Macro Evolution: The Evidence

[magellan004]

OK, I'll repost this for the sixth time:

"The accepted definition is that two populations are considered separate species when they no longer naturally exchange genetic material, either through genetic, physical, or behavioral differences. This is not a binary process but can take thousands of years as one species slowly splits into two, during which time the exchange of genetic material gradually lessens until it ceases altogether."

I was asking about a test.
I can give you a definition of design. Will that help?

Magellan

[magellan004]

Rather than make the slightest attempt to understand any explanation about everything, you simply assume all attempts at explanation are admissions that you are correct. So why bother asking?

Consider the word "big". How large does something need to be to be considered "big"? If there is no "test for big", does this mean the word has no meaning? Or does the demand for a test reflect a deliberate misunderstanding of what the word is intended to convey?

This is incorrect. The objection is that "I can't believe this wasn't designed" isn't an explanation. There IS no "theory of intelligent design" because theories require evidence, and there is none. But to understand that, you'd need to know what a theory is. You've never shown any such understanding, nor any desire to acquire one.

Consider these statements:

Group 1:
'I think this object might be coloured red.'
'I think this object is big.'
'I think this organism is a new species.'
'I think this object is designed.'

No one could take offence at any of the above statements.
How about these?

Group 2:
'This object is coloured red.'
'This object is big.'
'This organism is a new species.'
'This object is designed.'

getting a bit more dicey - isn't it?
Now how about this-

Group 3:
'Scientists have found that this object is coloured red.'
'Scientists have found that this object is big.'
'Scientists have found that this organism is a new species.'
'Scientists have found that this object is designed.'

The above assertions are really hairy because they imply that there is a TEST. Not a definition - a TEST.

If it turned out that some scientist had just decided that the object was red because that's what he thought it was then you might wonder 'Where was the test?'
But let's say that people insisted that the 'red object ' had been subjected to overwhelming tests and evidence, and yet they couldn't supply one example of a test - then you might call their science bogus.
But let's say even then these 'Colour Red' people , after insisting that there are tests when there are none, then go on to dismiss the 'This object is big' people for being unscientific.
The wheels have fallen off their 'science' by then.


Magellan

[Tiggy]

I was asking about a test.

OK, I'll repost this for the sixth time:

"The accepted definition is that two populations are considered separate species when they no longer naturally exchange genetic material, either through genetic, physical, or behavioral differences. This is not a binary process but can take thousands of years as one species slowly splits into two, during which time the exchange of genetic material gradually lessens until it ceases altogether."

Magellan

No you weren't Clownshoes. Here are your exact words that I replied to

The $64,000 question remains - What does make a species?

Magellan

Go ahead Clownshoes, get those big boats a-tap-dancin'!

I can give you a definition of design. Will that help?

I'd offer to help you, but I don't think it possible to reverse a frontal lobotomy.

- T

[phank]

Now how about this-

Group 3:
'Scientists have found that this object is coloured red.'
'Scientists have found that this object is big.'
'Scientists have found that this organism is a new species.'
'Scientists have found that this object is designed.'
The above assertions are really hairy because they imply that there is a TEST. Not a definition - a TEST.

It would help if you actually tried to think about anything. But let's deal with this briefly anyway...

'Scientists have found that this object is coloured red.'

This starts with a conventional definition. "Red" can be defined in terms of wavelengths of light, and in terms of blends of many different wavelengths. The necessary tools for measuring those wavelengths exist, and are very accurate. The measurements can be compared with the conventional definition. This comparison is a test, but the definition is not.

'Scientists have found that this object is big.'

This is a slightly different situation. Certainly size can be measured in detail, but the measurement alone tells us nothing useful. The word "big" is entirely relative, and generally relative to some notion of normal, or average size, or within some number of standard deviations of the mean, or some such. In those cases, then, the test is to see whether the measured size falls within a specified range - a specification which might vary with every instance!

But the term "big" might have other contexts as well. A big meal might be compared not with some "average" meal, but rather with the size of past meals, or with how recently the previous meal was eaten, etc. So the point here is that the term "big" (unlike "red") is not subject to any sort of "standard" operational definition. And so you will never find a scientist "finding that an object is big." Instead, you will find physical measurements.

'Scientists have found that this organism is a new species.'

If we accept the standard definition of a species, then the test is whether or not this organism is or is not a member of a known species according to that definition. If you're looking at a fossil (where no genetic material can be exchanged), you're looking at a statement of probability. It's saying "the morphological differences between this fossil and all other known fossils is large enough so that the probability that it exchanged genetic material directly with any of them is very small." The test, then, is a physical measurement of morphological differences, rather than an observation of breeding habits.

(And it's worth noting that since the concept of species is hazy, taxonomers become "splitters" and "lumpers" of current organisms, sometimes deciding that one population indeed has breeding isolation between two groups and so splitting them into two species, and then later noticing that breeding isolation isn't as complete as they thought, and lumping the two species back into one. Where biology is hazy, definitions and tests must necessarily also be hazy.)

'Scientists have found that this object is designed.'

This situation happens commonly, because enough background information is available to make this determination with reasonable accuracy. What you will NOT find is scientists making a design determination without that background knowledge. To determine design, one must know the designer's methods, tools, and intentions. And even so, there is the occasional false positive or false negative. Not every test of everything can be completely dispositive.

The above assertions are really hairy because they imply that there is a TEST. Not a definition - a TEST.

You don't seem to understand what a test is.

[lao tzu]

Which object would that be, Mags?

The object in question.

I hope that answers your question.

Magellan

At the risk of belaboring the obvious, no, it doesn't.

I realise that thinking about general principles is beyond most evolutionists. A while ago Roy freaked out when he had to consider a test for species of an unknown organism. For poor old Roy it was unimaginable to test something unless you knew before hand whether it was a lion, a duck, a weed etc.

Evolutionists think they are clever because they can classify things when they already know what they are. The concept of testing is an anathema.

I realize that direct and specific answers are beyond most creationists. A while ago you freaked out when asked to consider a test for whether keys or some such common object were to be found in one's pocket if they were on display on the desk. For poor old Mags the location of any tangible object was simply beyond his ken.

Creationists think they are clever because they rely on the cleverness of their creator, thinking that a genuflection toward their answer man bypasses the need to find answers themselves. The concept of using their own purportedly intelligently designed minds is an anathema.

As ever, Jesse

[rogue06]

A while ago you freaked out when asked to consider a test for whether keys or some such common object were to be found in one's pocket if they were on display on the desk.

It was whether finding a set of keys in your pocket falsified the premise that those keys were in a desk drawer. Poor m004 still can't figure that one out.

[lao tzu]

It was whether finding a set of keys in your pocket falsified the premise that those keys were in a desk drawer. Poor m004 still can't figure that one out.

There was something about white and black swans, too, wasn't there?

I have issues remembering details of things that don't make a lick of sense.

[rogue06]

There was something about white and black swans, too, wasn't there?

I have issues remembering details of things that don't make a lick of sense.

I almost added to my last post, "and don't get me started on his confusion concerning how a black swan falsified the notion that 'all swans are white'."

[magellan004]

I almost added to my last post, "and don't get me started on his confusion concerning how a black swan falsified the notion that 'all swans are white'."

Oh , just as well you didn't add that then , hey?
The principle is simple. If an observation of 'I think that swan is black' without a test can show that it is true that the swan is indeed black then:
it must also follow that an observation 'The universe looks designed' establishes the truth that the universe is designed.

That's not too hard - surely?

Magellan

[magellan004]

That's the question I've been asking about Magellan for a long time now.

Your memory fails.

Magellan

[magellan004]

At the risk of belaboring the obvious, no, it doesn't.



I realize that direct and specific answers are beyond most creationists. A while ago you freaked out when asked to consider a test for whether keys or some such common object were to be found in one's pocket if they were on display on the desk. For poor old Mags the location of any tangible object was simply beyond his ken.

Creationists think they are clever because they rely on the cleverness of their creator, thinking that a genuflection toward their answer man bypasses the need to find answers themselves. The concept of using their own purportedly intelligently designed minds is an anathema.

As ever, Jesse

Like Ansgar Seraph, your memory fails. To improve your memory the pair of you should spend less time on pretended disdain and more time thinking.

Magellan

[rogue06]

Like Ansgar Seraph, your memory fails. To improve your memory the pair of you should spend less time on pretended disdain and more time thinking.

Magellan

Trust me on this m004. The disdain directed toward you is anything but pretended.

[magellan004]

Trust me on this m004. The disdain directed toward you is anything but pretended.

I trust you.

Magellan

[magellan004]

Post 318 from Tiggy:

(Ed Brattish outburst )

A tacit admission that you have no test for species. No one does. Without species Population becomes untestable. The evolution House of Card collapses. By not being able to test for population you have nothing.

Chew on it.

Magellan

[Tiggy]

Post 318 from Tiggy:

A tacit admission that you have no test for species. No one does. Without species Population becomes untestable. The evolution House of Card collapses. By not being able to test for population you have nothing.

Chew on it.

Magellan

LOL! Whatever you say Clownshoes. Your track record for scientific acumen around here is absolutely stellar.

- T