[quote]pushharder wrote:
Quote all the atheist websites you want but this type of speciation is nothing more than micro-evolution. Glad you brought it up because it does NOT help your cause (and believe me, it is a cause) as much as you think, if at all.[/quote]
You are avoiding the problem.
The exact name for the problem you are avoiding is the “species problem”:
The reason why you and every other creationist avoids it is that the very moment you define “species” and therefore macroevolution you will be swamped with examples that prove beyond any doubt that you are selling snakeoil.[/quote]
You can’t/don’t define species hence my earlier comment about the problems in taxonomy. It’s one of those branches of science that’s a bit of an “art.”[/quote]
Well, not being able to produce offspring is usually considered a hard barrier.
We may not know when to call someothing a new “species” but we know when the line has been crossed.
In the case of ring species, it has been.
If you want to look at taxonomy, there are basically two ways animals are registered.
One is how close they are genetically, the other what they look like. While the second one is still being used today, this ran into problems when it became clear that animals that had nothing to do with each other whatsoever look remarkably similar because they had evolved to fill similar ecological niches.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Joe, you don’t really understand this subject nor the competing ideas that drive it. You have faith in the one and insist on the decimation of the other at all costs. You are indeed religious about this deal and can’t see why.
Yet.[/quote]
I have faith in the one that uses clear definition and makes it know if they are of an heuristic nature and puts forth a falsifiable hypothesis.
All others, not so much, no one who searches for the truth deliberately muddies the water.[/quote]
Your waters are so muddy that were you a fish you’d suffocate from all the mud in our gills.[/quote]
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Your (religious) atheist website citations are telling, I will say that. You people are devoutly obsessed with the advancement of your religion. It’s uncanny.
This debate is not really about science. It’s about religion. And faith. Add conversion.
You’re nothing more than a missionary, Joe. Seriously.[/quote]
Care to put forth your definition of “species”?
Your whole argument is based on it and yet you seem terribly timid in sharing it while trashing examples of speciation because they do not live up to it.
One would think that you would shout it from the mountaintops.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Quote all the atheist websites you want but this type of speciation is nothing more than micro-evolution. Glad you brought it up because it does NOT help your cause (and believe me, it is a cause) as much as you think, if at all.[/quote]
You are avoiding the problem.
The exact name for the problem you are avoiding is the “species problem”:
The reason why you and every other creationist avoids it is that the very moment you define “species” and therefore macroevolution you will be swamped with examples that prove beyond any doubt that you are selling snakeoil.[/quote]
You can’t/don’t define species hence my earlier comment about the problems in taxonomy. It’s one of those branches of science that’s a bit of an “art.”[/quote]
Well, not being able to produce offspring is usually considered a hard barrier.
We may not know when to call someothing a new “species” but we know when the line has been crossed.
In the case of ring species, it has been.
If you want to look at taxonomy, there are basically two ways animals are registered.
One is how close they are genetically, the other what they look like. While the second one is still being used today, this ran into problems when it became clear that animals that had nothing to do with each other whatsoever look remarkably similar because they had evolved to fill similar ecological niches, hypothetically speaking.
[/quote]
Fixed.[/quote]
No, very practically speaking, both kinds of anteaters eat ants.
That totally observable too.
So unless an hypthethical creator looked at Australia and told himself “fuck it, I feel like pouches today” there must be a reason why those two kind of look the same.
Even more important, I am still waiting for a definition of “species” that takes into account why two animals that live continents apart do or do not belong to the same species.
It should also be able to explain why the line you draw is different when the intermediate links are still alive.
You see, so far you are arguing that macroevolution cannot be proven because the intermediate links are not there.
When they are there that very reason is used to deny that it has happened.
You have no testable hypothesis on your own, just snarkish attack on the only real one out there, based on undefined, ever shifting terms, moving the goalposts and willful ignorance.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Your (religious) atheist website citations are telling, I will say that. You people are devoutly obsessed with the advancement of your religion. It’s uncanny.
This debate is not really about science. It’s about religion. And faith. Add conversion.
You’re nothing more than a missionary, Joe. Seriously.[/quote]
Care to put forth your definition of “species”?
Your whole argument is based on it and yet you seem terribly timid in sharing it while trashing examples of speciation because they do not live up to it.
One would think that you would shout it from the mountaintops.[/quote]
I’ve already addressed this.[/quote]
Not really, because you seem to have a very clear picture of what it is when you claimed that “macroevolution” has not happened.
You have a standard, ring species do not live up to it.
If your argument is that “species” is too unclear a term, how would you know that noone has ever observed macro evolution which is defined as happening on a species level or above.
Then, your whole claim of “macroevolution cannot happen” goes far beyond anything you can make with your definitions, you would not know macroevolution if you saw it.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Quote all the atheist websites you want but this type of speciation is nothing more than micro-evolution. Glad you brought it up because it does NOT help your cause (and believe me, it is a cause) as much as you think, if at all.[/quote]
You are avoiding the problem.
The exact name for the problem you are avoiding is the “species problem”:
The reason why you and every other creationist avoids it is that the very moment you define “species” and therefore macroevolution you will be swamped with examples that prove beyond any doubt that you are selling snakeoil.[/quote]
You can’t/don’t define species hence my earlier comment about the problems in taxonomy. It’s one of those branches of science that’s a bit of an “art.”[/quote]
Well, not being able to produce offspring is usually considered a hard barrier.
We may not know when to call someothing a new “species” but we know when the line has been crossed.
In the case of ring species, it has been.
If you want to look at taxonomy, there are basically two ways animals are registered.
One is how close they are genetically, the other what they look like. While the second one is still being used today, this ran into problems when it became clear that animals that had nothing to do with each other whatsoever look remarkably similar because they had evolved to fill similar ecological niches, hypothetically speaking.
[/quote]
Fixed.[/quote]
No, very practically speaking, both kinds of anteaters eat ants.
That totally observable too.
So unless an hypthethical creator looked at Australia and told himself “fuck it, I feel like pouches today” there must be a reason why those two kind of look the same.
Even more important, I am still waiting for a definition of “species” that takes into account why two animals that live continents apart do or do not belong to the same species.
It should also be able to explain why the line you draw is different when the intermediate links are still alive.
You see, so far you are arguing that macroevolution cannot be proven because the intermediate links are not there.
When they are there that very reason is used to deny that it has happened.
You have no testable hypothesis on your own, just snarkish attack on the only real one out there, based on undefined, ever shifting terms, moving the goalposts and willful ignorance.[/quote]
Preach it, brother cuz your parishioners are definitely urging you on with plenty of "Amen"s.[/quote]
Darling, put up or shut up:
Pushharders definition of a “species” is… and here is argument a, b and c why ringspecies do not live up to it.
That easy I have seen one or two creationist websits you can copy and paste it from .
[quote]Sloth wrote:
And they’re still stuck on evolution. [/quote]
Because the Quick Ben’s, NavJoe’s and the Push’s do indeed recognize the issue as critical. Catholicism bends and twists and turns and accommodates. It is thoroughly malleable. And compromising.[/quote]
I’m just saying, cosmology as put forth in Genesis tends to be a far more illuminating conversation when it comes to creation story literalism. Suddenly, reading with one’s own eyes straight from the bible isn’t enough. One must turn to ‘extra-biblical’ explanations.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
And they’re still stuck on evolution. [/quote]
Thread title?[/quote]
Name it, “Ape to human can’t be observed, so we’ll just spin our wheels for umpteen thousand pages with no definitive outcome between the two sides.” News flash, no space shuttles have crashed into the ‘firmament.’ Nor, do we need submarines to transverse the waters above it. You guys get caught up with evolution instead of dealing with the obvious. Thought I’d save you folks from wasting your time, again, with your myopic focus on the fossil record. Pardon me for being a bit too clever for this rehashed, miss the forest for the trees discussion. Let me know who changes sides. Heh.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
And they’re still stuck on evolution. [/quote]
Thread title?[/quote]
Name it, “Ape to human can’t be observed, so we’ll just spin our wheels for umpteen thousand pages with no definitive outcome between the two sides.” News flash, no space shuttles have crashed into the ‘firmament.’ Nor, do we need submarines to transverse the waters above it. You guys get caught up with evolution instead of dealing with the obvious. Thought I’d save you folks from wasting your time, again, with your myopic focus on the fossil record. Pardon me for being a bit too clever for this rehashed, miss the forest for the trees discussion. Let me know who changes sides. Heh.[/quote]
I started this thread in GAL to see where most people stood on the issue.
It was never meant to actually turn into a debate. It only did when it was moved here.
