ID proponent demonstrates his grasp of biology

[magellan004]

What pray tell are you smoking?

To borrow a line from Charlie Sheen - I'm high on Magellan.

[magellan004]

So I can cross a kingsnake with a coral snake after all! Hot dog!

Sounds absurd doesn't? As absurd as the notion that the ancestors of these two types of snakes could interbreed.

Magellan

[phank]

Actually, it doesn't sound that absurd. These snakes won't interbreed voluntarily, of course, but whether or not it's possible that an occasionally living offspring might be produced would require some trial and error. Since their common ancestor was a single species, we know at THAT point interbreeding was the norm. Each branching caused these two lineages to diverge a bit. How many branchings before they COULD not interbreed? Who knows. Maybe that point has been passed today, and maybe it hasn't.

This is like asking whether two people N feet apart can hear each other if they shout. With each branching, N gets larger.

[technomage]

How would you determine the reason something had evolved?

I don't like the term "reason," as it implies that there is a guiding purpose or intelligence behind evolution (a conjecture that I happen to believe, but that has no place in science).

Nonetheless, we can discern, in some cases, the function of a behavior or trait. That functionality can tell us if the behavior or trait benefits the species that demonstrates it. As our observation is not perfect (and our knowledge not exhaustive), we have the risk of misidentifying the function of a trait or behavior, but we still have a basis to work from.

[Carrikature]

I don't like the term "reason," as it implies that there is a guiding purpose or intelligence behind evolution (a conjecture that I happen to believe, but that has no place in science).

Nonetheless, we can discern, in some cases, the function of a behavior or trait. That functionality can tell us if the behavior or trait benefits the species that demonstrates it. As our observation is not perfect (and our knowledge not exhaustive), we have the risk of misidentifying the function of a trait or behavior, but we still have a basis to work from.

I understand your issue with the term. I'm not sure what a better term is. One way or another, some trait arose. We can see its function now, but that doesn't mean that its current function was its original function (obviously). The Darwin quote Lucaspa posted doesn't seem a functional criteria. That's what I meant to convey.

[magellan004]

Actually, it doesn't sound that absurd. These snakes won't interbreed voluntarily, of course, but whether or not it's possible that an occasionally living offspring might be produced would require some trial and error. Since their common ancestor was a single species, we know at THAT point interbreeding was the norm. Each branching caused these two lineages to diverge a bit. How many branchings before they COULD not interbreed? Who knows. Maybe that point has been passed today, and maybe it hasn't.

This is like asking whether two people N feet apart can hear each other if they shout. With each branching, N gets larger.

but whether or not it's possible that an occasionally living offspring might be produced would require some trial and error. ...
Since their common ancestor was a single species, we know at THAT point interbreeding was the norm
Your trial and error experiment would establish nothing about 'Species' yet you brazenly claim that there is some way to test that long dead animals could interbreed.

When are you guys going to understand that there is no test for Species or Speciation? It's all hot air. You have tests for body parts, similarities, chemicals but NOTHING that can test for ability to interbreed (in the sense required by 'Species'.)

The test for Species is 'Do you think this animal looks like that animal?' Depending on the outcome of your 'Looks like' test, you then go on to make a conclusion about interbreeding ability.

Magellan

[pancreasman]

The test for Species is 'Do you think this animal looks like that animal?' Depending on the outcome of your 'Looks like' test, you then go on to make a conclusion about interbreeding ability.

Magellan

You asserting something doesn't make it so. In fact, given history, the reverse is usually true.