41 PM

This thread is a continuation of a previous thread - Evolution of The Beetles. http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?144614-Evolution-of-The-Beetles

It turns out that, because I had been overly optimistic about the analytical powers of evolutionists, I had omitted to state the most glaringly obvious starting point –
‘Without assuming that all animals are related’ –That is, The Beetles model does not assume that members of a Species ARE related. The model is used to examine whether it is possible that members of a species are related.

Is it possible to go from one group of individual animals that are related to a number of separate identifiable groups where-
There is a universal means of identifying members of a group (even if that means of identification is only conceptual (due to lack of current testing technology))?
For example – If for membership of Group A we only use a test of ‘Can interbreed with members of its own group but not with members of any other group’ then we should only use that test when testing for Group B.

If the test were Can interbreed with members of its own group but not with members of any other group and that test (at least conceptually) would not work on Group A or any group then that test of group membership is worthless for the purposes of this thread.

I am aware, of course , that such useless tests are proposed in ‘Evolution Land’. Just don’t propose them in this thread thanks!

The universal test rule also applies to an exclusive test. Any test that ruled out an animal as a member of one group should be able to be used to rule out membership of other groups. For example ‘If a female who is sterile cannot belong to Group A then Group B should not include sterile females.

I am setting out these ‘rules’ because in the previous thread some evolutionists seemed to think that arbitrary tests for membership of different ‘species’ were OK.

Here is the starting point derived from the previous thread –

In Year tx there was a small group of Brown Beetles living on an island that had no other Beetles but was very close to the mainland.
The identifier ‘Brown Beetle’ is symbolic. It does not imply any trait or feature that can be assumed to mean ‘Species of Beetle’ : for example ‘Therefore a Brown Beetle must be related to an ancestor of land animals.’ These Beetles produce children about once a year and only have one breeding season..
Each Beetle has an identifier on it which shows names of its two parents and their parents etc. . This identifier system is passed on to children so the ‘first generation’ children have a record or their own parents (the tx generation) and their parent’s parents etc. This is obviously a conceptual way of keeping track of ancestry. (although one person did actually complain that such information couldn’t ‘fit on the back of a Beetle’. )

Millions of years later , in say year ty, there is a small number of Beetles.
We can examine all of the Beetles. There are some Brown Beetles; the rest are Green. The point of this thread is to examine whether these Beetles have
1. Evolved and
2. To determine if there are different 'Species' of Beetles

How we might answer these questions?

Magellan

That's it Magellan. Your threads are moronic and probably don't even belong in natural science at all since they seem to be nothing but trolling. This thread is being merged into your old beetles thread. Do not start another thread on similar topics. And any completely moronic troll threads will be sent directly to the Psycho Ward.

Nuff Said.

magellan004

March 8th 2011, 02:49 PM

ericmurphy

March 8th 2011, 03:10 PM

There are two types of Evolutionists -

The first type assumes that 'Whether Whales and Mice belong to separate species' is beyond question.

The second type of evolutionist can understand and articulate why it is that 'Whales and Mice belong to separate species'.

Everyone here can articulate and understand why whales and mice are separate species. Why they are has been explained to you exhaustively. Despite the fact that it should be obvious even without any explanation, you still can't understand why they're different species. That's your problem, not ours.

I have not yet met an evolutionist of the second type but if any exist they are very welcome to join the new thread 'Evolution of The Beetles - Part Two'.

Here's why whales and mice are separate species: 1. They are not interfertile, and do not interbreed either in captivity or the wild. Even if all we had to go on was fossils, we'd still know they are separate species because of the astronomically large morphological differences between them.

So stop pretending no one has explained to you why they are separate species.

Faid

March 8th 2011, 03:12 PM

There are two types of Evolutionists -

The first type assumes that 'Whether Whales and Mice belong to separate species' is beyond question.

The second type of evolutionist can understand and articulate why it is that 'Whales and Mice belong to separate species'.

I have not yet met an evolutionist of the second type but if any exist they are very welcome to join the new thread 'Evolution of The Beetles - Part Two'.Your feigned cognitive dissonance is not an argument.

Look everyone is welcome - it's just that it would be nice to meet an evolutionist who can think instead of assuming.
So that you can ignore their posts, as usual? Do I have to quote all the detailed explanations you have simply ignored?

And Tiggy - you can tag along too.

MagellanSo your new thread wants us to explain why whales and mice are different species? This should be fun.

Faid

March 8th 2011, 03:17 PM

ericmurphy

March 8th 2011, 03:24 PM

magellan004

March 8th 2011, 03:28 PM

So your new thread wants us to explain why whales and mice are different species? This should be fun.

Clever lad! Yes.

That it IS in question is the whole point.

Magellan

magellan004

March 8th 2011, 03:35 PM

So now, Magellan has gone beyond doubting that speciation exists. He doubts that species exist.

How long before he doubts life itself exists, and requires that we prove living organisms are not an evolutionist fantasy?

We can put animals into groups based on size of ears , shape of nose, number of wings - all sorts of criteria that are sensible and always have been sensible. Those categories are called species.

That classification system has nothing whatever to do with relatedness:

Unless you can show it does.

Magellan

ericmurphy

March 8th 2011, 03:37 PM

Magellan: do you agree that two puppies from the same litter are a) related; and b) members of the same species?

It will be interesting to explore what you believe and what you don't believe.

ericmurphy

March 8th 2011, 03:38 PM

We can put animals into groups based on size of ears , shape of nose, number of wings - all sorts of criteria that are sensible and always have been sensible. Those categories are called species.

So whales and sharks are the same species, then? Would you care to elucidate what these "groups" of yours are actually based on?

That classification system has nothing whatever to do with relatedness

Unless you can show it does.

And, of course, we can. (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/)

[ETA: maybe Magellan doesn't understand that "related by common descent" means "related," and therefore evidence that two organisms are related by common descent means they're "related." Frankly, that wouldn't surprise me in the slightest.]

ericmurphy

March 8th 2011, 04:08 PM

BTW, I gotta admit that your fevered imagination managed to provide us with another fine example of MagsLogic.

All animals in the same species are related.

Therefore, all animals that are related are the same species.

:lol:

How many times did you flunk Logic in highschool?

It's an RWA thing. Here's the problem:

http://www.planet-deepblu.com/~eric/graphic_links/GrayVsBandW.png

magellan004

March 8th 2011, 04:08 PM

Magellan: do you agree that two puppies from the same litter are a) related; and b) members of the same species?

It will be interesting to explore what you believe and what you don't believe.

Let's take two scenarios-
Situation 1. The criteria for membership of Group 1 was 'Four legs, one tail, furry and barks' then the two puppies would belong to the same group.

Situation 2. The criteria for membership of Group 1 was 'Four legs, one tail, white fur and barks' then it could well be that the two puppies do not belong to the same group.

But what you mean is 'Do two related puppies belong to a group of related animals?'
That's a different kettle of fish to a group of animals with similar features.

And I know that you will pretend that we can assume that Similar = Related.

Your task (if you were ever interested in articulating your evolution beliefs ) is simple.

Start with Brown Beetles on a bush. Later there are Green and Brown Beetles on the bush. Did the Green Beetles descend from the Original Brown Beetles or did the Green Beetles come from somewhere else?

Magellan

ericmurphy

March 8th 2011, 04:21 PM

Far be it from Magellan to actually answer the question of whether he believes two puppies from the same litter are actually related. Instead, it's another visit to Planet Mags.

Let's take two scenarios-
Situation 1. The criteria for membership of Group 1 was 'Four legs, one tail, furry and barks' then the two puppies would belong to the same group.

Situation 2. The criteria for membership of Group 1 was 'Four legs, one tail, white fur and barks' then it could well be that the two puppies do not belong to the same group.

So you're saying that in your view, it's possible that two puppies born from the same litter might not even be related.

I gotta say, even by the low standards of creationists, Magellan's thinking is pretty dysfunctional.

But what you mean is 'Do two related puppies belong to a group of related animals?'
I meant what I asked, Magellan. Stop trying to translate my words into Magspeak.

I asked, "Do you believe two puppies born from the same litter are related?"

Apparently you don't know the answer. You not only don't know whether or not they're related; you don't even know whether you believe they're related or not.

That's a different kettle of fish to a group of animals with similar features.
It's a simple question. A question which is apparently beyond your abilities to answer.

It's actually a yes-or-no question. Anyone of even room-temperature IQ could have answered the question with a simple yes or no.

And I know that you will pretend that we can assume that Similar = Related.

I know you will pretend that "related" is an absolute: either two organisms are the same species or they're not related at all.

Seriously, do you even care how stupid you make yourself look?

And how many times have I explained to you that it is not "similarity" that leads to an inference of common descent? It is a specific pattern of distribution of similarities AND DIFFERENCES resulting in a nested hierarchy of groups within groups = related. How many times have you ignored this statement from me? It doesn't speak too highly of your intellectual integrity, Magellan.

Your task (if you were ever interested in articulating your evolution beliefs ) is simple.

Start with Brown Beetles on a bush. Later there are Green and Brown Beetles on the bush. Did the Green Beetles descend from the Original Brown Beetles or did the Green Beetles come from somewhere else?

I doubt anyone here is interested in articulating their beliefs to you, Magellan, when you have never, in over a year of posting to this site, articulated what your beliefs are. You won't even admit you're a creationist.

In any event…the green beetles on the bush almost certainly did not descend from the brown beetles on the same bush, because they're all still living. (If by chance some of the green beetles are actually the descendants of some of the brown beetles which are still alive, it's hard to imagine you could possibly believe they're not related to their own parents, but apparently you're not too sure they would be.)

One species is not typically descended from a species that is still living.

But here's what Magellan's question boils down to: we've got this group of critters here, and we've got this other group of critters over here. Is one descended from the other? And he somehow thinks his scenario even has sufficient information for a meaningful answer to be possible.

But what any of this has to do with my question is a mystery. I was talking about puppies. Where did the beetles come from?

magellan004

March 8th 2011, 04:23 PM

In other words, you want us to explain how beetles have evolved, without assuming that beetles have evolved.

Everyone: "Here's how those beetles would have evolved"

Mags: "You're assuming that they have evolved by explaining how they evolved! Begging the question!"

:doh:

Either get your logic sorted out, or we'll see you in Beetles 3: the Revenge.

Start with Brown Beetles on a bush. Later there are Green and Brown Beetles on the bush. Did the Green Beetles descend from the Original Brown Beetles or did the Green Beetles come from somewhere else?

Magellan

Tiggy

March 8th 2011, 04:33 PM

magellan004

March 8th 2011, 04:43 PM

But here's what Magellan's question boils down to: we've got this group of critters here, and we've got this other group of critters over here. Is one descended from the other?

Well done.
Whether it's 'descended from the other' or 'related to the other ' shouldn't make much difference. 'Descended from ' would be easier to establish, surely?

Here's what Evolution boils down to - we've got this group of critters here (Whales), and we've got this other group of critters over here (Mice). Is one related to the other?

Eric and other evolutionists somehow think we have sufficient information for a meaningful answer to be possible.

So what information do we need in order to decide whether the two animals (Green and Brown Beetles) (Whales and Mice) are related?

Beetles, Mice - whatever. What information do we need?

In the case of the two puppies the information you needed was 'The two puppies had the same mother '. That is your criteria for establishing that the two animals were related.

Using that information you cannot say that Whales and Mice are related.

So our conclusion so far is
1. Two puppies from one litter are related (based on same mother test)
2. It doesn't look like Whales and Mice are related (based on same mother test)

Magellan

ericmurphy

March 8th 2011, 04:55 PM

Start with Brown Beetles on a bush. Later there are Green and Brown Beetles on the bush. Did the Green Beetles descend from the Original Brown Beetles or did the Green Beetles come from somewhere else?

Given this information—who knows?

Magellan: the woman sitting next to me is a year younger than I am. Is she my sister, or is she more distantly related?

[ETA: does the concept "more distantly related" even have any meaning for you?]

lao tzu

March 8th 2011, 04:59 PM

Did the Green Beetles descend from the Original Brown Beetles or did the Green Beetles come from somewhere else?

Yes. That pretty much covers the options. Well done. Though of course, this being a Magellan example, it is as usual devoid of enough specifics to say anything more.

But you ask, "How can we tell?"

We ask them to pull out their family trees, conveniently tucked in amongst the curlicues of their genomes. We note that there are retroviral insertions that just so happen to occur at exactly the same places within their chromosomes. We then judge between mechanisms for those markers to be held in common. On the one hand, it could be they share those markers because they were passed down through common descent. Alternatively, they were placed there mischievously by an otherwise intelligent designer who wished to conceal his work by making it seem as if they were passed down through common descent.

Then we ask if we wish to be rational today, and assume that Loki is not the creator of the universe, and the special creator of our beetles. It's not that he couldn't be, you understand. It's just that we choose instead, as properly subservient worshippers of whatever metaphorical or literal gods there may be, that if they're that determined to fool us into thinking these beetles are indeed related, we should go along with the plan.

As ever, Jesse

Roy

March 8th 2011, 05:06 PM

Is it really wrong of me to pray for engine failure and for you to be permanently stranded there?

As long as he doesn't adopt Zed's garb. Though he'd probably fit in well as "a savage trained only to kill".

Roy

ericmurphy

March 8th 2011, 05:07 PM

Well done.
Whether it's 'descended from the other' or 'related to the other ' shouldn't make much difference. 'Descended from ' would be easier to establish, surely?

Why would it be easier? Take two beetles. Are they siblings from the same "litter"? Or is one descended from the other? How would you tell?

Here's what Evolution boils down to - we've got this group of critters here (Whales), and we've got this other group of critters over here (Mice). Is one related to the other?

The difference between your retardo-scenario and the whales-mice scenario is that we actually have a tremendous amount of information with which we can make a determination. With your made-up scenario, who knows?

Eric and other evolutionists somehow think we have sufficient information for a meaningful answer to be possible.

We do. We have more than enough information. Just because you're too ignorant to know what that information is doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

So what information do we need in order to decide whether the two animals (Green and Brown Beetles) (Whales and Mice) are related? Beetles, Mice - whatever. What information do we need?

Information about shared character states. Those character states don't just tell us that they're related, but also tell us how closely, relative to other organisms they are related.

Here's a good paper that talks about resolving the phylogeny of all mammals. It's entitled "Resolution of the Early Placental Mammal Radiation Using Bayesian Phylogenetics," and the citation is William J. Murphy, et al. Science 294, 2348 (2001); DOI: 10.1126/science.1067179. That paper resolves the phylogenetic relationships of therian mammals using 16.4 kilobasepairs of genetic data.

That's the kind of information we need in order to decide not just that, but also how whales and mice are related.

In the case of the two puppies the information you needed was 'The two puppies had the same mother '.
Is this your way of answering my question? Answering "yes, they are related"?

That is your criteria for establishing that the two animals were related.

Using that information you cannot say that Whales and Mice are related.

Good thing that's not all the information we have.

Let me ask you this, Magellan: do you think there's any significance to the fact that both whales and mice have a backbone? That they also have a single jawbone? Three inner ear bones? Hair? Mammary glands? A corpus callosum? Red blood cells without nuclei?

So our conclusion so far is
1. Two puppies from one litter are related (based on same mother test)
2. It doesn't look like Whales and Mice are related (based on same mother test)

Why does 2 follow? You and your cousins don't have the same mother. Does that mean you're not related?

God you're stupid,

Magellan

Faid

March 8th 2011, 05:12 PM

Clever lad! Yes.

That it IS in question is the whole point.

Magellan...And since it never was in question in the real world (just in your fevered imagination), I guess there never was a point in the first place.

Gotcha.

Faid

March 8th 2011, 05:18 PM

We can put animals into groups based on size of ears , shape of nose, number of wings - all sorts of criteria that are sensible and always have been sensible. Those categories are called species.

That classification system has nothing whatever to do with relatedness:

Unless you can show it does.

MagellanEasy. Find me a single species on Earth today whose individuals "have nothing whatsoever to do with relatedness".

If you can't then I guess that was just another postcard from Magsworld.

Faid

March 8th 2011, 05:23 PM

Start with Brown Beetles on a bush. Later there are Green and Brown Beetles on the bush. Did the Green Beetles descend from the Original Brown Beetles or did the Green Beetles come from somewhere else?

Magellan

Who knows? Since you're not discussing speciation anymore, and you don't even want us to try to present an evolutionary scenario (because that would be "begging the question", apparently), then anything goes. Maybe the green ones hitched a ride on the Mothership from Magsworld?

When you're ready to form a proper and clear question, and decide on what it is you want to discuss, get back to us.

Sparko

March 8th 2011, 05:27 PM

Easy. Find me a single species on Earth today whose individuals "have nothing whatsoever to do with relatedness".

Oh! Oh! Mr. Kotter! Mr. Kotter! I have one!

---> Magellan.

ericmurphy

March 8th 2011, 05:32 PM

Easy. Find me a single species on Earth today whose individuals "have nothing whatsoever to do with relatedness".

If you can't then I guess that was just another postcard from Magsworld.

Since Magellan won't even admit to being a creationist, he's left with no explanation at all for why, e.g., whales and mice even share the same sort of mechanism of inheritance.

ericmurphy

March 8th 2011, 05:33 PM

Oh! Oh! Mr. Kotter! Mr. Kotter! I have one!

---> Magellan.

It's possible Magellan isn't related to his parents.

On the other hand, he once claimed to have eight grandparents.

Sparko

March 8th 2011, 05:37 PM

It's possible Magellan isn't related to his parents.

On the other hand, he once claimed to have eight grandparents.

but do his parents claim him?

And does that mean he is the same species as them? He could be a genetic mutant and an entirely new species with a 100% dna change to an entirely new form of life: Trollus Moronus Interwebian.

rogue06

March 8th 2011, 05:48 PM

See you all in a new thread.
May I suggest one with the title "Will I ever be able to pull my head out of my rear end?" :whistle:

magellan004

March 8th 2011, 05:49 PM

Yes. That pretty much covers the options. Well done. Though of course, this being a Magellan example, it is as usual devoid of enough specifics to say anything more.

But you ask, "How can we tell?"

We ask them to pull out their family trees, conveniently tucked in amongst the curlicues of their genomes. We note that there are retroviral insertions that just so happen to occur at exactly the same places within their chromosomes. We then judge between mechanisms for those markers to be held in common. On the one hand, it could be they share those markers because they were passed down through common descent.

It could well be.
But not according to David Attenborough and his ilk.

Sylas says 'It is beyond question.'

The Green Beetles could be related to the Brown Beetles.
That's the only conclusion we can draw.
Whales could be related to Mice. That's the only conclusion we can draw.

While David Attenborough and Richard Dawkins are busily teaching billions of people that it is not a matter of 'Could be' the people who want to teach another 'Could be' are humiliated and sent to court.

Magellan

rogue06

March 8th 2011, 05:52 PM

rogue06

March 8th 2011, 05:58 PM

but do his parents claim him?

And does that mean he is the same species as them? He could be a genetic mutant and an entirely new species with a 100% dna change to an entirely new form of life: Trollus Moronus Interwebian.
Identifiable by having one limb significantly longer than the rest, an inability to find keys and distinguish between black and white swans and only capable of propagating the species by mating with beauty pageant contestants (IOW, he's doomed to extinction).

ericmurphy

March 8th 2011, 05:58 PM

It could well be.
But not according to David Attenborough and his ilk.

The chances that you have any idea what is "according to David Attenborough" (who last time I checked isn't even a scientist) are nil.

Sylas says 'It is beyond question.'

It's certainly beyond question that whales and mice are not the same species. Given you seem to have doubts species even exist, it's surprising you disagree.

But then consistency has never been your strong suit.

The Green Beetles could be related to the Brown Beetles.
That's the only conclusion we can draw.
Whales could be related to Mice. That's the only conclusion we can draw.
Since all living things are related to all other living things, that's the only conclusion that makes any sense.

While David Attenborough and Richard Dawkins are busily teaching billions of people that it is not a matter of 'Could be' the people who want to teach another 'Could be' are humiliated and sent to court.

The distinction is that the "could be" Dawkins is talking about is massively supported by the evidence. As for the other "could be" you're alluding to, the only way you'd end up in court for teaching it would be if you were teaching it in an American public school. That's not because scientists don't like it; it's because it's against the law.

magellan004

March 8th 2011, 06:20 PM

Easy. Find me a single species on Earth today whose individuals "have nothing whatsoever to do with relatedness".

If you can't then I guess that was just another postcard from Magsworld.

But I can and so can you. In fact I have about 1,250,000 groups to choose from.

There are about 1,250,000 identified species of animal. This includes 1,190,200 invertebrates, among them 950,000 insects, 70,000 mollusks, 40,000 crustaceans, and 130,200 others. There are about 58,800 identified vertebrates, including 29,300 fish, 5,743 amphibians, 8,240 reptiles, 9,800 birds, and 5,416 mammals. As a comparison, almost 300,000 plant species are known. http://www.wisegeek.com/how-many-species-of-animal-are-there.htm

Now let's take off say five groups (being conservative) that may have been based on a breeding program that leaves about 1,249,995 groups where the membership criteria had nothing to do with relatedness.

I did say 'That system has nothing to do with relatedness.' and I am aware that you will insist that the membership of each group was based on relatedness but that would be 'begging the question'. Or you could try your other tactic of pretending that I said something other than what I said - Eg. 'Being a member of a species excludes relatedness.'

And just to verify what I said - IF you belong to Homo Sapiens group is your membership dependant on a paternity test?

Magellan

magellan004

March 8th 2011, 06:31 PM

(Magellan's New Thread)

Thank you for caring enough to save and present that Opening Post. It contains vital information.

Magellan

rogue06

March 8th 2011, 06:34 PM

Thank you for caring enough to save and present that Opening Post. It contains vital information.

Magellan
See post #639 (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?144614-Evolution-of-The-Beetles&p=3187525#post3187525) simpleton.

ericmurphy

March 8th 2011, 06:35 PM

But I can and so can you. In fact I have about 1,250,000 groups to choose from.

http://www.wisegeek.com/how-many-species-of-animal-are-there.htm

They're all related, loser. Apparently you believe two organisms are totally unrelated if they're not members of the same species. You believe a lot of retarded things.

Now let's take off say five groups (being conservative) that may have been based on a breeding program that leaves about 1,249,995 groups where the membership criteria had nothing to do with relatedness.

They're all related, loser, and you've never given anyone the slightest reason to think otherwise.

I did say 'That system has nothing to do with relatedness.' and I am aware that you will insist that the membership of each group was based on relatedness but that would be 'begging the question'.

With you, everything is "begging the question." Presenting evidence that all life is related is "begging the question" that all life is related.

Or you could try your other tactic of pretending that I said something other than what I said - Eg. 'Being a member of a species excludes relatedness.'

No. You just said even if things are the same species doesn't mean they're related.

And just to verify what I said - IF you belong to Homo Sapiens group is your membership dependant on a paternity test?

You seem to think so. Among other things, you've claimed that if an organism cannot breed with another organism, they can't be the same species. Which means infertile organisms don't belong to any species.

And before you start bleating that there's "inconsistencies" in our definition of "species," I will point out hardly for the last time that every time you claim the definition of species is "inconsistent" or "ambiguous," you strengthen the argument for common descent and weaken the case for special creation.

magellan004

March 8th 2011, 08:38 PM

It's certainly beyond question that whales and mice are not the same species.

I know you think that.
I understand that that is your view.
You do not think there is any question whatsoever that 'whales and mice are not the same species. '
You are convinced of it.
You know it.
You have seen evidence that whales and mice are not the same species.
Everybody agrees with you that whales and mice are not the same species.
I understand that.

You think that it is beyond question that whales and mice are not the same species.

You have told me that.
You have repeatedly told me that.
I am a moron for not agreeing.
I am an idiot for not seeing it like you do.
I am a troll because i disagree that 'whales and mice are not the same species' is beyond question.

Please - enough. I understand .

I understand that you do not want to discuss that issue with me.
You do not care what I think.
You do not care what my arguments are.
I don't have any arguments.
I don't know what an argument is.
I am just a fool.

I understand.

You don't have to keep on repeating that.

You think 'whales and mice are not the same species. ' is beyond question and for you that is the end of the matter.

Magellan

ericmurphy

March 8th 2011, 08:48 PM

I know you think that.
I understand that that is your view.
It's the view of anyone who isn't a complete idiot or completely insane. A group that clearly does not include you.

You do not think there is any question whatsoever that 'whales and mice are not the same species. '
You are convinced of it.
You know it.
You have seen evidence that whales and mice are not the same species.
Everybody agrees with you that whales and mice are not the same species.
I understand that.

But for some reason, you're not convinced. You can't tell us why you're not convinced; you can't tell us what additional evidence you'd need to convince you; you just know you think they are the same species.

Or maybe you don't. Maybe you don't know what you think.

You think that it is beyond question that whales and mice are not the same species.

It is beyond question, for people with brains.

You have told me that.
You have repeatedly told me that.
I am a moron for not agreeing.
I am an idiot for not seeing it like you do.
I am a troll because i disagree that 'whales and mice are not the same species' is beyond question.

Yep.

Please - enough. I understand .

I understand that you do not want to discuss that issue with me.
I'd be happy to discuss the issue with you, if you had anything worthwhile to say on the topic.

You do not care what I think.
You can't tell us what you think.

You do not care what my arguments are.
You don't have any arguments.

I don't have any arguments.
I don't know what an argument is.
I am just a fool.

Glad you're starting to realize that.

I understand.

I seriously doubt that.

You don't have to keep on repeating that.

As long as you keep denying whales and mice are different species (without actually having the stones to claim they're the same species), I'll continue to repeat it.

You think 'whales and mice are not the same species. ' is beyond question and for you that is the end of the matter.

Actually, no. I can explain exactly why they aren't the same species. I've done so several times. It's made exactly no impression on you. Which is why it's not that fascinating to discuss the issue with you. It's much more useful, and entertaining, to point at you and laugh. "Look at the retarded creationist who doesn't even have the moral courage to admit he's a creationist."

ericmurphy

March 8th 2011, 08:52 PM

Just cowboy up and say it, Magellan: tell us why, specifically, you think there's a question as to whether or not whales and mice are different species. You'd raise your credibility from its current position at zero to some number that, while it may still need to be expressed using scientific notation, might actually be distinguishable from zero. We'll still laugh at your comical stupidity, but at least you'll have said some new thing that's entertaining.

You keep implying you think there is some question about whether or not mice and whales are the same species, but you can't tell us why you think there's a question.

sylas

March 8th 2011, 08:56 PM

I've seen this happen before. Not all creationists are like this by any means, but this is one of the kinds of things that occurs in an online discussion.

You get a creationist who is presenting something of the appearance of actually wanting to look into a subject.

You make an effort to engage at that level.

The original topic of the thread does indeed get explained clearly.

The creationist at this point implodes. The rudeness escalates, the goal posts go stratospheric, and even straightforward clear points which could be common ground with a creationist who was trying to be serious get distorted and twisted.

I gather we may have had a few cycles of this previously; but this is the first cycle with Magellan that I've been part of. Wow.

Cheers -- sylas

lao tzu

March 8th 2011, 09:07 PM

Wow.

Whatever you do, don't ask him where he left his keys.

ericmurphy

March 8th 2011, 09:12 PM

You'll get something like, "You think it's beyond question that if your keys are not in your drawer, that means they're not in your drawer."

magellan004

March 8th 2011, 10:25 PM

As long as you keep denying whales and mice are different species (without actually having the stones to claim they're the same species), I'll continue to repeat it.
I have said I disagree with 'That Whales and Mice are different species is beyond question.'

But I am a troll. I don't know what I have said.
I am an idiot .
You say that it is true - 'That Whales and Mice are different species is beyond question.'
I understand that is your position.
But I am 'clownshoes' so I don't understand anything.

You think 'whales and mice are not the same species. ' is beyond question and for you that is the end of the matter.

Actually, no. I can explain exactly why they aren't the same species. I've done so several times. It's made exactly no impression on you. Which is why it's not that fascinating to discuss the issue with you. It's much more useful, and entertaining, to point at you and laugh. "Look at the retarded creationist who doesn't even have the moral courage to admit he's a creationist."

Actually 'No' what?
No to - 'That Whales and Mice are not the same species is beyond question.'?
or
No to - 'That is the end of the matter.?

Because if 'Whales and Mice are not the same Species' is beyond question how can that not be the end of the matter?

But I am trolling when I ask you to clarify something that is so obvious to everyone else.
I must be the most dishonest creationist you have ever met to ask you what you meant by 'no.'
That question of mine was so stupid it does not bear answering.
I understand you will only reply in order to show how ridiculous I look.

Actually, no. I can explain exactly why they (Whales and Mice) aren't the same species.
If you can explain why Whales and Mice aren't the same species and are related without assuming that all animals are related please do so. I understand that by using characters we can place Whales and Mice in different groups. What I dispute is that the groups we end up with reflect underlying relatedness. That has to be shown , not assumed.

But only a fool would set those conditions.
Only an unbelievably dumb idiot would even think of anything like that.
You don't have to explain anything to me.
I should stop this trolling.
You have explained it over and over and I am willfully ignoring your replies.
I don't understand anything.
I don't understand logic, arguments English.
I understand nothing.

Magellan

ericmurphy

March 8th 2011, 10:49 PM

I have said I disagree with 'That Whales and Mice are different species is beyond question.'

But so far, you can't articulate why you think there's some question.

Actually 'No' what?

Read what I wrote. "No," I actually can explain, and have explained, why mice and whales are not the same species.

No to - 'That Whales and Mice are not the same species is beyond question.'?
or
No to - 'That is the end of the matter.?

If you could actually articulate why why you think there's some question, you'd have a little more credibility. Here, let me make it easy for you: by what definition of "species" do you think it would be true that mice and whales are the same species? Be specific. Don't just say, "There are plenty of definitions by which they are the same species." Spell it out in detail.

But you won't even come out and say you think they are the same species. You don't even have the nuts to come out and say there is some question they're the same species. Like the weasel you are, you just imply there's some question, without even being able to say why you think there is one.

Because if 'Whales and Mice are not the same Species' is beyond question how can that not be the end of the matter?

If you want it to NOT be "the end of the matter," then MAKE it not be "the end of the matter." Give me some reason to reconsider my position. Don't just weasel and whine and sort half-heartedly imply there's an actual issue here.

WHAT DO YOU THINK THE "ISSUE" IS?

But I am trolling when I ask you to clarify something that is so obvious to everyone else.
I can't "clarify" an issue you can't identify. TELL me why you think maybe whales and mice are the same species, and maybe we can explore the issue.

But no; you'd rather just sort of imply there's some reason to think mice and whales might be the same species. Actually, you don't even do that. You just imply they might not not be the same species!

I must be the most dishonest creationist you have ever met to ask you what you meant by 'no.'
You're thinking maybe I meant "yes," or "maybe"?

That question of mine was so stupid it does not bear answering.

It's not even a question! Do you even know what the question is you think you're asking? Or have you completely lost track of what you were trying to say?

I understand you will only reply in order to show how ridiculous I look.

That's pretty much it, Magellan.

And if this is some sort of cri de coeur, I will point out you've got no one but yourself to blame. You've staked out the most stupid, indefensible, ludicrous positions, and then whine and cry that people think you're an idiot because you can't defend them.

If you can explain why Whales and Mice aren't the same species and are related [COLOR=INDIGO] without assuming that all animals are related please do so.

One more time and then I'm done with answering this retarded question:

They are not conspecific because a) they cannot interbreed, to say nothing of actually interbreeding, and b) even if we had no way of determining whether or not they were actually interfertile, we would STILL say they are definitely different species because of the MASSIVE morphological differences. There is NO WAY they ever could have interbred, and we'd be able to say that even if all we had to go by was fossil evidence.

Now where is the "assumption" of relatedness there? Are you now thinking two organisms are the same species if they're NOT related?

Now, are you going to continue to pretend I haven't answered this monumentally stupid question?

I understand that by using characters we can place Whales and Mice in different groups. What I dispute is that the groups we end up with reflect underlying relatedness. That has to be shown , not assumed.

It's not assumed, and it has been shown (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/). If you knew how to click on a link, and knew how to read and understand English, you'd know that.

[INDENT] But only a fool would set those conditions.
Only an unbelievably dumb idiot would even think of anything like that.
You don't have to explain anything to me.
I should stop this trolling.
You have explained it over and over and I am willfully ignoring your replies.
I don't understand anything.
I don't understand logic, arguments English.
I understand nothing.

Magellan

Couldn't have said it better myself.

ericmurphy

March 8th 2011, 11:16 PM

magellan004

March 8th 2011, 11:51 PM

And just to cut you off at the pass, Magellan:

The position everyone else here thinks is idiotic and/or crazy is not:

I accept that mice and whales are not the same species, but I think there's a question about whether they are actually related at all.

While that position might be ignorant and naive, it's not totally stupid and/or crazy. Many people—probably a majority of those who actually do accept common descent—aren't too clear on the arguments and evidence supporting the assertion that they are related. If you were even remotely interested, honest, and engaged, I'd be more than willing to walk through those arguments and evidence with you.

The position everyone else here DOES think is idiotic and/or crazy is:

I think there's some question that mice and whales are not actually the same species.

THAT is the question I asked you, Magellan:

"Do you accept that whales and mice are different species?"

We are at cross purposes.
I do not accept that there is necessarily any biological relationship between species. You do.
Your concept of Species is different to my concept of Species.

I accept that there is a classification system that uses the term "species' and which sorts animals into species depending on physical characteristics.

You believe that there is an underlying relatedness between Species.
So your term for groups of animals related by common decent but which cannot interbreed - 'Species' is different to my term for a group of animals with similar physical characteristics.

I have tried to explain why I see this 'double meaning' in the term 'Species' to be a problem when people discuss Evolutionary concepts.

I accept that think I have no clue about Species, evolution, relationships, biology.
You think that I am unbelievably moronic to suggest that 'Species' has a double meaning.
You think you are asking a very straightforward question.
I am just trolling when I do not answer 'yes' 'No' to your Species question.

The idea of this thread is for someone to give a step-by-step illustration of how evolution, and in particular Speciation, might work. - A conceptual simulation.

I know that you think a step by step illustration is not possible.
I know you think I am a jack-ass for suggesting such a thing.
I know you have explained repeatedly why a step by step illustration will not work at the individual organism level.
You think that I am dishonest and am pretending not to follow your arguments.

I know that you think your links settle the Speciation issue.
I know you think Theobald puts the matters we discuss beyond question.
I know you think there is so much evidence for speciation that only a willful fool would question speciation.
I know you think that everybody accepts what Theobald claims.
I know that only an imbecile would dispute Theobald's claims.
I don't even understand what Theobald says so I am in no position to dispute anything.
I don't understand evolution, science, evidence, argument, logic , reason.
I am so stupid I make other Creationists look good.

We are at cross purposes.

I shall wait until someone volunteers to present a step by step illustration , (that allows for identification of individual animals that can or can't interbreed with other individuals ) of how the original group of Brown Beetles might have split into two groups of individuals animals - Brown Beetles and Green Beetles where the Brown Beetles cannot interbreed with the Green Beetles.

Magellan

ericmurphy

March 9th 2011, 01:42 AM

We are at cross purposes.
We'd be at "cross purposes" a little less if you could actually be bothered to state your position.

I do not accept that there is necessarily any biological relationship between species. You do.
That's not exactly news, Magellan. That isn't what I asked you. I asked you:

Do you believe that whales and mice are different species?

You've minced and pranced around the question long enough. Now answer it.

Your concept of Species is different to my concept of Species.

You don't HAVE a concept of "species." You've never been able to articulate what you think a "species" is.

I accept that there is a classification system that uses the term "species' and which sorts animals into species depending on physical characteristics.

You believe that there is an underlying relatedness between Species.
Not only do I "believe" it (I prefer the term I "accept" it) because I have REASONS for accepting it. The evidence that all life on earth is nothing short of overwhelming, and you have never managed a coherent criticism of that evidence.

So your term for groups of animals related by common decent but which cannot interbreed - 'Species' is different to my term for a group of animals with similar physical characteristics.

You don't HAVE a definition for "species." I do. We can't argue about your definition because you don't HAVE one.

And you don't seem able to understand any of the definitions for the term I have given you.

I have tried to explain why I see this 'double meaning' in the term 'Species' to be a problem when people discuss Evolutionary concepts.

The term "species" as I have defined it does not require any assumption, or even inference, that different species are related in any way. That is a fiction of your own imagination.

I accept that think I have no clue about Species, evolution, relationships, biology.
You think that I am unbelievably moronic to suggest that 'Species' has a double meaning.
I think no such thing. I think it's moronic to think the definition of "species" makes any assumptions about species themselves being related. The definitions I have given you would not change in the slightest if common descent were false.

If anyone is making "assumptions" here, it is you, not me.

You think you are asking a very straightforward question.
It is a straightforward question. It's a yes or no question with a very clear answer.

And that answer is not "no."

I am just trolling when I do not answer 'yes' 'No' to your Species question.

You don't answer ANYTHING to my species question. My question is NOT do you believe whales and mice related. I know the answer to that. I am asking you, do you believe whales and mice ARE THE SAME SPECIES.

You refuse to answer that question, because you know how idiotic a "yes" answer will be, but you don't want to have to admit you agree with me that no they are not the same species.

The idea of this thread is for someone to give a step-by-step illustration of how evolution, and in particular Speciation, might work. - A conceptual simulation.

You said YOU were going to give such an "illustration." That failed when you demonstrated your perfect ignorance of evolutionary theory. You have been presented with several explanations for how speciation happens, which you have either ignored or failed to understand in the first place.

I know that you think a step by step illustration is not possible.

I not only know it's possible, I've GIVEN you one. I simply haven't included every single one of the hundreds of thousands of generations speciation takes, because nothing of significance happens in the vast majority of those generations . But that does not change the fact that I have given you a step-by-step explanation of how speciation happens, laying out each significant step in the process: reproduction, mutation, isolation, selection, and drift.

You ignored all of that. Pretended it didn't exist. All you wanted for me to do was to do what I'd already stipulated to: you pretended I didn't think speciation required reproduction. It was nothing more than a stalling technique. You wanted me to literally spell out every single generation over hundreds of thousands of generations, but you could never actually articulate why you think such an accounting is necessary or adds anything to the explanation.

I know you think I am a jack-ass for suggesting such a thing.

I'm not the only one, Magellan.

I know you have explained repeatedly why a step by step illustration will not work at the individual organism level.
I've explained that it is POINTLESS to spell out every single generation in a process that takes hundreds of thousands to millions of generation.

You think that I am dishonest and am pretending not to follow your arguments.
At this point, it's pretty much a certainty.

I know that you think your links settle the Speciation issue.
I haven't even linked to any explanations of speciation. I've given you my own explanations.

I know you think Theobald puts the matters we discuss beyond question.

Theobald doesn't even discuss speciation.

I know you think there is so much evidence for speciation that only a willful fool would question speciation.
You haven't even asked for evidence for speciation. You've been asking for a generation-by-generation account of every single event that happens during a process that takes hundreds of thousands of years. Nevertheless, I have indeed provided evidence for observed instances for speciation, evidence that you have as usual ignored without comment.

I know you think that everybody accepts what Theobald claims.

Another thing you're wrong about. I am well aware that nearly half of all Americans reject common descent in its entirety. In that you are hardly alone, Magellan, so don't give me the martyr speech.

I know that only an imbecile would dispute Theobald's claims.
No. I think only an imbecile would ignore those claims. I don't care if you dispute them, Magellan. If you had an honest bone in your body, I would be willing to walk you through every single claim Theobald makes. But you won't do that. instead, you call Theobald a "clown" despite knowing nothing about the guy or who he is or what his credentials are, and dismiss him without comment. That's what's known as an "ad hominem" argument.

I don't even understand what Theobald says so I am in no position to dispute anything.

Well, that's certainly true. You do NOT understand anything Theobald says. In over a year of citing you to his article I have yet to see you demonstrate the vaguest understanding of his arguments.

I don't understand evolution, science, evidence, argument, logic , reason.
I don't disagree with you there.

I am so stupid I make other Creationists look good.

Hard to believe, but true.

We are at cross purposes.

I'm sorry, Magellan, but I cannot see that as my fault.

I shall wait until someone volunteers to present a step by step illustration , (that allows for identification of individual animals that can or can't interbreed with other individuals ) of how the original group of Brown Beetles might have split into two groups of individuals animals - Brown Beetles and Green Beetles where the Brown Beetles cannot interbreed with the Green Beetles.
How are they going to do that, Magellan? By making things up? How are you going to tag organisms over hundreds of thousands of generations so you can track each one back through its millions upon millions of ancestors? Is this an actual experiment you think should be done? Or is this some sort of completely unworkable hypothetical you're proposing?

So stop whining about how everyone thinks you're an idiot, Magellan. You've provided plenty of evidence over the past fifteen months or so that you are indeed an idiot. In fact, much of what you say is so utterly idiotic that people have a hard time believing you're serious when you say it.

ericmurphy

March 9th 2011, 01:43 AM

And he STILL hasn't managed to say one way or another whether he believes whales and mice belong to the same species.

And he wonders why he has the reputation he has around here.

lao tzu

March 9th 2011, 02:36 AM

But I am 'clownshoes' so I don't understand anything.

Reversed causality itt.

I understand that by using characters we can place Whales and Mice in different groups. What I dispute is that the groups we end up with reflect underlying relatedness. That has to be shown, not assumed.

Use genetic characters.

ericmurphy

March 9th 2011, 03:37 AM

You don't even need genetic characters. We could infer whales and mice are related—are more closely related, in fact, then either is to a frog—purely based on fossil evidence.

But yes genetic characters works just fine as well. Probably better. I know paleontologists who think genetic characters work better.

magellan004

March 9th 2011, 05:48 AM

Reversed causality itt.

Use genetic characters.

I understand that you think that.
I understand that you have a need to assert that.
i understand you speak with authority.
I understand that you know heaps more than i do. I understand that I am unwilling to learn.
I understand that you need to tell me about your assertions.
I understand that merely by saying these things to you I am indicating how unwilling to learn from you I am.
You must redouble your assertive efforts. I understand that.

It's my fault .
I bring your assertions down upon myself.
I can't complain and I am not complaining.
Please continue asserting things.

Magellan

Faid

March 9th 2011, 07:10 AM

But I can and so can you. In fact I have about 1,250,000 groups to choose from.

http://www.wisegeek.com/how-many-species-of-animal-are-there.htm

Now let's take off say five groups (being conservative) that may have been based on a breeding program that leaves about 1,249,995 groups where the membership criteria had nothing to do with relatedness.

I did say 'That system has nothing to do with relatedness.' and I am aware that you will insist that the membership of each group was based on relatedness but that would be 'begging the question'. Or you could try your other tactic of pretending that I said something other than what I said - Eg. 'Being a member of a species excludes relatedness.'

You have no idea what begging the question means. What determines "relatedness", Mags?

Figure that out (it's not hard), and you'll realise why every single one of those 1,250,000 species has a lot to do with relatedness.

And just to verify what I said - IF you belong to Homo Sapiens group is your membership dependant on a paternity test?

MagellanIs relatedness determined by paternity tests alone? No. Therefore, irrelevant.

What determines relatedness, Mags?

Faid

March 9th 2011, 07:13 AM

So Mags... Do you think that whales and mice are different species? Yes or no please, and also WHY.

lao tzu

March 9th 2011, 07:27 AM

I understand that you think that.
I understand that you have a need to assert that.
i understand you speak with authority.
I understand that you know heaps more than i do. I understand that I am unwilling to learn.
I understand that you need to tell me about your assertions.
I understand that merely by saying these things to you I am indicating how unwilling to learn from you I am.
You must redouble your assertive efforts. I understand that.

It's my fault .
I bring your assertions down upon myself.
I can't complain and I am not complaining.
Please continue asserting things.

Magellan

http://epicurious.blogs.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/12/10/cheese_and_wine_2.jpg

magellan004

March 9th 2011, 11:21 AM

So Mags... Do you think that whales and mice are different species? Yes or no please, and also WHY.

If your definitions/definitions of Species revolve around the concept of all species being related then there is no one answer. There are many whales. There are many types of whales.
There are whales that you see and just know from experience that they are whales.
There are whales that belong to conceptual group of 'all whales'.
There are whales that have had children.
There are whales that will have children in future.
There are whales that have had children that have died.
There are whales where their lineage has died out.
There are whales that cannot have children for a multitude of reasons.
There are animals that you mistook for whales and
There are whales which you might not understand to be whales but someone else will call 'whale'.
There are 'whales' that will be called whales today but will not qualify as whales tomorrow.
There are whales that have died and
There are whales whose characteristics you cannot know about.
There are whales that can be identified through a variety of tests and
There are whales that cannot be tested or identified through tests.

There are whales that you think can be identified as 'capable of interbreeding' and
There are whales that you thought could be identified as 'capable of interbreeding ' which turn out to not belong to that group.

With mice - it depends on your definitions ...

It also depends on whether, according to you, since you are the one who understands these matters, an animal 'has to' belong to a Species. In other words - if a 'Whale' doesn't make it to the 'Whale Species' that could mean that that animal either belongs to no Species or belongs to another Species. I have heard that there are areas of overlap, grey areas, unknowns.

Can a 'whale' from the shadowy areas belong to the same shadowy region that a 'mouse' in this barren exile belongs to or does each poorly defined creature inhabit its own lonely Species?

Magellan

ericmurphy

March 9th 2011, 11:30 AM

I understand that you think that.
I understand that you have a need to assert that.
i understand you speak with authority.
I understand that you know heaps more than i do. I understand that I am unwilling to learn.
I understand that you need to tell me about your assertions.
I understand that merely by saying these things to you I am indicating how unwilling to learn from you I am.
You must redouble your assertive efforts. I understand that.

It's my fault .
I bring your assertions down upon myself.
I can't complain and I am not complaining.
Please continue asserting things.

Magellan

Admitting you have a problem is the first step on the road to recovery.

ericmurphy

March 9th 2011, 11:44 AM

If your definitions/definitions of Species revolve around the concept of all species being related then there is no one answer. There are many whales. There are many types of whales.
Are you saying you think some whales might be the same species as mice? Which ones might those be? The little ones? But no, Magellan: no one's definition of "species" assumes that all species are related. We've been through this.

Why is it that even after someone tells you they don't assume something, you continue to believe they're assuming that something?

There are whales that you see and just know from experience that they are whales.
There are whales that belong to conceptual group of 'all whales'.
There are whales that have had children.
There are whales that will have children in future.
There are whales that have had children that have died.
There are whales where their lineage has died out.
There are whales that cannot have children for a multitude of reasons.
Okay, but what does this have to do with whether or not whales and mice are the same species? Why are you so reluctant to answer this question, especially when the answer is so obvious? I know you think no question has an obvious answer, but this one does.

There are animals that you mistook for whales and
We're not talking about animals that are not whales.

There are whales which you might not understand to be whales but someone else will call 'whale'.
We're not talking about animals which might or might not be whales.

There are 'whales' that will be called whales today but will not qualify as whales tomorrow.
We're talking about animals that are whales today. Do you doubt that, e.g., sperm whales are whales, or that blue whales are whales? Or is this another question without an obvious answer?

There are whales that have died and
Maybe living whales aren't mice but dead whales are?

There are whales whose characteristics you cannot know about.
We're not talking about mystery whales. We're talking about organisms that are clearly identifiable as whales.

There are whales that can be identified through a variety of tests and
There are whales that cannot be tested or identified through tests.

Oh, really? You think so? But in any case, we're talking about regular, plain old whales, that a preschooler could identify as a whale. Or maybe you don't think such whales exist?

There are whales that you think can be identified as 'capable of interbreeding' and
There are whales that you thought could be identified as 'capable of interbreeding ' which turn out to not belong to that group.

We're asking you if you think they're capable of interbreeding with mice.

With mice - it depends on your definitions ...

So you're not too clear on what a mouse is? We're talking about one of these:

http://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/mouse.jpg

(And, incidentally, not one of these:

https://testpilot.mozillalabs.com/testcases/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/middle-mouse-button-press.png

It also depends on whether, according to you, since you are the one who understands these matters, an animal 'has to' belong to a Species. In other words - if a 'Whale' doesn't make it to the 'Whale Species' that could mean that that animal either belongs to no Species or belongs to another Species. I have heard that there are areas of overlap, grey areas, unknowns.

You've heard of organisms that don't belong to any species at all? Really? Which ones are those?

Well, I suppose one could argue that since the concept of species (at least the BSC) doesn't really apply to asexually-reproducing organisms. But I hope you don't believe whales reproduce asexually.

…do you?

Can a 'whale' from the shadowy areas belong to the same shadowy region that a 'mouse' in this barren exile belongs to or does each poorly defined creature inhabit its own lonely Species?

No. Do you think there's any possibility at all that a whale could belong to some species that a mouse also belongs to?

It's really quite fascinating watching the gyrations you're engaged in to avoid answering a question any kindergarten student could answer without thinking.

rogue06

March 9th 2011, 12:02 PM

Hmm, maybe m004 has something with his blatherings about mice and whales being the same species. How else can we explain the mating that produced this...

Ladies and gentleman (and m004), I present you with the one and only

Whale Mouse
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5286/5358069371_7b41726986_z.jpg

Sparko

March 9th 2011, 12:11 PM

Hmm, maybe m004 has something with his blatherings about mice and whales being the same species. How else can we explain the mating that produced this...

Ladies and gentleman (and m004), I present you with the one and only

Oh yeah? then what species is THIS??

http://www.amazon.com/Humanscale-Whale-Mouse-button-wired/dp/B000QCL4DO

Clearly you evilutionists have no idea what delineates a species!

rogue06

March 9th 2011, 12:28 PM

My whale mouse is infinitely cuter meaning an increased chance of mating. So there 64948

ericmurphy

March 9th 2011, 01:33 PM

One of these things:

http://fascinatingly.com/home/images/stories/humpback_whale.jpg

http://www.sea-way.org/blog/Right_Whale_4.JPG

http://www.beringclimate.noaa.gov/essays/FinWhale-Lori-sml.jpg

http://www.mus-musculus.com/mouse.jpg

—is not like the others.

rogue06

March 9th 2011, 01:52 PM

Sparko

March 9th 2011, 02:07 PM

One of these things:

—is not like the others.

are you sure?

64949

ericmurphy

March 9th 2011, 02:32 PM

Mouse: Mus musculus.

Blue whale: Balaenoptera musculus

Maybe they are the same species.

magellan004

March 9th 2011, 02:38 PM

This is one

ericmurphy

March 9th 2011, 03:04 PM

Third one. Its a smaller picture :smug:

I should have made a notation: not to scale.

ericmurphy

March 9th 2011, 03:04 PM

This is one

One what? A whale? Or a mouse? Or is there no difference?

magellan004

March 9th 2011, 03:16 PM

One what? A whale? Or a mouse? Or is there no difference?

Errr ... isn't that sort of the point - How do you know what it is unless you know.

Magellan

ericmurphy

March 9th 2011, 03:25 PM

Not knowing anything about these two organisms—not knowing their names, any claims being made about their relationship, if any, to each other—but merely knowing what they look like and where they live, anyone of remotely normal intelligence would understand that they are not the same species.

That you steadfastly refuse to even commit one way or another—that you refuse to say whether you think they are, or that they are not, the same species, speaks volumes about your integrity and seriousness.

Really, Magellan: why are you so hesitant to stake out a position on this rather straightforward issue? I assure you: even the most recalcitrant, dyed-in-the-wool, true-blue, rock-ribbed biblical literalist who believes in the literal truth of the Genesis story would have no difficulty asserting that whales and mice are not the same species. A reasonably bright pre-schooler would unhesitatingly describe a whale and a mouse as belonging to different species after being given a ten-second explanation with examples of what a "species" is.

You complained earlier about no one taking you seriously, that everyone thinks you're a clown and a dunce and a troll. Don't you understand that your refusal even to state whether or not you believe whales and mice are the same species is exactly the kind of bizarre and lunatic behavior that makes people think these things of you?

Faid

March 9th 2011, 03:25 PM

If your definitions/definitions of Species revolve around the concept of all species being related then there is no one answer. There are many whales. There are many types of whales.
There are whales that you see and just know from experience that they are whales.
There are whales that belong to conceptual group of 'all whales'.
There are whales that have had children.
There are whales that will have children in future.
There are whales that have had children that have died.
There are whales where their lineage has died out.
There are whales that cannot have children for a multitude of reasons.
There are animals that you mistook for whales and
There are whales which you might not understand to be whales but someone else will call 'whale'.
There are 'whales' that will be called whales today but will not qualify as whales tomorrow.
There are whales that have died and
There are whales whose characteristics you cannot know about.
There are whales that can be identified through a variety of tests and
There are whales that cannot be tested or identified through tests.

There are whales that you think can be identified as 'capable of interbreeding' and
There are whales that you thought could be identified as 'capable of interbreeding ' which turn out to not belong to that group.Mags, all of the above are true, EVEN IF "your definitions/definitions of Species revolve around the concept of all species being related".

Because we are talking about, you know, whales.

With mice - it depends on your definitions ...
Nope. If we substitute "mice" for "whale" in all of the above, what you get is also true, but it also has nothing to do with whether "your definitions/definitions of Species revolve around the concept of all species being related".

You got aaaall those whales. And, you got aaaall those mice.

Do you (YOU) think they are different species, or not, and WHY?

Lemme put it this way. Linnaeus had a firm position on the subject, and he didn't think that "all animals are related" through common descent.

So what's YOUR position?

It also depends on whether, according to you, since you are the one who understands these matters, an animal 'has to' belong to a Species. In other words - if a 'Whale' doesn't make it to the 'Whale Species' that could mean that that animal either belongs to no Species or belongs to another Species. I have heard that there are areas of overlap, grey areas, unknowns.It depends on nothing of the sort. I am not asking you of specific individuals. I am asking you about whales and mice. But if you think there's a chance for a specific individual whale, and a specific individual mouse, to belong to the same species (which is the only way the above makes sense), then please elaborate.

Can a 'whale' from the shadowy areas belong to the same shadowy region that a 'mouse' in this barren exile belongs to or does each poorly defined creature inhabit its own lonely Species?
You tell me. Don't forget to support your claim.

magellan004

March 9th 2011, 03:46 PM

Mags, all of the above are true, EVEN IF "your definitions/definitions of Species revolve around the concept of all species being related".

Because we are talking about, you know, whales.

Nope. If we substitute "mice" for "whale" in all of the above, what you get is also true, but it also has nothing to do with whether "your definitions/definitions of Species revolve around the concept of all species being related".

You got aaaall those whales. And, you got aaaall those mice.

Do you (YOU) think they are different species, or not, and WHY?

Lemme put it this way. Linnaeus had a firm position on the subject, and he didn't think that "all animals are related" through common descent.

So what's YOUR position?
It depends on nothing of the sort. I am not asking you of specific individuals. I am asking you about whales and mice. But if you think there's a chance for a specific individual whale, and a specific individual mouse, to belong to the same species (which is the only way the above makes sense), then please elaborate.

You tell me. Don't forget to support your claim.

Post 684

I do not accept that there is necessarily any biological relationship between species. You do.
Your concept of Species is different to my concept of Species.

I accept that there is a classification system that uses the term "species' and which sorts animals into species depending on physical characteristics.

You believe that there is an underlying relatedness between Species.
So your term for groups of animals related by common decent but which cannot interbreed - 'Species' is different to my term for a group of animals with similar physical characteristics.

I have tried to explain why I see this 'double meaning' in the term 'Species' to be a problem when people discuss Evolutionary concepts.

From what I see in recent posts 'Species' is now not a matter of taxonomy, not a matter of genetics, not a matter of animals that interbreed- it's 'How could you be so stupid as to not know what species X is?.

So we can add that to our list of definitiona of species -

Species - a classification system so obvious to any normal person that anyone who question my version of it is obviously dishonest, evasive, gutless - a troll.'

Magellan

ericmurphy

March 9th 2011, 03:48 PM

You know, I was almost starting to feel bad for Magellan. What can I say; believe it or not, I'm a pretty empathetic guy. Clearly the laughter and abuse Magellan's been subjected to for the past year is starting to get to him.

But then, I remember that's brought it all on himself. I can't think of a single comment made about him by any other poster that wasn't richly deserved. I mean, seriously: he won't even say whether the thinks whales and mice are the same species or not.

ericmurphy

March 9th 2011, 03:59 PM

Post 684
I do not accept that there is necessarily any biological relationship between species. You do.
Your concept of Species is different to my concept of Species.

Why do you keep bringing this up, Magellan? It doesn't matter whether or not we, or you, believe different species are related by common descent. If mice and whales are completely unrelated, do you think that means they can't be in different species? If they're totally related, do you think that means they can't be different species?

From what I see in recent posts 'Species' is now not a matter of taxonomy, not a matter of genetics, not a matter of animals that interbreed- it's 'How could you be so stupid as to not know what species X is?.

It's a matter of all of those things. In this particular instance—the conspecificity, or lack thereof, of whales and mice—you don't need to do much in the way taxonomical, genetic, or morphological inference in order to determine they're not the same species. Any more than you need to do much analysis to realize that a paper airplane is smaller than a Boeing 747-400.

So we can add that to our list of definitiona of species -

Species - a classification system so obvious to any normal person that anyone who question my version of it is obviously dishonest, evasive, gutless - a troll.'

I think this graphic once again become relevant:

http://www.planet-deepblu.com/~eric/graphic_links/GrayVsBandW.png

It takes some investigation to determine whether, say, chimps and bonobos, or B. m. musculus and B. m. intermedia are the same species.

It takes no investigation whatsoever to determine whether or not whales and mice are the same species.

No one can really, honestly, be this obtuse. But I don't think Magellan is necessarily trolling. I think he is just so desperate to prove evolutionary theory is wrong that he is willing to go to extremes like insisting it is impossible to tell if whales and mice are the same species.

At least, I hope that's what's going on. If he really is this stupid…

ericmurphy

March 9th 2011, 04:01 PM

Apparently Magellan believes that because it can be hard to tell which of two identically-sized cinder-blocks is heavier, it is also hard to tell which of a cinder-block and a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier is heavier.

Is this point ever going to be made with you, Magellan? Or is it simply beyond you?

magellan004

March 9th 2011, 04:05 PM

One what? A whale? Or a mouse? Or is there no difference?

Tell me something - and yes, I am trolling and presenting absurdities that no sane person would ever come up with -

If you think it is even remotely possible that someone can, could or one day will design a computer simulation of evolution - whether crude or sophisticated - that includes things like a starting point, genetic information, environmental factors, evolutionary-like mechanisms and so on -
and let's say they had a powerful enough computer to run the model to reflect a significant time scale -

Do you imagine that one of the units the model might include would be an individual organism?
Maybe they couldn't or wouldn't or shouldn't use individual organisms. Maybe they could only use groups or clusters or flows - who knows?

But if they did, and sure - this is all just possibilities - do you think they might be able to stop the simulation at various stages and step through to see what was happening from one period to the next?

I am aware that some people have produced simulations - but my question is really about the possibility of including basic units in the simulation and being able to step-through the sequence of events.

Perhaps that would be against the Laws of Evolutionists? That is - the laws of reason and science.

Magellan

Faid

March 9th 2011, 04:13 PM

Post 684

From what I see in recent posts 'Species' is now not a matter of taxonomy, not a matter of genetics, not a matter of animals that interbreed- it's 'How could you be so stupid as to not know what species X is?.

So we can add that to our list of definitiona of species -

Species - a classification system so obvious to any normal person that anyone who question my version of it is obviously dishonest, evasive, gutless - a troll.'

Magellan

So what, you're just gonna ignore what I wrote and keep blabbering as usual?

Like I said: Whether you "accept that there is necessarily any biological relationship between species" is irrelevant in this question. We're asking you to tell us if you think whales and mice are the SAME species or not. And why.

It's a simple question.

Linnaeus could have answered it.

Darwin could have answered it.

My 10-year old nephew could have answered it.

Can you?

Faid

March 9th 2011, 04:16 PM

ericmurphy

March 9th 2011, 04:33 PM

Tell me something - and yes, I am trolling and presenting absurdities that no sane person would ever come up with -

If you think it is even remotely possible that someone can, could or one day will design a computer simulation of evolution - whether crude or sophisticated - that includes things like a starting point, genetic information, environmental factors, evolutionary-like mechanisms and so on -
and let's say they had a powerful enough computer to run the model to reflect a significant time scale -

Already been done, Magellan. Evolution has been simulated in computers for years. Genetic algorithms, which are used in industry for things like antenna design, use evolutionary processes to come up with novel designs unlike anything human engineers have ever designed.

Do you imagine that one of the units the model might include would be an individual organism?
Yes. Evolution involves individual organisms, just as a gas involves individual molecules.

Maybe they couldn't or wouldn't or shouldn't use individual organisms. Maybe they could only use groups or clusters or flows - who knows?

Evolution is an emergent phenomenon. You can't meaningfully talk about individual organisms "evolving" any more than you can talk about whether an individual water molecule is a solid, a liquid, or a gas.

But if they did, and sure - this is all just possibilities - do you think they might be able to stop the simulation at various stages and step through to see what was happening from one period to the next?

Yes, Magellan, they do. But they don't set down a bit long verbal description of what happens to each organism at each generation, which is apparently what you want. What you can't do is tell us what value you think there would be in such a verbal description.

I am aware that some people have produced simulations - but my question is really about the possibility of including basic units in the simulation and being able to step-through the sequence of events.

Perhaps that would be against the Laws of Evolutionists? That is - the laws of reason and science.

Since it's actually done, Magellan, I think it's safe to conclude it's not against the laws of evolutionists.

Here's a good simulation of evolutionary processes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0

You'll note that the author does not actually describe each and every generation of the tens of thousands of generations the simulation runs. As the narration states, there are long periods—many generations—where essentially nothing happens.

If you can explain to me what purpose would be served by setting forth a big long narrative of every single one of hundreds of thousands of generations, any two of which if they are consecutive are for all intents and purposes identical, then maybe I'll think about devoting ten years of my life to writing it all down.

But in the meantime, here's a simpler assignment: please tell me whether or not you believe whales and mice are the same species. It's a yes or no question. If you want to say, "No, and here's why_______," or "Yes, and here's why______________," that's fine. But there's no reason why you simply cannot answer the question.

Faid

March 9th 2011, 04:40 PM

But in the meantime, here's a simpler assignment: please tell me whether or not you believe whales and mice are the same species. It's a yes or no question. If you want to say, "No, and here's why_______," or "Yes, and here's why______________," that's fine. But there's no reason why you simply cannot answer the question.And of course, Mags will now simply ignore this question, and keep on with his computer simulation derail. He is nothing if not predictable.

magellan004

March 9th 2011, 04:55 PM

Like I said: Whether you "accept that there is necessarily any biological relationship between species" is irrelevant in this question. We're asking you to tell us if you think whales and mice are the SAME species or not. And why.

Your rules.
You get to determine what is and isn't relevant.
You get to determine the questions that must be answered.

Sorry to burst your bubble.
It is not irrelevant. The evolutionists have appropriated the term Species which really still revolves around physical characteristics and changed (attempted to change, and are failing badly if your babble is any indication) it's meaning so that it's wound up with relatedness and common descent.

You are irrelevant because you have no idea of the issues. You're like one of the inhabitants of The Island Of Doctor Moreau who speaks 'Big Think'. At least those guys were scary.

Tell me what you are talking about , what you mean by Species and if your definition is half coherent I'll answer your question.

Magellan

ericmurphy

March 9th 2011, 05:08 PM

Your rules.
You get to determine what is and isn't relevant.
You get to determine the questions that must be answered.

Look: if you think it's relevant whether or not we think different species are related, then explain why you think it's relevant. If you can't explain why you think it's relevant, then drop it.

If you don't want to answer questions, fine, be that way. But if you continue to post here anyway, people are going to continue to think you're a worthless moronic troll.

It's hard to sympathize with you, Magellan, when your behavior continues to be deserving of the derision and abuse you get.

Sorry to burst your bubble.
It is not irrelevant.
Then what's the relevance?

The evolutionists have appropriated the term Species which really still revolves around physical characteristics and changed (attempted to change, and are failing badly if your babble is any indication) it's meaning so that it's wound up with relatedness and common descent.

The word "species," as used in evolutionary biology, is devoid of evolutionary assumptions of preconceptions and has nothing to do with whether or not common descent is true. Two organisms are or are not conspecific regardless of whether or not common descent is true, and regardless of whether or not organisms in different species are related at all. If you think otherwise, then explain what you think those assumptions or preconceptions are. Don't just continue to assert they're there. We can't fix a problem for you if you won't explain what your problem is.

You are irrelevant because you have no idea of the issues.
The reason we don't know what the issues are is BECAUSE YOU WILL NOT TELL US WHAT THEY ARE. You clearly have a problem with whatever evolutionary preconceptions you think are involved in the term "species" as we've been using it, but you can't tell us what you think those preconceptions are.

Why is that?

Tell me what you are talking about , what you mean by Species and if your definition is half coherent I'll answer your question.

We've given you definitions of species over and over and over again, to the point of exhaustion. Whales and mice are different species by ALL of those definitions. If you want to say, "Whales are/are not the same species as mice under this definition, but are/are not the same species this other definition," THAT'S FINE.

The problem, Magellan, is that you fail and refuse to answer the question at all! Under any circumstances.

And that kind of behavior is exactly why everyone here thinks you're a worthless, moronic troll.

magellan004

March 9th 2011, 05:09 PM

Already been done, Magellan. Evolution has been simulated in computers for years. Genetic algorithms, which are used in industry for things like antenna design, use evolutionary processes to come up with novel designs unlike anything human engineers have ever designed.

Yes. Evolution involves individual organisms, just as a gas involves individual molecules.

Evolution is an emergent phenomenon. You can't meaningfully talk about individual organisms "evolving" any more than you can talk about whether an individual water molecule is a solid, a liquid, or a gas.

Yes, Magellan, they do. But they don't set down a bit long verbal description of what happens to each organism at each generation, which is apparently what you want. What you can't do is tell us what value you think there would be in such a verbal description.

Since it's actually done, Magellan, I think it's safe to conclude it's not against the laws of evolutionists.

Here's a good simulation of evolutionary processes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0

You'll note that the author does not actually describe each and every generation of the tens of thousands of generations the simulation runs. As the narration states, there are long periods—many generations—where essentially nothing happens.

If you can explain to me what purpose would be served by setting forth a big long narrative of every single one of hundreds of thousands of generations, any two of which if they are consecutive are for all intents and purposes identical, then maybe I'll think about devoting ten years of my life to writing it all down.

But in the meantime, here's a simpler assignment: please tell me whether or not you believe whales and mice are the same species. It's a yes or no question. If you want to say, "No, and here's why_______," or "Yes, and here's why______________," that's fine. But there's no reason why you simply cannot answer the question.

So let's put your stupid assertions of 'It can't be done' to rest.
If a model of evolution involves 'species' (which it must do) and individuals (which it must do)
then for each and every individual we would be able to answer 'Does this individual belong to this species?'

Because a computer programmer doesn't have the luxury of saying 'Sometimes I can't answer because it goes all fuzzy.'

It is either Yes or No.

MAgellan

ericmurphy

March 9th 2011, 05:24 PM

So let's put your stupid assertions of 'It can't be done' to rest.
If a model of evolution involves 'species' (which it must do) and individuals (which it must do)
then for each and every individual we would be able to answer 'Does this individual belong to this species?'

All bears are mammals. That doesn't mean all mammals are bears.

Yes, Magellan, evolutionary theory does talk about "species." Although I don't think common descent would differ in any meaningful way if you removed the concept of "species" from the concept of "common descent."

But it doesn't matter anyway, because that's not your claim.

You are claiming that the concept of "species" necessarily depends on the concept of "common descent."

But you can't tell us why.

Why would the concept of species, WHICH PREDATES ANY CONCEPT OF COMMON DESCENT, depend on the concept of common descent?

Because a computer programmer doesn't have the luxury of saying 'Sometimes I can't answer because it goes all fuzzy.'

It is either Yes or No.

WHAT is a "yes or a no"?

Do know? Or have you completely lost track of your train of thought.

But I think at this point, it's safe to say that Magellan can no more say whether he thinks whales are or are not the same species than he can say which of these two swans is white and which is black:

http://www.planet-deepblu.com/~eric/graphic_links/BlackAndWhite.jpg

ericmurphy

March 9th 2011, 05:26 PM

And by the way, Magellan. We aren't the ones who are saying you can't say whether or not a whale and a mouse are conspecific because the concept of "species" is too fuzzy.

You are.

ericmurphy

March 9th 2011, 05:34 PM

A comment for the non-brain dead reading this. If we define "species" as "a group of sexually-reproducing organisms which can and do exchange heritable genetic information during reproduction in the wild," then all sexually-reproducing organisms do or do not belong to any given species.

Whether we have determined, or can determine, conspecificity based on that definition is irrelevant to that fact. Every star in the universe has a specific location in space, even if we don't know what it is. So Magellan's complaint about our not always being able to determine conspecificity is without merit.

ericmurphy

March 9th 2011, 05:39 PM

Oh, and another by the way: if you think computers always answer "yes" or "no," try dividing by zero.

Yes, Magellan, even in mathematics definitions can be "fuzzy."

rogue06

March 9th 2011, 05:44 PM

Why would the concept of species, WHICH PREDATES ANY CONCEPT OF COMMON DESCENT, depend on the concept of common descent?

Just a historical note; the concept of species and IIRC even the word was being bandied about in the early 16th century. That predates the ToE by roughly three and a half centuries.

ericmurphy

March 9th 2011, 05:50 PM

I think even Aristotle would have been able to identify deer and rabbits, let alone whales and mice, as belonging to different species, if you used the ancient Greek word equivalent for "species."

Can you help us out, Faid?

Faid

March 9th 2011, 05:55 PM

Your rules.Nope. The rules of Reality.

You get to determine what is and isn't relevant.Logic gets to do that. When the question is "are whales and mice the SAME species", the question whether all different species are related or not is irrelevant.

You get to determine the questions that must be answered.I get to determine the questions I am asking you, Mags. You get to respond to them, or expose your inability to do so.

Sorry to burst your bubble.Let's see.

It is not irrelevant. The evolutionists have appropriated the term Species which really still revolves around physical characteristics and changed (attempted to change, and are failing badly if your babble is any indication) it's meaning so that it's wound up with relatedness and common descent.I could care less. Like I said before, again and again and again, we are NOT talking about relationships between various species, but about whether whales and mice are the SAME species or not.

Linnaeus believed in a rigid fixity of species. No "evo-jargon". Do you have any doubts about whether he could have answered that question, Mags?

Of course not. You're just hopelessly evading.

You are irrelevant because you have no idea of the issues. You're like one of the inhabitants of The Island Of Doctor Moreau who speaks 'Big Think'. At least those guys were scary.Yawn.

Answer the question, Mags.

Tell me what you are talking about , what you mean by Species and if your definition is half coherent I'll answer your question.Since I'm asking you what YOU think, what I think is irrelevant. Unless you don't think that species exist. Do you think that species exist, Mags? Not me, or Eric, or "evolutionists"- YOU. Do YOU think that species exist?

Let us know, as soon as you respond to the whales/mice question.

You're not fooling anyone.

ericmurphy

March 9th 2011, 06:00 PM

"So Karl, do you think whales and mice are the same species?"

"Vell, chee… I vouldn't be able to ansver zhat qvestion vithout knowink vetoer or not commonk deskent is korrect…"

But, Karl, you've never even heard of common descent. That won't exist as a concept for another century or more.

"Oh, right…vhat vas I thinkgink?"

Faid

March 9th 2011, 06:08 PM

So let's put your stupid assertions of 'It can't be done' to rest.
If a model of evolution involves 'species' (which it must do) and individuals (which it must do)
then for each and every individual we would be able to answer 'Does this individual belong to this species?'

Because a computer programmer doesn't have the luxury of saying 'Sometimes I can't answer because it goes all fuzzy.'

It is either Yes or No.

MagellanWord salad.

The question is clear, Mags.

You can't say "it depends on the case", because we've given you a specific case: whales and mice.

You can't say "it depends on whether all species are related", because we're talking about whether whales and mice belong in a SINGLE species.

You can't say "it depends on the definition of species you evos use", because we've asked YOU to use whatever definition YOU accept and determine whether whales and mice are the same species.

You can't say "it depends on the individual whale or mouse", because we've allowed you to use YOUR criteria to consider even an individual whale and an individual mouse as members of the same species.

You can't say "it depends on what you believe" because we're asking you what YOU believe.

You can't escape.

Respond.

Faid

March 9th 2011, 06:13 PM

ericmurphy

March 9th 2011, 06:14 PM

He can't even start a new thread; the mods will just combine it with this one.

The choices are:

respond
refuse to respond
bail

magellan004

March 9th 2011, 06:44 PM

You are claiming that the concept of "species" necessarily depends on the concept of "common descent."

Rubbish.

Think man!
Read what is before your eyes.

If you hear 'Species' you think it means part of a 'tree of life' biologically related by common descent.

Species doesn't mean that at all.
You assume a species is part of a conglomerate of related life.
That's your assumption . Species doesn't depend on that at all.

And you can't even contemplate a meaning of species where there is no underlying assumption of common descent. That's your sticking point. Think species - Think common descent. Automatic pilot - disengage brain. This Species must have 'Speciated'.

''How can we have a Species that has not speciated? It's simply uncontemplatable.

A Mouse belongs to that group of animals that have certain physical characteristics.

That's what Species means and always did mean - and until someone comes up with something more supported - and that includes the 'let's pretend' scenario of evolution - it will remain the meaning of 'Species'..

Magellan

rogue06

March 9th 2011, 07:46 PM

Linnaeus believed in a rigid fixity of species. No "evo-jargon". Do you have any doubts about whether he could have answered that question, Mags?

Well...

Although Linnaeus originally declared that nature was a fixed order of permanent structures and in the fixity of the species, which he expressed as “Unitas in omni specie ordinem ducit” (“The invariability of species is the condition for order ”), he appears to have had second thoughts when he realized that new species could be formed by hybridization (and even described four examples in “[i]Dissertation on the Sexes of Plants”).

From the 1766 edition of “Systema Naturae” Linnaeus removed his well-known refrain “Nullae species novae" ("No new species") and scratched out the phrase “Natura non facit saltum” ("Nature makes no leaps") from his personal copy of his “Philosophia botanica.”

He was, in fact, the first leading naturalist to openly dispute immutability though it is unlikely that he viewed the process as being open-ended and without limit. In his “Systema Vegetabilium” Linnaeus proposes that God could have created only one plant of each order (the “primae speciei,” the original species in the Garden of Eden) and then crossbred them to form the genera followed by permitting nature to create the species within each genus by additional crossings.

In his diary he expanded upon this idea writing that the original species of each genus had been impregnated “accidentally” suggesting that he was seeking some sort of historical explanation for the origin of both genus and species and deemed that the result, by a large degree, was resolved by chance.

In fact, Linnaeus even speculated in “Species plantarum” that “daughters of time” (new species) could be created through the influence of climate and geography. Further, he was aware of the struggle for survival having called nature a "butcher's block" and a "war of all against all" :cool:

Needless to say none of this in any way supports m004's various bizarre assertions

ericmurphy

March 9th 2011, 08:04 PM

Rubbish.

Think man!
Read what is before your eyes.

Reading what is before my eyes tell me you think my concept of "species" depends on the concept of common descent. And sure enough:

If you hear 'Species' you think it means part of a 'tree of life' biologically related by common descent.

Stop telling me what I "think," Magellan. You don't even know what YOU think, let alone what I think. I have told you over and over again that the meaning of the word "species" has NOTHING TO DO with whether common descent is or isn't true. What, do you think I'm lying about that? You think I secretly do think the concept of species necessarily means different species are related by common descent?

Species doesn't mean that at all.
I don't think it does, either. I've TOLD you I don't think it does. So why do you keep claiming I do think it does? What, can you read minds now?

You assume a species is part of a conglomerate of related life.
That's your assumption . Species doesn't depend on that at all.

HOW MANY FREAKING TIMES DO I HAVE TO TELL YOU THAT THE CONCEPT OF "SPECIES" HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHETHER OR NOT COMMON DESCENT IS TRUE?

And you can't even contemplate a meaning of species where there is no underlying assumption of common descent. That's your sticking point.
This is surreal. No matter how many times I tell you the concept of species has nothing to do with the concept of common descent, you keep insisting that I think it does.

Tell you what: YOU believe that common descent is true, and are only lying when you claim otherwise. No matter how many times you tell me you think common descent is false, I know for a fact that you think it's true.

So what are we arguing about? You already accept common descent!

Think species - Think common descent. Automatic pilot - disengage brain. This Species must have 'Speciated'.

''How can we have a Species that has not speciated? It's simply uncontemplatable.

Why do you keep pretending you don't accept evolutionary theory? Stop lying about not accepting evolutionary theory.

You know you do.

A Mouse belongs to that group of animals that have certain physical characteristics.

That's what Species means and always did mean - and until someone comes up with something more supported - and that includes the 'let's pretend' scenario of evolution - it will remain the meaning of 'Species'..

So why do you keep claiming that species are related by common descent?

ericmurphy

March 9th 2011, 08:14 PM

Magellan, please explain how the concept of "species" depends on the concept of common descent, when the concept of what a species is predates the notion of common by several thousand years.

magellan004

March 9th 2011, 08:57 PM

Magellan, please explain how the concept of "species" depends on the concept of common descent, when the concept of what a species is predates the notion of common by several thousand years.

It doesn't.
Species has nothing to do with common descent.
You don't think it does, neither do I.

The Species that Whales belong to , let's call it Whales for now, has always been Whales. It was always composed of whales. It has no biological relationship to any other species and never did. The ancestors of any whales now living were also members of 'Whales'.
We agree.
RIP Evolution.

By the way, did you ever figure out -

What is Speciation?

Magellan

magellan004

March 9th 2011, 09:20 PM

But I think at this point, it's safe to say that Magellan can no more say whether he thinks whales are or are not the same species than he can say which of these two swans is white and which is black:

How do you know when something is unsafe for you to say? You have said the most preposterous things and never batted an eyelid.

The simulation of evolution is a classic case - 'It can't be done'
'It would take too long'
'We can't do this, we can't do that.'
'We can't do a verbal simulation'.
'We can't identify one individual - we can only look at overall masses of things.'
and so on.

The Beetles was presented as a simulation and you have had to eat your words because it (simulation) can be done and is being done.

SO how do you overcome the problem that (according to your Darwinistic fairy story) there would have to have been one first Beetle born to parents and different in a way that prevented it from mating with Brown Beetles when its parent could have mated with Brown Beetles?

Magellan

ericmurphy

March 9th 2011, 09:35 PM

It doesn't.
Species has nothing to do with common descent.
You don't think it does, neither do I.

So what was that tirade in your last post about how I do think it has something to do with common descent?

The Species that Whales belong to , let's call it Whales for now, has always been Whales.
That's your claim. That's always been your claim. And that's fine. My opinion differs from yours, and I have vastly more evidence to support my opinion, but we can deal with that (or could, if you could manage an honest argument).

But that has nothing to do with whether whales and mice are the same or different species. A question you continue to fail to answer.

It was always composed of whales. It has no biological relationship to any other species and never did. The ancestors of any whales now living were also members of 'Whales'.
We agree.
RIP Evolution.

No. We agree that the concept of "species" has nothing to do with common descent. We definitely do NOT agree that all species are totally unrelated to each other.

So much for an honest argument from you.

By the way, did you ever figure out -

What is Speciation?

I didn't just figure it out; I explained to you how it happens at least half a dozen times. Did you ever at least figure out my explanation?

magellan004

March 9th 2011, 09:36 PM

Nope. The rules of Reality.
Logic gets to do that. When the question is "are whales and mice the SAME species", the question whether all different species are related or not is irrelevant.
I get to determine the questions I am asking you, Mags. You get to respond to them, or expose your inability to do so.
Let's see.
I could care less. Like I said before, again and again and again, we are NOT talking about relationships between various species, but about whether whales and mice are the SAME species or not.

Linnaeus believed in a rigid fixity of species. No "evo-jargon". Do you have any doubts about whether he could have answered that question, Mags?

Of course not. You're just hopelessly evading.

Yawn.

Answer the question, Mags.

Since I'm asking you what YOU think, what I think is irrelevant. Unless you don't think that species exist. Do you think that species exist, Mags? Not me, or Eric, or "evolutionists"- YOU. Do YOU think that species exist?

Let us know, as soon as you respond to the whales/mice question.

You're not fooling anyone.

Why is what Linneaus thought relevant?
You think Linneaus is relevant yet what you think is irrelevant.

'Do whales and mice belong to the same unknown group?'

Magellan

ericmurphy

March 9th 2011, 09:47 PM

How do you know when something is unsafe for you to say? You have said the most preposterous things and never batted an eyelid.

Funny how you're the only one who ever thinks anything I say is "preposterous." And given that you say things like "it's an open question whether or not whales and mice are the same species," it doesn't particularly trouble me that you think my statements are "preposterous."

The simulation of evolution is a classic case - 'It can't be done'
'It would take too long'
'We can't do this, we can't do that.'
'We can't do a verbal simulation'.
'We can't identify one individual - we can only look at overall masses of things.'
and so on.

Magellan, I really wish you would stop making up things I've never said or even implied and then attributing them to me. I just told you earlier today that people have been simulating evolutionary processes computationally for years if not decades, and in fact commercial genetic algorithm applications use evolutionary processes of reproduction, mutation, and selection to produce products like improved antenna designs.

Did you somehow miss that?

The Beetles was presented as a simulation and you have had to eat your words because it (simulation) can be done and is being done.

I never claimed simulations of evolution cannot be done. I said YOU'VE never done it. You didn't "simulate" anything with your "The Beetles." You gave some ambiguous observations with no explanation and then expected us to explain them to you. How is that a "simulation" of anything?

SO how do you overcome the problem that (according to your Darwinistic fairy story) there would have to have been one first Beetle born to parents and different in a way that prevented it from mating with Brown Beetles when its parent could have mated with Brown Beetles?

I don't have to "deal" with it because it's not a problem. The first green beetle that couldn't mate with any other beetles died without reproducing. The first green beetle that couldn't interbreed with other beetles was born long after the first brown beetle that couldn't interbreed with other beetles.

By the time there were a large number of green beetles which couldn't breed with brown beetles, there were already a large number of green beetles they could breed with.

So where's the problem, exactly?

ericmurphy

March 9th 2011, 09:49 PM

Why is what Linneaus thought relevant?

Because you kept claiming that the concept of "species" is meaningless unless you assume common descent. Obviously Linnaeus didn't think so, since he had a pretty good grasp of the species concept—and no concept of common descent.

You think Linneaus is relevant yet what you think is irrelevant.
'Do whales and mice belong to the same unknown group?'

What's "unknown" about it, Magellan?

magellan004

March 9th 2011, 10:26 PM

I don't have to "deal" with it because it's not a problem. The first green beetle that couldn't mate with any other beetles died without reproducing. The first green beetle that couldn't interbreed with other beetles was born long after the first brown beetle that couldn't interbreed with other beetles.

By the time there were a large number of green beetles which couldn't breed with brown beetles, there were already a large number of green beetles they could breed with.

So where's the problem, exactly?

Eureka! An answer.
Thank you.

(Please try to remember that anything I say anywhere, anytime, about The Beetles is always has the proviso 'according to evolution')

There would have been a first Green Beetle that couldn't mate. OK .
There would have been a first Green Beetle that could mate with other Beetles.
(assuming the first Green Beetle was not actually two twins ).
It would have been able to mate with its parent's generation.
And it couldn't mate with Brown Beetles.
SO there is a first Green Beetle that -
1. Can mate with its parent's type Beetles
2. It's different in some way to its parents (in a way that affects its ability to mate) and
2. Can't mate with Brown Beetles.

Now it's parents could mate with Brown Beetles so they can't have been Green Beetles
So what sort of difference/s could this First Green Beetle have that caused this situation?

Magellan

lao tzu

March 9th 2011, 10:32 PM

Sorry, missed this.

You don't even need genetic characters. We could infer whales and mice are related—are more closely related, in fact, then either is to a frog—purely based on fossil evidence.

But yes genetic characters works just fine as well. Probably better. I know paleontologists who think genetic characters work better.

This discussion is warped by the need to emphasize the relationship between characters and heredity. Muggles believes all physical characters are little more than the thumb-prints of his God on clay, clay that has been commanded to produce only after its own kind. So a character that is unmistakably physically inherited may be a bit extreme for a more rational audience, but fits well here.

You know you hit home when the troll finds a need for paragraphs of whining to justify ignoring a three-word rebuttal.

As ever, Jesse

magellan004

March 9th 2011, 10:56 PM

You know you hit home when the troll finds a need for paragraphs of whining to justify ignoring a three-word rebuttal.

Magellan - 'I dispute that groups based on characters reflect underlying relationships.'
Lousy Doo - 'Use some characters.'

That's a rebuttal?

Magellan

lao tzu

March 9th 2011, 11:01 PM

Magellan - 'I dispute that groups based on characters reflect underlying relationships.'

Use genetic characters.

That's a rebuttal?

Burns a bit, doesn't it?

Tiggy

March 9th 2011, 11:10 PM

Magellan - 'I dispute that groups based on characters reflect underlying relationships.'
Lousy Doo - 'Use some characters.'

That's a rebuttal?

Magellan

Clownshoes, why did you change the word genetic to some which means something quite different from what lao tzu actually said?

Is that your idea of honest Christian behavior?

- T

lao tzu

March 9th 2011, 11:11 PM

Clownshoes, why did you change the word genetic to some which means something quite different from what lao tzu actually said?

Cause I was winning, duh!

As ever, yet another Adonis from Mars

ericmurphy

March 9th 2011, 11:23 PM

Eureka! An answer.
Thank you.

Right—like I don't answer your questions at length, in detail, exhaustively, repeatedly, over and over.

(Please try to remember that anything I say anywhere, anytime, about The Beetles is always has the proviso 'according to evolution')

Don't worry, Magellan: we're well aware you don't accept a single claim, no matter how pedestrian or uncontroversial, made by science in general, let alone by evolutionary theory in particular.

There would have been a first Green Beetle that couldn't mate. OK .
And there would have been subsequent beetles that couldn't mate either. There were prior and subsequent brown beetles that couldn't mate, either.

In any population of sexually-reproducing individuals anywhere, there are many which cannot mate at all, and many which can mate but don't anyway, either due to lack of opportunity or due to kicking the bucket before they get the chance.

There would have been a first Green Beetle that could mate with other Beetles.
Even with other brown beetles.

(assuming the first Green Beetle was not actually two twins ).

Magellan, this might be news to you, but insects generally give birth to dozens if not hundreds of eggs at a time. They're not mammals. The mommy beetle doesn't get pregnant and give birth to a single child.

It would have been able to mate with its parent's generation.
This is always the case under normal circumstances. Another news flash: with extremely rare exceptions, organisms can always mate with members of their parents' generation. Which means what, Magellan?

It means they're the same species as their parents' generation.

And it couldn't mate with Brown Beetles.
SO there is a first Green Beetle that -
1. Can mate with its parent's type Beetles
2. It's different in some way to its parents (in a way that affects its ability to mate) and
2. Can't mate with Brown Beetles.

Sure. But guess what, Magellan: by the time you get to this point, there are plenty of green beetles it can mate with.

So where's this mysterious problem you seem to think exists?

Now it's parents could mate with Brown Beetles so they can't have been Green Beetles
Why not? What makes you think no green beetles can ever mate with any brown beetles?

So what sort of difference/s could this First Green Beetle have that caused this situation?

Well, this sort of situation doesn't exist in the real world, so your question is kind of pointless.