Jump to content


Photo

New Species


  • Please log in to reply
156 replies to this topic

#141 nonaffiliated

nonaffiliated

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 694 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 44
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • USA

Posted 13 January 2014 - 06:25 PM

Neither you nor I could have actually seen all the generations of puppies born to actually see all the transitions from wolf to beagle.

 

So if I were to say "we can observe, or know, or assume, that wolves "gave rise to" Beagles, I would think that someone could counter and say that that is speculative.

 

True, nobody did observe the changes from one dog breed to another dog breed.... What is your point, since this is a strawman of what I did say before.... (that is all I seem to get from you smile.png )...

 

 Trying to find the stawman here.

1st sentence) You agreed with the first part so by definition I did not misrepresent your viewpoint. On top of that I didn't refer to your viewpoint but rather stated a fact that neither of us had witnessed something.

 

2nd sentence) So if "I" were to say... Wait a minute, does that say "I"? I thought a strawman required a second party. :)

I was using that as an example and wrote that in that way so as to not make a strawman.

Maybe I am unfamiliar with what a strawman is.

 

 

Here's the main point...

How is it not speculative to say that a Beagle came from a wolf ancestor?

We can see a wolf give birth to a wolf, and a Beagle do likewise, but nobody has actually observed with their own eyes the generations of births that lead to this change from one kind of organism (a wolf is one kind of organism), to a beagle (which is a different kind of organism)

See, the term organism is ambiguous.



#142 nonaffiliated

nonaffiliated

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 694 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 44
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • USA

Posted 13 January 2014 - 06:28 PM

It would be a pretty big undertaking to do breeding studies on every species in the world.  Maybe after we divert all the science funding that's currently being wasted on a branch of 19th century metaphysics. 

I was referring to creationists. Why don't they do the research if they feel so strongly about it?

 

How is it "impossible" ? It seems pretty simple in most cases.  They differentiated by interbreeding capabilities.  Usually they are very distinct in numerous other ways like morphology and anatomy.

Maybe I worded that too strongly, but you would be amazed at how hard it is to determine the species of some animals.



#143 lifepsyop

lifepsyop

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 656 posts
  • Age: 30
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Maine

Posted 13 January 2014 - 06:35 PM

I was referring to creationists. Why don't they do the research if they feel so strongly about it?

Because they're not getting millions of dollars in grant money to go write science-fiction stories about how the giraffe got its long neck.

 

Maybe I worded that too strongly, but you would be amazed at how hard it is to determine the species of some animals.

 

I'm sure it is in some cases, but if you are capable of getting them to interbreed and produce healthy offspring (though possibly sterile) , then they would most certainly be of the same Kind.

 

Without a doubt, there are countless populations of animals currently classified as separate species that are capable of interbreeding. (readily admitted by evolutionists)   That goes for fossils, too. (different species names given to what were potentially interfertile groups of animals)



#144 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 13 January 2014 - 06:57 PM

 Trying to find the stawman here.

 

I already pointed it out. You need to READ my posts. It seems that your cherry picking of my post allows you to imply I never demonstrated your strawman...

 

You were implying that I said that all the changes between wolves and beagles are observed. I never made such a claim that is your strawman. Here is what I said in full which demonstrates your strawman, in which I wonder why you cannot see it?

 

 

"Both the wolf and beagle are dogs... We know that dogs give birth to dogs... What is so hard about that?

 

True, nobody did observe the changes from one dog breed to another dog breed.... What is your point, since this is a strawman of what I did say before.... (that is all I seem to get from you smile.png )...

 

"We observe dogs giving rise to baby dogs... To claim that the ancestor of dogs was and only ever was a dog, fits in with that dogs give rise to baby dogs."

 

"New dog (and cat) breeds have come up from artificial selection so yes variants have been observed, however they are all still dogs. Hence my point."

 

Did I ever say that all the changes between wolves and beagles was observed? I did say that dogs giving birth to dogs is observed and that some new variants of dogs have been observed since we created them via breeding programs."

 

 

 

I will ask you to not cut anything out of what you quote from me since what you did here seems dishonest.

 

 

 

1st sentence) You agreed with the first part so by definition I did not misrepresent your viewpoint. On top of that I didn't refer to your viewpoint but rather stated a fact that neither of us had witnessed something.

 

You were implying that I said that all the changes between wolves to beagles was observed, (as I said clearly in the post you are responding to, please read my post). I never made such a claim, that was your strawman.

 

2nd sentence) So if "I" were to say... Wait a minute, does that say "I"? I thought a strawman required a second party. smile.png

I was using that as an example and wrote that in that way so as to not make a strawman.

Maybe I am unfamiliar with what a strawman is.

 

 

How is it not speculative to say that a Beagle came from a wolf ancestor?

 

Did I say it wasn't speculative? Putting YOUR words in my mouth is not an honest debate "tactic"

 

However (as I said before, please read my post), you said it yourself...

 

 

Quote

Absolutely, all we really observe today is one organism giving birth to the same type of organism.

That is 100% observable, there is absolutely no reason to think that past animals did anything different.

 

 

So dogs coming from dogs is supported by the evidence that dogs give rise to dogs as well as new breeds of dogs... Connect the dots.

 

 

However if you have issues with this then why in the world are you an evolutionist? What evolution implies is much more speculative.

 

 A Poodle wouldn't give birth to a Great Dane.... As I said before they are variants of the same organism.  Or are you going to draw the line at different breeds of the same organism? Is this your plan?

 

Perhaps consider that variants of the same organism.... are the same organism... So they are in no way evidence for evolution.

 

Common descent implies changes BEYOND the natural variation we see, where is the evidence for THAT. You cannot simply point to variation and say that is evidence, because you need to demonstrate how such change can be used as evidence for evolution.

 

 

We can see a wolf give birth to a wolf, and a Beagle do likewise, but nobody has actually observed with their own eyes the generations of births that lead to this change from one kind of organism (a wolf is one kind of organism), to a beagle (which is a different kind of organism)

 

No they are the same kind... Dog kind...

 

See, the term organism is ambiguous.

 

Only because you want it to be, though you said kind....



#145 nonaffiliated

nonaffiliated

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 694 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 44
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • USA

Posted 13 January 2014 - 07:47 PM

Did I ever say that all the changes between wolves and beagles was observed? I did say that dogs giving birth to dogs is observed and that some new variants of dogs have been observed since we created them via breeding programs."

 

Did I ever say that you said that all changes between wolves and beagles was observed?

 

Please correct me if I'm wrong, you now me by now that I will own up to it.

 

Now I did say, "Neither you nor I could have actually seen all the generations of puppies born to actually see all the transitions from wolf to beagle."

 

Perhaps I should have said "nobody" has seen......"?

 

Because that's the point I was making. Nobody has seen this so that's why it isn't observed.

 

I would think that if it were a strawman I would have said something like, "you said that all changes between wolves and beagles were observed."

 

The point I was making was that of course no one has seen this, because it would be impossible (that was my point).

 

Perhaps you are referring to something else I said as well. Let me know. I pride myself on being as honest in discussions as possible and acknowledging my mistakes when I make them.

 

I truly don't see how saying the above is a strawman, but if this was not the quote that I made that you are talking about let me know.



#146 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 13 January 2014 - 07:57 PM

Again if you are going to quote me, quote the FULL post please. That way there is transparency, (unless you don't want to be transparent?).

 

 

Did I ever say that you said that all changes between wolves and beagles was observed?

 

You implied it with your argumentation.

 

Yes, but a wolf is different than say a beagle.  A wolf would not give birth to a beagle.

There would have to have been many generational steps for a wolf to become a beagle.

I guess what I'm asking is to forget about human classifications for a minute.

Neither you nor I could have actually seen all the generations of puppies born to actually see all the transitions from wolf to beagle.

So if I were to say "we can observe, or know, or assume, that wolves "gave rise to" Beagles, I would think that someone could counter and say that that is speculative.

 

Then what is your point? Yes it is speculative that saying wolves gave rise to Beagles, I never said it wasn't nor did I claim that wolves did give rise to Beagles...

 

What I did say was that Dogs give rise to Dogs, and that is what is observed and is confirmed by reality. Perhaps debate on THIS POINT rather than create your own versions of my argument and then seek to dismantle them, (that is what a strawman is).

 

Now I did say, "Neither you nor I could have actually seen all the generations of puppies born to actually see all the transitions from wolf to beagle."

 

Good

 

Because that's the point I was making. Nobody has seen this so that's why it isn't observed.

 

And? That wasn't the point I was making, so the point you are making has no relevance to what I was saying originally... (Hence strawman)... All I said, (and will say), is that Dogs giving rise to Dogs is observed.

 

I would think that if it were a strawman I would have said something like, "you said that all changes between wolves and beagles were observed."

 

Or input wolves and beagles when all I said was dogs...

 

The point I was making was that of course no one has seen this, because it would be impossible (that was my point).

 

Sure, I already agreed to this... (Poodle and Great Dane as claimed before).

And how is this relevant to what was being discussed originally.



#147 nonaffiliated

nonaffiliated

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 694 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 44
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • USA

Posted 13 January 2014 - 08:01 PM

nonaffiliated, on 13 Jan 2014 - 19:31, said:snapback.png

We can see a wolf give birth to a wolf, and a Beagle do likewise, but nobody has actually observed with their own eyes the generations of births that lead to this change from one kind of organism (a wolf is one kind of organism), to a beagle (which is a different kind of organism)

No they are the same kind... Dog kind...

Only because you want it to be, though you said kind....

 

 Ok let's try this-

We can see a wolf give birth to a wolf, and a Beagle do likewise, but nobody has actually observed with their own eyes the generations of births that lead to this change from one kind of organism (a wolf is one kind type of organism), to a beagle (which is a different kind type of organism).

 

Therefore I put forth that the wolf beagle transition is speculated.

 

So is the evolutionary idea of common ancestor. I never said it wasn't.



#148 nonaffiliated

nonaffiliated

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 694 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 44
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • USA

Posted 13 January 2014 - 08:12 PM

This is getting out of hand again.

 

I'm out of this thread.

 

You can have the last word.

 

Having my honesty questioned is something that I will not put up with.

 

If your tactic was distraction to the point of destruction of the narrative, then I concede to your victory.



#149 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 14 January 2014 - 12:30 AM

How is it not speculative to say that a Beagle came from a wolf ancestor?

Who says it isn't? The fact that that a Wolf and Dog can produce offspring that are viable sure makes such a speculation reasonable.

Second: since Evolutionists and Creationists agree that Wolves and Dogs have a common ancestor it's obviously not a point of contention.

The next question is; Since wolves and dogs likely have a common ancestor, does it validate the speculation that humans and fish have a common ancestor? We can find stuff in common... but we can find stuff that isn't.

#150 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 14 January 2014 - 12:48 AM

This is getting out of hand again.

 

My thoughts exactly

 

Having my honesty questioned is something that I will not put up with.

 

Who said you were being dishonest?

 

If your tactic was distraction to the point of destruction of the narrative, then I concede to your victory.

 

I thought that was your tactic since this entire break-away was of your own design. Indeed when it has no consequences to the actual point as Adam has demonstrated, essentially it had no relevance.



#151 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,296 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 14 January 2014 - 02:46 AM

The Madeira mice are an interesting example of relatively new species: six now identified populations within the valleys of Madeira each with different amounts of chromosomes from each other and from the original mice introduced there within recorded history (probably by the Portuguese six hundred years ago).  Chromosomal differences mean there is no inter-population gene flow and the six populations are distinct species rather than breeds.  The mice are an example of speciation that is also currently happening more slowly within ring species (such as North Atlantic herring gulls).  The lack of gene flow between separate Madeira mice species mean that an adaptive feature that were to arise and fix within one population wouldn’t spread to other populations thus subsequently exacerbating genetic differences between the species.

Would you please give us some references to that?



#152 lifepsyop

lifepsyop

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 656 posts
  • Age: 30
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Maine

Posted 14 January 2014 - 06:57 AM

The Madeira mice are an interesting example of relatively new species: six now identified populations within the valleys of Madeira each with different amounts of chromosomes from each other and from the original mice introduced there within recorded history (probably by the Portuguese six hundred years ago).  Chromosomal differences mean there is no inter-population gene flow and the six populations are distinct species rather than breeds.  The mice are an example of speciation that is also currently happening more slowly within ring species (such as North Atlantic herring gulls). 

 

The different mice populations can probably still reproduce, though the offspring may be sterile.   And even if the populations could potentially produce fertile offspring, then evolutionists would still call it "Speciation" based on restricted gene flow due to geographic isolation alone.  By the evolutionist's quirky definitions, one can technically classify a group of people that go to live on a remote island as an example of "speciation" in action, because they have restricted their gene flow from the mainland.

 

The lack of gene flow between separate Madeira mice species mean that an adaptive feature that were to arise and fix within one population wouldn’t spread to other populations thus subsequently exacerbating genetic differences between the species.

It seems reproductive isolation doesn't do much for evolution, as some different "species" such as the Leopard and Jaguar have been separated for "millions of years" yet can still produce fertile offspring.    



#153 nonaffiliated

nonaffiliated

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 694 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 44
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • USA

Posted 14 January 2014 - 07:46 AM

How is it not speculative to say that a Beagle came from a wolf ancestor?

Who says it isn't? The fact that that a Wolf and Dog can produce offspring that are viable sure makes such a speculation reasonable.

Second: since Evolutionists and Creationists agree that Wolves and Dogs have a common ancestor it's obviously not a point of contention.

The next question is; Since wolves and dogs likely have a common ancestor, does it validate the speculation that humans and fish have a common ancestor? We can find stuff in common... but we can find stuff that isn't.

With all respects sir:
 

I am not sure how to respond here.


A point was made (Posted 12 January 2014 - 08:50 PM) that creationism doesn't extrapolate, and another post followed saying that creationism is based solely on observed data.

 

I had the opinion that that was not quite correct and that we both extrapolate/interpolate to some extent and tried to show that.

 

So, I demonstrated (or felt that I had) that there is 'speculation' within the creationists model as well.

 

So I am confused when I am asked "Who says it isn't?"

 

I thought that was what this entire discussion was about, your side claiming they don't speculate, my side arguing that they indeed do.

 

Is it that the word "speculate" is different from the word "extrapolate"?  I will gladly concede my error there if it is.

 

Do you see my confusion?



#154 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 14 January 2014 - 09:04 AM

A point was made (Posted 12 January 2014 - 08:50 PM) that creationism doesn't extrapolate, and another post followed saying that creationism is based solely on observed data.

 

 

Dogs only give rise to Dogs... You agreed to this.

We know that Dogs can give rise to other variants of Dogs due to our breeding efforts.

 

 

Therefore if Dogs only give rise to Dogs and they have the capability to change into other breeds of Dogs then this allows for the original Dog to give rise to the different breeds we see today, yes it is a speculation however it logically follows from the evidence.

 

However when evolutionists claim such change to be indicative of change BEYOND to a different form of animal.. (eg. Dog => Not-Dog etc). Then that is based on imagination since the change observed doesn't relate to what the evolutionists are claiming occured.

 

This isn't a major pillar of Creationism, more like a stepping stone. A mountain out of a molehill is all I see here.

 

I had the opinion that that was not quite correct and that we both extrapolate/interpolate to some extent and tried to show that.

 

Sure... As I said before all Creationists have to do is simply connect the dots of what logically follows from the points above. Whereas evolutionists extrapolate that organisms can change beyond their natural limits even when the changes we do observe do not allow for such extrapolation, thus it is imaginary.

 

So even if there is a level of speculation on either side, Creationism still wins out as the most straightforward, logical and based more on reality than evolution. Therefore why try push this point so hard when the conclusion is Creationism > Evolution.

 

I thought that was what this entire discussion was about, your side claiming they don't speculate, my side arguing that they indeed do.

 

Actually it was about new species, (hence the title of the thread), incorporating macro-evolution (which is what I have continually tried to direct the conversation back onto). It was you who made the discussion about this side point which as I already mentioned has very little relevance to what the discussion was before.



#155 nonaffiliated

nonaffiliated

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 694 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 44
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • USA

Posted 14 January 2014 - 11:14 AM

So we both speculate, connect the dots, extrapolate to some degree.

That's all I was pointing out.

 

Does extending this scenario require a much much greater amount of speculation to get to a common ancestor?

Heck ya. No argument there.

 

It was my impression that it was asserted that YEC requires no postulation / speculation, If that was an incorrect impression, then my mistake and we can move on.



#156 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 14 January 2014 - 03:28 PM

Does extending this scenario require a much much greater amount of speculation to get to a common ancestor?

Heck ya. No argument there.

 

Great :)

 

It was my impression that it was asserted that YEC requires no postulation / speculation, If that was an incorrect impression, then my mistake and we can move on.

 

It was my mistake too



#157 nonaffiliated

nonaffiliated

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 694 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 44
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • USA

Posted 14 January 2014 - 07:02 PM

Cool :)






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users