Re: Adaptations (was POLITICS - Evolution |- the fossils

March 1, 2004

> Hi Chris:

>

> Kind is similar to species but more broad.

>

>. A species is defined as a kind that will reproduce fertile

offspring. A kind can > be defined as species that are genetically

similar enough to > potentially or actually interbreed but may or

may not produce fertile > offspring. Linnaeus attempted to classify

kinds and species using > his system of taxonomy.

>

> Horse is a species. Horse, donkey and zebra are of the same kind

> observationally by the Scientific Method.

>

It is useful for understanding your meaning to know how you define

the word and where your meaning came from. So this information is

helpful to the discussion.

OTOH, given the fact that Linnaeus did not have our current

knowledge of genetics, I would guess that his definitions may not be

the most useful for discussing speciation. (However I don't know

much about evolutionary biology.)

So what about wolves and foxes? Same kind or different kind?

Marty

March 1, 2004

In a message dated 3/1/04 11:04:50 AM Eastern Standard Time,

talithakumi@... writes:

> A kind can

> be defined as species that are genetically similar enough to

> potentially or actually interbreed but may or may not produce fertile

> offspring

Every hypothesis requires a potential means of falsification for validity.

Using your definition, the following would be the potential falsification:

A speciation event that results in an organism that cannot interbreed to

produce a viable fetus resulting in pregnancy, and an offsrping resulting in

maturity (as opposed to required fertility).

Before I continue, please let me know if you agree with this statement as an

appropriate potential falsification of your hypothesis.

Chris

March 2, 2004

In a message dated 3/2/04 3:59:09 PM Eastern Standard Time,

talithakumi@... writes:

> I am not able to agree or disagree with your statement since,

>

> > " A speciation event that results in an organism that cannot

> interbreed to

> produce a viable fetus resulting in pregnancy, and an offspring

> resulting in maturity (as opposed to required fertility), "

>

> is not a complete statement, since it does not contain a subject and

> a predicate. I'm not sure what you're trying to say there.

I'm sorry; I thought it was apparent, since I stated that this statement

would be the potential falsification.

It could be rephrased as:

" A potential falsifcation of Marla's theory that macroevolution does not

occur would be an observed instance of macroevolution, being defined as a

speciation event that results in an organism that cannot be bred to produce an

offspring that reaches maturity. "

Do you agree?

Chris

March 2, 2004

Hi

I am not able to agree or disagree with your statement since,

> " A speciation event that results in an organism that cannot

interbreed to

produce a viable fetus resulting in pregnancy, and an offspring

resulting in maturity (as opposed to required fertility), "

is not a complete statement, since it does not contain a subject and

a predicate. I'm not sure what you're trying to say there.

Here is a little more discussion on speciation:

A species is commonly defined as a group of organisms that produce

fertile offspring. A species is also a kind, but the same kind could

refer to more than one species which are able to reproduce but not

with a continuance of fertile reproduction. If a zebra and a horse

were able to produce offspring that and other zebra/horse could

reproduce with, that would show that they are of the same species.

Since a mustang can cross with a pinto and other mustang/pinto

crosses mated with each other producing fertile offspring, that shows

that the mustang and the pinto are of the same species. Bison

reproduce with cattle, but only one sex is fertile. Bison and cattle

are therefore of the same kind but of different species. Horse and

donkey mate and produce the mule. The mule is infertile and cannot

reproduce offspring. This shows that the horse is a distinct species

from the donkey, but they are of the same kind.

The pinto and mustang are of the same species since they can

reproduce fertile offspring. Being of the same species makes them

also of the same kind.

Species and kind are terms developed through observation and

experimentation.

Regarding speciation. There is much conjecture regarding what

speciation has actually occurred. A famous description of speciation

has been given by Darwin of finches on the Galapagos Islands.

How could finches demonstrate so much diversity in such a small

geographical location representing a good number of species? Surely

this example of speciation and natural selection must be excellent

evidence for Macroevolution (that is that drastically different kinds

developed one into another over vast periods of time). But for as

much as Darwin contributed to observing the then present condition of

the finches, he was not able to observe how the finches got to be

what they were. Questions difficult to answer in his time were did

the finches actually have a common ancestory? If so, did the

different varieties or species of finches develop on the islands or

did they migrate to the islands already as distinct varieties or

species? Could the existence of so many varieties or species of

finches be the result of migration from South America while they were

already distinct, but were they also able to survive on the islands

as a result of a lack of predation so that in their place of origin

they were largely extinct due to predation? There are many quick

assumptions that evolutionist have made regarding Darwin's finches.

But are these finches actually different species after all?

Recent close observation of Darwin's finches made by and

Rosemary Grant of Princeton University over a period of more than 20

years has put more light on the subject. A super El Nino condition

hit the Galapagos in January of 1983 turning the desert islands

almost tropical. Daphne Major Island was under close observation. It

was found that under those conditions as the finch mating drastically

increased, what were thought of as separate species actually began to

interbreed and produce fertile and viable offspring for continuous

generations. Hence, what was thought to be separate species are

actually the same. The proposed evidence of speciation, that is, the

development of new and distinct species through mutation and natural

selection has lost steam with Darwin's finches.

Marla

> > A kind can

> > be defined as species that are genetically similar enough to

> > potentially or actually interbreed but may or may not produce

fertile

> > offspring

>

> Every hypothesis requires a potential means of falsification for

validity.

> Using your definition, the following would be the potential

falsification:

>

> A speciation event that results in an organism that cannot

interbreed to

> produce a viable fetus resulting in pregnancy, and an offsrping

resulting in

> maturity (as opposed to required fertility).

>

> Before I continue, please let me know if you agree with this

statement as an

> appropriate potential falsification of your hypothesis.

>

> Chris

>

March 2, 2004

Hi Chris:

You could not determine that a speciation event has occured if the

new species would not live to be studied. If the offspring does not

reach sexual maturity, then the speciation event could not be

verified according to the very definition of how a species is

determined.

Marla

>

> I'm sorry; I thought it was apparent, since I stated that this

statement

> would be the potential falsification.

>

> It could be rephrased as:

>

> " A potential falsifcation of Marla's theory that macroevolution

does not

> occur would be an observed instance of macroevolution, being

defined as a

> speciation event that results in an organism that cannot be bred to

produce an

> offspring that reaches maturity. "

>

> Do you agree?

>

> Chris

>

March 3, 2004

*******

" A potential falsifcation of Marla's theory that macroevolution does not

occur would be an observed instance of macroevolution, being defined as a

speciation event that results in an organism that cannot be bred to produce

an offspring that reaches maturity. "

Do you agree? - Chris

*******

No. I don't think Marla has presented any theory at all. I am surprised

you are responding to it thus.

Deanna

" Direct observation is not only unnecessary in science; direct observation

is in fact usually impossible for things that really matter. " -

Theobald, Ph.D.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/sciproof.html

March 3, 2004

Marla,

> You could not determine that a speciation event has occured if the

> new species would not live to be studied. If the offspring does not

> reach sexual maturity, then the speciation event could not be

> verified according to the very definition of how a species is

> determined.

I'll rephrase. The breeding part was unclear:

" A potential falsifcation of Marla's theory that macroevolution

does not occur would be an observed instance of macroevolution, being

defined as a speciation event that results in an organism that cannot be bred

with its observed ancestral species to produce an offspring that reaches

maturity. "

I didn't mean breeding amongst the population of the new species itself.

I'm basing this falsifcation precisely on the definition of " kind " that you

gave. Previously, I'd said that in order for you to distinguish between macro

and microevolution without committing a logical fallacy (which so far you are

doing) you must:

1) Define " kind " in taxonomic terms

2) Propose a basis for objectively, qualitatively distinguishing between the

type of mutation that leads to a crossing of the " kind " barrier and the kind

of mutation that does not cross the " kind " barrier

3) Propose a mechanism by which nature prhibits the first kind of mutation

but allows the second kind of mutation.

You responded by defining " kind " more clearly, and completely ignoring point

2 and 3. I'll accept your definition of " kind, " even though it doesn't

correspond to currently used taxonomic terms, IF and only IF you agree to some

statement that insures that we use a precise and objectively determined

definition

of " macroevolution " based on a precise and objectively determined definition

of " kind. " If you don't like the way I'm formulating it, please reformulate

it-- because we can't move on to points 2 and 3 until you satisfy point 1.

If you'll agree to some statement that defines both macroevolution and " kind "

in a way that could make a clear potential falsification of your theory, once

you finish setting one forth, then I'll ask you to make points 2 and 3.

Until you satisfy all three points, you are committing a logical fallacy by

distinguishing between " macro- " and " microevolution. "

Chris

March 4, 2004

Hi

>Until you satisfy all three points, you are committing a logical

fallacy by

> distinguishing between " macro- " and " microevolution. "

In case you have not noticed, micro- means very small (as in

microorganism); macro- means very big (as in macrocosm, meaning

universe). Micro- is not synonymous to macro-. There is great

difference between micro- changes as in the OBSERVED limited

variations exhibited within species as compared to macro- changes as

imagined in the sludge to microbe, microbe to worm, worm to fish,

fish to amphibian, amphibian to reptile, reptile to rat, rat to

monkey, monkey to ape, ape to man scenarios. None of these grandiose

macro-changes have been observed. The burden of proof is to use the

Scientific Method (which requires, observation, experimentation and

repeatability) to prove these grand claims. We do observe variation

but not the grand changes from sludge to microbe, microbe to worm,

worm to fish, fish to amphibian, amphibian to reptile, reptile to

rat, rat to monkey, monkey to ape, ape to man.

To the evolutionist, microevolution proves macroevolution. Now if

there is no difference between microevolution and macroevolution, as

you suggest, then the proof can be further simplified by removing the

prefixes of each of the words as such: evolution proves evolution.

Now we have the logical fallacy of circular reasoning.

Marla

> Marla,

>

> > You could not determine that a speciation event has occured if

the

> > new species would not live to be studied. If the offspring does

not

> > reach sexual maturity, then the speciation event could not be

> > verified according to the very definition of how a species is

> > determined.

>

> I'll rephrase. The breeding part was unclear:

>

> " A potential falsifcation of Marla's theory that macroevolution

> does not occur would be an observed instance of macroevolution,

being

> defined as a speciation event that results in an organism that

cannot be bred

> with its observed ancestral species to produce an offspring that

reaches

> maturity. "

>

> I didn't mean breeding amongst the population of the new species

itself.

>

> I'm basing this falsifcation precisely on the definition of " kind "

that you

> gave. Previously, I'd said that in order for you to distinguish

between macro

> and microevolution without committing a logical fallacy (which so

far you are

> doing) you must:

>

> 1) Define " kind " in taxonomic terms

> 2) Propose a basis for objectively, qualitatively distinguishing

between the

> type of mutation that leads to a crossing of the " kind " barrier and

the kind

> of mutation that does not cross the " kind " barrier

> 3) Propose a mechanism by which nature prhibits the first kind of

mutation

> but allows the second kind of mutation.

>

> You responded by defining " kind " more clearly, and completely

ignoring point

> 2 and 3. I'll accept your definition of " kind, " even though it

doesn't

> correspond to currently used taxonomic terms, IF and only IF you

agree to some

> statement that insures that we use a precise and objectively

determined definition

> of " macroevolution " based on a precise and objectively determined

definition

> of " kind. " If you don't like the way I'm formulating it, please

reformulate

> it-- because we can't move on to points 2 and 3 until you satisfy

point 1.

>

> If you'll agree to some statement that defines both macroevolution

and " kind "

> in a way that could make a clear potential falsification of your

theory, once

> you finish setting one forth, then I'll ask you to make points 2

and 3.

>

> Until you satisfy all three points, you are committing a logical

fallacy by

> distinguishing between " macro- " and " microevolution. "

>

> Chris

>

March 5, 2004

>> Hi

Hi Martha.

>

> >Until you satisfy all three points, you are committing a logical

> fallacy by

> >distinguishing between " macro- " and " microevolution. "

>

> In case you have not noticed, micro- means very small (as in

> microorganism); macro- means very big (as in macrocosm, meaning

> universe).

Kind of like a rock can be a pebble or a boulder.

> Micro- is not synonymous to macro-.

Like " pebble " is not synonymous to " boulder. "

There is great > difference between micro- changes as in the OBSERVED

> limited

> variations

Ahem. Limited by what? Please either propose a mechanism, or stop following

this absurd line of reasoning.

> exhibited within species as compared to macro- changes

Much like a pebble falling down a hill and a boulder falling down a hill are

different. I certainly wouldn't want to be caught in the path of the latter!

as > imagined

I think you mean " as demonstrated in the fossil record by transitional

fossils. "

> in the sludge to microbe, microbe to worm, worm to fish,

> fish to amphibian, amphibian to reptile, reptile to rat, rat to

> monkey, monkey to ape, ape to man scenarios.

You keep exploiting the limitations of human intuition by appealing to

intuitive concepts that don't necessarily reflect reality, rather than precisely

defined concepts that do reflect reality. This is an invalid line of argument,

because it can be demonstrated that, for example, when a person looks at a

hypothetical animal that combines bird and reptile features, the person might

say

it's unambiguously a " bird " even when it, mathematically, has far more

features that are qualitatively distinguishable as reptillian. Thus, our

intuitive

concepts of " bird " and " reptile " are precisely that: intuitive-- and they are

not only imprecise, but as the preceding example demonstrates, very innacurate.

This is one reason why I'm requesting you precisely define " kind " rather than

appeal to our (imprecise and inaccurate) intuitive concepts. Until you do

that, you're following a completely invalid line of reasoning.

None of these grandiose

> macro-changes have been observed.

Much like a boulder beyond a certain size has never been observed rolling

down a hill. Though we can extrapolate from our knowledge of mechanics that we

have developed from observing pebbles and small boulders, that a boulder larger

than what we've observed would follow the same laws, and therefore roll down

a hill under the proper conditions.

> The burden of proof is to use the

> Scientific Method (which requires, observation, experimentation and

> repeatability) to prove these grand claims.

You're making enormous conflations here. You are regurgitating the word

" observation " as if you took it right from a General Biology 1 exposition on the

outline of steps of the scientific method (step 1: make observations), and

then, pulling the word entirely out of context, you are implying here, and

explicitly stating elsewhere, that a phenomenon must be directly observed. But

the

" step one: make observations " refers not to the observation of a phenomenon,

but the observation of evidence that seems to indicate something-- any given

thing-- which you then attempt to explain with a theory, from which you make

predictions and test them. The only thing that must be observed is the results

from the testing of the predictions, which either support or fail to support the

theory that attempts to explain the initial observations. Nowhere in this

method is contained the requirement of direclty observing the phenomenon itself.

If that WERE required, the scientific method would be entirely redundant,

because there is no reason to make predictions and test them when you can

directly perceive that the phenomenon is true. No one, for example, who could

see me

now, would observe that my shirt is blue, and then proceed to make

predictions based on that and test them. They would simply observe that it is

blue and

thus know that it is blue. So your understanding and explanation of the

scientific method is completely insensible, since it renders this method

entirely

redundant.

We do observe variation > but not the grand changes from sludge to microbe,

> microbe to worm, worm to fish, fish to amphibian, amphibian to reptile,

> reptile to

> rat, rat to monkey, monkey to ape, ape to man.

You keep litanizing this as if I'm supposed to be vulnerable to my intuitive

concepts, but I keep asking you to precisely *define* the differences you

*imply* in this list, and you keep refusing.

>

> To the evolutionist, microevolution proves macroevolution.

Like a pebble rolling down a hill proves a boulder would also roll.

Now if > there is no difference between microevolution and macroevolution,

Like if there was no difference between a pebble and a boulder...

as > you suggest,

As you fail to dispute by precisely defining the difference,

> then the proof can be further simplified by removing the > prefixes of each

> of the words as such: evolution proves evolution.

Like gravity proves gravity.

> Now we have the logical fallacy of circular reasoning.

Actually, what we have is a truism. I didn't make the statement

" microevolution proves macroevolution " -- you did. What I said is that genetic

mutation is

one phenomenon, and there is no basis for distinguishing between sets of

mutations that would lead to " microevolution " and sets of mutations that lead to

" macroevolution, " therefore, the ability to observe mutations and natural

selection, the proposed mechanisms of evolution, are what " prooves " evolution.

Or, as it could also be stated " The observation of evolution proves

evolution. " You claim that this observation does *not* prove evolution. You

attempt

to do this by introducing a non-existent, arbitrary distinction between the

kind of evolution we observe, and the kind we haven't, but refuse to actually

give a precise definition of the difference, or describe how nature can limit

one

and not the other. All evidence is against you, since the mechanisms

required by each-- mutations and natural selection-- are the same.

Much like the repeated observation that a pebble, a stone, a slab of

concrete, and any other object will accelerate towards the earth in freefall at

9.8

m/s^2, and therefore we can extrapolate that a giant boulder will do the same,

even if we don't observe it.

Chris

March 5, 2004

>

> > To the evolutionist, microevolution proves macroevolution. Now

if there is no difference between microevolution and macroevolution,

as > you suggest, then the proof can be further simplified by

removing the > prefixes of each of the words as such: evolution

proves evolution. > Now we have the logical fallacy of circular

reasoning.

>

Marla, that's YOUR phrase that you're playing word games with. Not

an evolutionist's phrase. Seems kind of pointless to me.

Marty

March 5, 2004

In a message dated 3/5/04 3:29:30 PM Eastern Standard Time,

darkstar@... writes:

> I probably don't need to point this out, but it was Marla, not

> Martha you were responding to.

Oops! Sorry! I confused the name, but not the identity.

Chris

March 5, 2004

In a message dated 3/5/04 5:11:56 PM Eastern Standard Time,

talithakumi@... writes:

> > There is great >difference between micro- changes as in the

> OBSERVED

> >>limited

> >>variations

> >

> >Ahem. Limited by what? Please either propose a mechanism, or stop

> following

> >this absurd line of reasoning.

>

> The genetic code.

The genetic code can be mutated. Mutations are not dictated by a genetic

code, but affect and modify the genetic code. So, if your assertion is that the

genetic code in some way dictates the type of mutations that happen to it, in

such a way as to prevent macroevolutionary changes and allow microevolutionary

changes, in order to make a reasonable argument you must:

1) Provide a precise basis for differentiating between the type of mutation

or set of mutations that leads to macroevolution and that leads to

microevolution

2)Propose some mechanism by which the " genetic code " distinguishes between

the two, and allows one to happen and not the other.

Remember, when you began to half-way enunciate a distinction between micro-

and macro-evolution (which didn't agree with the litany of macroevolutionary

examples you've repeated), you didn't even attempt to propose a distinction

between the kinds of *mutations* needed for those changes. Distinguishing

between

the ultimate results of mutations does not provide a proper basis for

differentiation, because the mechanism by which both occur is mutation. So if

we

propose that one form of evolution is limited in a way the other is not, we must

be able to show a distinct, qualitative difference between the kinds of

*mutations* necessary to carry out one and the other. Otherwise, the

distinction is

fundamentally quantitative, not qualitative, in its essential mechanism.

>

> In order for the grand developments to occur from microbe to human, a

> vastly more complex mechanism would have to be in play than the

> mechanism by which variation within species is now observed to take

> place.

No it wouldn't. Mutations would have to accumulate, and there would have to

be more of them. No evolutionist proposes that a population of microbes would

evolve into a population of humans. Rather, there are myriad intermediaries.

Famous and authoritative evolutionists have admitted over and

> again that there is no mechanism that has been identified that causes

> macroevolution

This is bunk. The mechanism is genetic mutations.

(and yes, macroevolution is a term officially used by

> professors of evolution in learning institutions).

Sure, it's used, but that's irrelevant, because it isn't used the way you use

it. When you use the term, it either has a precise meaning, or it is an

arbitrary term subjectively used to categorize a section of a spectrum. If

scientists use it as a precise term, to my knowledge they mean speciation. If

it is

used as an arbitrary and subjective term to designate a section of a

spectrum, then there can't possibly be a natural law that prevents it while

allowing

microevolution, since there isn't any qualitative difference. In the case of

the former, it's moot, because speciation has been observed dozens of times.

>

> Mutation has been listed for years as the cause of evolutionary

> change that has naturalistically caused all life forms to arise from

> simple life forms.

Not exactly. Mutations provide the variation needed for evolution, but they

don't " cause " it, certainly not alone.

In order for simple life forms to have been able

> to produce complex life forms, there must have been vastly complex

> additions to the genetic code, not just recombinations of existing

> code.

Actually this isn't very true. The same fundamental domains of proteins are

often found in humans as in bacteria. Protein domains can also be " shuffled "

to produce radically differently functioning proteins, without complex changes

in the genetic code. That's what's so interesting about the enormous

biochemical evidence for evolution.

There is no identified mechanism by which random additions to

> the genetic code spontaneously generates complex additions to

> physiology.

Can you define " complex additions " ? I suppose it would be convenient for you

not to, but here are some changes I've already listed, occuring in single

generations, that I'd consider " complex " :

--A turtle with two heads

--A human with webbed appendages

Furthermore, if you look at a chimpanzee and a human phenotypically, we are

very, very different. But if you look at us genetypically, which are much more

similar. The average sub-species of two species, which are not only the same

" kind, " whatever that is, but the same SPECIES have MORE genetic variation

than chimps and humans do. So, speciation and transitions between " kinds "

actually do NOT necessarily require more complex changes than those that produce

variation within a species.

Chris

March 5, 2004

> In a message dated 3/5/04 6:42:03 PM Eastern Standard Time, ChrisMasterjohn

> writes:

>

> >> Furthermore, if you look at a chimpanzee and a human phenotypically, we

>> are very, very different. But if you look at us genetypically, which are

>> much more similar. The average sub-species of two species, which are not

only

>> the same " kind, " whatever that is, but the same SPECIES have MORE genetic

>> variation than chimps and humans do. So, speciation and transitions between

>> " kinds " actually do NOT necessarily require more complex changes than those

>> that produce variation within a species.

>>

>

> It occurred to me that I may misremember my source here, and it may be that

> the genotypic difference is lesser than that of cousin species or something

> like that. But in any case, it is lesser than what you'd find in the group's

> you'd been calling kinds-- birds, reptiles, etc.

>

" To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are

to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and

servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. " --Theodore

Roosevelt

March 5, 2004

It's obvious why macroevolutionary changes haven't been observed. It is for

the very same reason that the formation of galaxies, black holes, planets,

and other processes that take eons have not been observed. Our time of

existence in this human form is very limited.

Now, While I will agree that may take some liberties between the

macroscopic and microscopic worlds, it is also quite true that they give us

the opportunity to solidify our scientific foundations by comparing the two.

For instance, the macroscopic field of thermodynamics can be brought into

the microscopic world as the field of statistical mechanics. The concepts

reinforce each other on each level. This is only one of many examples you

might consider.

By inference we can reason that since microevolution is observed

undisputedly, and since we observe scientific concepts existing in the

microscopic and macroscopic worlds, therefore macroevolution is also

reality.

If I was going to argue for the highly evidential pro evolution stance, that

is the road I would take, attempting to substantiate such a claim by finding

observational corroborations between the two worlds. But alas, my

biological knowledge and background is lacking.