Evolution Is Religion--Not Science

[turnorburn]

are you referring to this..

Job 38:4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.

tob

 

[Barbarian]

18 Hast thou perceived the breadth of the earth? declare if thou knowest it all.

Eratosthenes did that about 250 BC. And of course, numerous Astronauts have directly perceived it by sight.

35 Canst thou send lightnings, that they may go, and say unto thee, Here we are?

Marconi, early 20th century

 

[Barbarian]

It's always a bad idea to put your faith in those things that humans cannot yet do. God put the evidence for the way He created the Earth and when He did it, into this world for us to find.

That's the way it works. And God is not deceptive.

 

[TOG]

I originally asked for an objective definition of the word "species". After further clarification, it could be said that I asked for 3 definitions covering 3 separate circumstances.

1. All "normal" cases
2. Ring species
3. Interfertile populations that are hindered from interbreeding, for example by geography

The rules we have so far are:

1. In all "normal" cases, a species is a population of interbreeding individuals.
2. If a group is incapable of interbreeding with another group, but both can interbreed with a third group, then it is called a "ring species", and all groups within the ring are considered a single species.
   • If the ring breaks, then the parts of it that are left are considered different species
3. If two populations, which would otherwise be completely interfertile are hindered from interbreeding (for example by geography) then, depending on, it is possible, probably, normally, there's a good chance, might genearlly, likely maybe, it depends.

Maybe it's just me, but I think that last one still needs a little work.There were a lot of subjective terms used, both by Barbarian and Milk-Drops, to provide an "objective" definition. This is what I'm trying to avoid. I claimed that the theory of evolution could not be supported if it's proponents were required to stick to an objective definition. That means no terms like "maybe", "likely", "probably", "it depends" and so on. Phrasing the rule in the form "If A then B" (as I did in rule 2 above) is acceptable, so long as the same "B" applies to every "A".

Barbarian,
You did provide two examples - squirrels and a cross between two genii (I was going to type "genuses" but the spell checker objected) - but you seem reluctant to commit yourself. You keep using subjective terms like "it depends", "maybe", "likely" and so on. The first two rules above (including the sub-rule of rule 2) are condensed versions of what has been said so far about these cases and, if I understand correctly, are accepted by both sides. Can you provide a similarly condensed version of the third rule which contains no subjective terms? Note that by "completely interfertile" I am referring to groups which could, if the hindrance was removed, interbreed and produce fertile offspring which would be capable of interbreeding amongst themselves, as well as with both parent groups and which would be fully capable of surviving in the wild.

If you feel that it is impossible to provide a single rule (possibly with sub-rules, as in rule 2 above) that would cover all possibilities, then feel free to make a 4th or even 5th rule if that is necessary. All I ask is that the rules be objective and applicable to every case they are intended to cover.

The TOG​

 

[Barbarian]

I originally asked for an objective definition of the word "species". After further clarification, it could be said that I asked for 3 definitions covering 3 separate circumstances.

1. All "normal" cases
2. Ring species
3. Interfertile populations that are hindered from interbreeding, for example by geography

The rules we have so far are:

1. In all "normal" cases, a species is a population of interbreeding individuals.

For sexually-reproducing organisms. Otherwise, one has to rely on phlyogenomics. Keep in mind, that if evolution is true, there will be a lot of difficult calls. If creationism is true, you'll have nice neat categories.

If a group is incapable of interbreeding with another group, but both can interbreed with a third group, then it is called a "ring species",

Or a cline.

and all groups within the ring are considered a single species.

Usually, but not always.

If thehe ring breaks, then the parts of it that are left are considered different species

Yes.

If two populations, which would otherwise be completely interfertile are hindered from interbreeding (for example by geography) then, depending on, it is possible, probably, normally, there's a good chance, might genearlly, likely maybe, it depends.

Generally, different species. Unless there's some artificial interventions.

Maybe it's just me, but I think that last one still needs a little work.There were a lot of subjective terms used, both by Barbarian and Milk-Drops, to provide an "objective" definition. This is what I'm trying to avoid. I claimed that the theory of evolution could not be supported if it's proponents were required to stick to an objective definition.

That's backwards. If creationism is right, then there shouldn't be all these halfway cases. But if evolution is true, we should see many, many such "maybe" or "probably" cases. And that's exactly what the world is like. Darwin predicted this, because the evidence indicated gradual, slow change (in terms of a human lifetime). So it's another validated prediction of evolutionary theory. And another problem creationists must struggle to explain.

That means no terms like "maybe", "likely", "probably", "it depends" and so on.

That would be possible only if God created all organism by special creation. If He created them by evolution, you'll see all those halfway species. This validated prediction of evolutionary theory is one of the reasons scientists accept it.

You did provide two examples - squirrels and a cross between two genii (I was going to type "genuses" but the spell checker objected)

The plural of "genus" is "genera."

but you seem reluctant to commit yourself. You keep using subjective terms like "it depends", "maybe", "likely" and so on.

As I said, it's a consequence of the way species are formed. Darwin correctly predicted this:

In The Origin of Species, Darwin wrote:
Finally, varieties cannot be distinguished from species-except, by the discovery of intermediate linking forms; and secondly , by a certain indefinite amount of indifference between them; for two forms, if differing very little, are generally ranked as varieties, notwithstanding that they cannot be closely connected; but the amount of indifference considered necessary to give any two forms the rank of species cannot be defined.

Darwin did not consider species to be a real entity as creationists imagine; he saw species as a mental construct with no absolutes.

The first two rules above (including the sub-rule of rule 2) are condensed versions of what has been said so far about these cases and, if I understand correctly, are accepted by both sides. Can you provide a similarly condensed version of the third rule which contains no subjective terms? Note that by "completely interfertile" I am referring to groups which could, if the hindrance was removed, interbreed and produce fertile offspring which would be capable of interbreeding amongst themselves, as well as with both parent groups and which would be fully capable of surviving in the wild.

This is one of the most important differences between evolution and creationism. If evolution is right, there can be no absolute standards for speciation. That is a prediction Darwin made for his theory. If there are no absolute standards for species, then creationism cannot be true.

If you feel that it is impossible to provide a single rule (possibly with sub-rules, as in rule 2 above) that would cover all possibilities, then feel free to make a 4th or even 5th rule if that is necessary. All I ask is that the rules be objective and applicable to every case they are intended to cover.

That is an assumption of creationism, but reality does not fit that belief.

 

[TOG]

The plural of "genus" is "genera."

I wasn't sure about that. Thank you for clarifying it for me.

The original purpose of this thread was to show that the theory of evolution is not a scientific theory, but is more religious in nature. After quite a bit of discussion (post #221 to be exact) I decided to take a different approach, and issued a challenge to any evolutionists willing to accept it. I claimed that the theory of evolution required a subjective definition of the word "species" to work, and that if they were required to use an objective definition, evolutionists could not support their theory. I challenged the evolutionists to provide an objective definition and stick to it. I realized that for me to realistically expect anyone to be able to accept this challenge, there had to be certain limitations. I stipulated what those limitations were (plants and animals the reproduce exclusively using sexual means) and issued the challenge. After some further discussion, I asked for an objective definition that applied to groups that were otherwise interfertile, but which were prevented by some obstacle from interbreeding. This is the answer I got.

That would be possible only if God created all organism by special creation.

I have to say that I didn't expect this so soon. I thought I'd eventually get an objective definition, but that the evolutionists would back down from it after some discussion and try to make it more subjective. But we didn't even finish formulating the definition before an admission that evolution cannot be supported with a totally objective definition of the word "species". That's exactly what I claimed. And since science is, by it's very definition, objective, that means that evolution is not a scientific theory.

The TOG​

 

[Barbarian]

The original purpose of this thread was to show that the theory of evolution is not a scientific theory, but is more religious in nature.

That didn't turn out so well, maybe. But a scientist would say that confirming the null hypothesis increased your knowledge anyway. And that's always a good thing.

After quite a bit of discussion (post #221 to be exact) I decided to take a different approach, and issued a challenge to any evolutionists willing to accept it. I claimed that the theory of evolution required a subjective definition of the word "species" to work, and that if they were required to use an objective definition, evolutionists could not support their theory.

And I showed you that evolutionary theory depends on the lack of a clear division between variety and species. And as you see, that's been there since Darwin made that prediction. You essentially are demanding that evolutionary theory be something other than it is.

I challenged the evolutionists to provide an objective definition and stick to it. I

Essentially, you demanded that we change the theory to meet your expectations. Can't do that for you.

Barbarian regarding the possibility of a strict definition of "species."
That would be possible only if God created all organism by special creation. ( In fact, it would have to be so, if creationism is true. The fact that it can't be so defined is a serious problem for creationism and one of the reasons that scientists don't accept creationism.)

I have to say that I didn't expect this so soon. I thought I'd eventually get an objective definition, but that the evolutionists would back down from it after some discussion and try to make it more subjective.

Once I realized you were trying to get to some kind of iron-clad definition, it was necessary for me to show you this:

In The Origin of Species, Darwin wrote:
Finally, varieties cannot be distinguished from species-except, by the discovery of intermediate linking forms; and secondly , by a certain indefinite amount of indifference between them; for two forms, if differing very little, are generally ranked as varieties, notwithstanding that they cannot be closely connected; but the amount of indifference considered necessary to give any two forms the rank of species cannot be defined.

Darwin did not consider species to be a real entity as creationists imagine; he saw species as a mental construct with no absolutes.

But we didn't even finish formulating the definition before an admission that evolution cannot be supported with a totally objective definition of the word "species".

In fact, as you now see, evolutionary theory would be seriously undermined, if we could come up with a totally objective definition of "species." It is a part of the theory that no such thing exists. Since science often uses words that cannot be precisely defined, it's not a problem. It turns out, as Darwin observed, that there are no objective entities such as "species." We merely note that there are usually populations of living things that interbreed and form a more or less definable collection we can call a species. This is no more a difficulty for science than it is for physicists unable to properly define "charge."

More abstractly, a charge is any generator of a continuous symmetry of the physical system under study. When a physical system has a symmetry of some sort, Noether's theorem implies the existence of a conserved current. The thing that "flows" in the current is the "charge", the charge is the generator of the (local) symmetry group. This charge is sometimes called the Noether charge.
Thus, for example, the electric charge is the generator of the U(1) symmetry of electromagnetism. The conserved current is the electric current.

In the case of local, dynamical symmetries, associated with every charge is a gauge field; when quantized, the gauge field becomes a gauge boson. The charges of the theory "radiate" the gauge field. Thus, for example, the gauge field of electromagnetism is the electromagnetic field; and the gauge boson is the photon.
Sometimes, the word "charge" is used as a synonym for "generator" in referring to the generator of the symmetry. More precisely, when the symmetry group is a Lie group, then the charges are understood to correspond to the root system of the Lie group; the discreteness of the root system accounting for the quantization of the charge.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charge_(physics)

Note the waffling. It's because we can't precisely define the word. And yet, just as in evolutionary theory, physics can make useful predictions and increase our knowledge of the world..

And since science is, by it's very definition, objective, that means that evolution is not a scientific theory.

If so, physics, biology, and many other sciences are not sciences. Something's wrong here...

 

[TOG]

And I showed you that evolutionary theory depends on the lack of a clear division between variety and species.

As I said earlier, everyone here agrees that minor changes occur within species. The theory of evolution claims that these changes can accumulate over time to such an extent that a new species (or higher taxonomic classification) is produced. At the species level, this is called "speciation". To determine whether the theory of evolution is true, we need to be able to determine whether speciation can, in fact occur. Evolution also predicts the existence of intermediate species. If evolution is true, we should find such species in abundance.

According to Wikipedia, "Scientific theories are testable and make falsifiable predictions." (Emphasis by TOG). To be able to test whether speciation can occur or whether intermediate species exist, we need an objective definition of what a species actually is. We also need an objective definition if we are to be able to falsify the theory (in case it does turn out to be false). The lack of an objective definition of one of the key concepts of the theory would make it neither testable nor falsifiable, and therefore not scientific.

More abstractly, a charge is any generator of a continuous symmetry of the physical system under study. When a physical system has a symmetry of some sort, Noether's theorem implies the existence of a conserved current. The thing that "flows" in the current is the "charge", the charge is the generator of the (local) symmetry group. This charge is sometimes called the Noether charge.


Thus, for example, the electric charge is the generator of the U(1) symmetry of electromagnetism. The conserved current is the electric current.


In the case of local, dynamical symmetries, associated with every charge is a gauge field; when quantized, the gauge field becomes a gauge boson. The charges of the theory "radiate" the gauge field. Thus, for example, the gauge field of electromagnetism is the electromagnetic field; and the gauge boson is the photon.

Sometimes, the word "charge" is used as a synonym for "generator" in referring to the generator of the symmetry. More precisely, when the symmetry group is a Lie group, then the charges are understood to correspond to the root system of the Lie group; the discreteness of the root system accounting for the quantization of the charge.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charge_(physics)

Note the waffling. It's because we can't precisely define the word.

(Emphasis by Barbarian)

I don't see any "waffling" there. There is only one definition - "a charge is any generator of a continuous symmetry of the physical system under study". None of the words you emphasized modify this definition.

This charge is sometimes called the Noether charge.
Sometimes, the word "charge" is used as a synonym for "generator"

These two occurrences of the word "sometimes" don't modify the definition, but only say that there are other terms for the same thing. If I said "The scientific name for the European mountain-ash is Sorbus aucuparia. Sometimes it is called the rowan-berry, then mentioning a synonym doesn't change what a European mountain-ash is. There are, in fact, many names for it. Using many names doesn't change what it is.

In the case of local, dynamical symmetries

This doesn't change anything either. It's an example of what a charge is, not a redefinition.

Noether's theorem implies the existence of a conserved current.

This doesn't modify the definition either. It explains the connection with Noether's theorem.

This definition, which you chose, is totally different from what you want to do with the definition of "species". I'm no physicist, but it looks to me like this definition of "charge" is objective and can be applied to all charges.

The TOG​

 

[Barbarian]

And I showed you that evolutionary theory depends on the lack of a clear division between variety and species. And as you see, that's been there since Darwin made that prediction. You essentially are demanding that evolutionary theory be something other than it is.

As I said earlier, everyone here agrees that minor changes occur within species. The theory of evolution claims that these changes can accumulate over time to such an extent that a new species (or higher taxonomic classification) is produced.

And that's an observable fact.

At the species level, this is called "speciation". To determine whether the theory of evolution is true, we need to be able to determine whether speciation can, in fact occur.

That's also easy. Even by the most rigorous definition (infertility between the old and new populations even if they are in the same area) there are examples. Would you like to see some of those?

Evolution also predicts the existence of intermediate species.

Demonstrably so. They are called "transitionals." Pick any two major groups, said to be evolutionarily connect, and I'll see if I can find a transitional for you.

If evolution is true, we should find such species in abundance.

I bet you can't even name two such major groups without at least one.

According to Wikipedia, "Scientific theories are testable and make falsifiable predictions." (Emphasis by TOG).

Yep. So when Huxley (for example) predicted that there should be transitional forms with features of both birds and dinosaurs, that was a testable prediction. It was later verified, when numerous such species were found.

To be able to test whether speciation can occur or whether intermediate species exist, we need an objective definition of what a species actually is.

It's pretty simple. What matters is finding species with features of both dinosaurs and birds. Archaeopteryx was the first. There's a lot more. Would you like to see them?

We also need an objective definition if we are to be able to falsify the theory (in case it does turn out to be false). The lack of an objective definition of one of the key concepts of the theory would make it neither testable nor falsifiable, and therefore not scientific.

See above. Already done.

Example of an essential part of physics lacking a rigorous definition:
More abstractly, a charge is any generator of a continuous symmetry of the physical system under study. When a physical system has a symmetry of some sort, Noether's theorem implies the existence of a conserved current. The thing that "flows" in the current is the "charge", the charge is the generator of the (local) symmetry group. This charge is sometimes called the Noether charge.

Thus, for example, the electric charge is the generator of the U(1) symmetry of electromagnetism. The conserved current is the electric current.

In the case of local, dynamical symmetries, associated with every charge is a gauge field; when quantized, the gauge field becomes a gauge boson. The charges of the theory "radiate" the gauge field. Thus, for example, the gauge field of electromagnetism is the electromagnetic field; and the gauge boson is the photon.

Sometimes, the word "charge" is used as a synonym for "generator" in referring to the generator of the symmetry. More precisely, when the symmetry group is a Lie group, then the charges are understood to correspond to the root system of the Lie group; the discreteness of the root system accounting for the quantization of the charge.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charge_(physics)

Note the waffling. It's because we can't precisely define the word.
Click to expand...
(Emphasis by Barbarian)

I don't see any "waffling" there. There is only one definition - "a charge is any generator of a continuous symmetry of the physical system under study". None of the words you emphasized modify this definition.

The modifiers are the intermediate cases that don't fit the first definition. Sort of the way "reproductive isolation" doesn't entirely fit "species." And notice it defines charge in terms of things that charge defines. Circular. It just settles in and says 'The thing that "flows" in the current is the "charge".'

It is very difficult, if not impossible, to understand fully what electric charge, q, is.
http://www.sparknotes.com/testprep/books/sat2/physics/chapter13section1.rhtml

As you see, even though physics can't exactly say what a charge is, we can use the concept usefully. Pretty much the way "species" is used in biology.

 

[TOG]

Barbarian, you are a very difficult person to have a discussion with. You have consistently refused to give an objective definition of "species" that can apply to otherwise interfertile groups, that are somehow prevented from interbreeding. You insist on keeping the definition subjective, even when I have limited the scope to make things simpler for you. Yet you claim that you have provided such a definition. (If you have, I've completely missed it. Could you show it to me?) On the other hand, I addressed every word you emphasized in the definition of "charge" and showed that it is not comparable to your insistence of a subjective definition of "species". Yet you pretend I never said any of that and just repeat the definition, as if repeating things often enough will magically make them fit whatever happens to suit you.

Let's face it. No matter what evidence anyone else could provide, you will never change your mind, because you are not willing to admit the possibility that any theory other than yours could be true. And you will never provide an objective definition of "species", even within a limited context, because you are afraid doing so would provide others with a means of proving your theory wrong. As far as I'm concerned, I've proven my point and continuing this conversation would serve no useful purpose.

The TOG​

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Let's face it. No matter what evidence anyone else could provide, you will never change your mind, because you are not willing to admit the possibility that any theory other than yours could be true. And you will never provide an objective definition of "species", even within a limited context, because you are afraid doing so would provide others with a means of proving your theory wrong. As far as I'm concerned, I've proven my point and continuing this conversation would serve no useful purpose.

What an arrogant thing to say! Do you now speak as an authority on the intentions of another human being?

Of course "you've proven your point..." (you haven't...) and he is simply "not willing to admit the possibility that any theory other than [his] is true." Instead of letting Barbarian speak to his own intentions and ideas (which only he and God knows), you have taken the place of someone who reads minds and speaks for why he holds to evolution.

Because it couldn't POSSIBLY be for the merit that evolutionary answers have...

These kinds of statements are especially useless, and do nothing but hurt your position.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian, you are a very difficult person to have a discussion with.

I have an INTP personality type. I'm inclined to ignore feelings and focus on reasoning. People often find that disturbing.

You have consistently refused to give an objective definition of "species" that can apply to otherwise interfertile groups, that are somehow prevented from interbreeding.

I've pointed out to you that evolutionary theory says there will often be no way to say for sure. And that was from the beginning; Darwin pointed this out; it's a prediction of evolutionary theory, and a serious problem for creationists because if they are right, there should be easy and absolute ways to define the idea.

You insist on keeping the definition subjective, even when I have limited the scope to make things simpler for you. Yet you claim that you have provided such a definition.

I just showed you, several times, that if evolutionary theory is correct, there shouldn't be such a thing, since it argues that old species give rise to new ones, and given the gradual nature of evolution, there should be lots of not-quite species around. Which I showed you there are. How does creationism deal with this contradiction to that belief?

On the other hand, I addressed every word you emphasized in the definition of "charge" and showed that it is not comparable to your insistence of a subjective definition of "species".

I just showed you that physics defines charge in terms of things caused by charge. There isn't a nice, absolute definition for it.

It is very difficult, if not impossible, to understand fully what electric charge, q, is.
http://www.sparknotes.com/testprep/books/sat2/physics/chapter13section1.rhtml

Yet you pretend I never said any of that and just repeat the definition, as if repeating things often enough will magically make them fit whatever happens to suit you.

I showed you the fact. No point denying it.

Let's face it. No matter what evidence anyone else could provide, you will never change your mind, because you are not willing to admit the possibility that any theory other than yours could be true.

I've repeatedly told you that someone might someday come up with a better theory than the current one. But so far, no one has. I'm just showing you evidence for it.

And you will never provide an objective definition of "species", even within a limited context, because you are afraid doing so would provide others with a means of proving your theory wrong.

Rather, I'm telling you that there isn't an objective defintion that works for everything, because (as evolutionary theory explains) evolving population will not allow such absolutes. If creationism were true, it would be possible, and this is why the lack of such an object definition is so damaging to creationism.

As far as I'm concerned, I've proven my point and continuing this conversation would serve no useful purpose.

Sometimes, conversations take a turn we would prefer that they not do. And then, maybe it's best to end it. But I think we did manage to clarify why evolutionary theory predicts no absolute way of defining "species", and why creationists find it such a difficult challenge.

 

[Milk-Drops]

Barbarian, you are a very difficult person to have a discussion with. You have consistently refused to give an objective definition of "species" that can apply to otherwise interfertile groups, that are somehow prevented from interbreeding. You insist on keeping the definition subjective, even when I have limited the scope to make things simpler for you. Yet you claim that you have provided such a definition. (If you have, I've completely missed it. Could you show it to me?) On the other hand, I addressed every word you emphasized in the definition of "charge" and showed that it is not comparable to your insistence of a subjective definition of "species". Yet you pretend I never said any of that and just repeat the definition, as if repeating things often enough will magically make them fit whatever happens to suit you.
The TOG

TOG, I think I understand what you want answers for. The problem is, you aren't arguing against the Theory of Evolution, but entirely different field of study.


Your challenge ( Or who ever you got it from, because I've seen it before.) that there be an objective term for species.

The challenge assumes that:
1. The Theory of Evoltuion depends on the definition of species.
2. If there is not objective definition, Evolution is false.

The problem is that the theory of does not define what a species is, nor is the creation of a new species a testable way to falsify the theory.

The theory of Evolution states that organisms adapt to their environment and those that are best suited for the environment will survive. Those ill equipped will go extinct. The testable part of the theory is the mechanism called "Natural Selection". Natural Selection is an umbrella term for various pressures in an environment that drives adaptation in living organisms. Variables for Natural selection are Climate, sexual selection, availability of resources, founder effect, convergent selection, etc. The theory is tested by watching to see if organisms adapt based on selection pressures. If organisms follow a predictable pattern of adaptation, and organisms emerge or go extinct through this process, natural selection is show to be valid.


Whenever a person states that they want to challenge the theory, Natural selection is what is expected to be challenged. Right now you are probably wondering, "what about species? I thought evolution led to new species?" It does, but that is a side effect, not a direct effect.


Species in its most simplified term is " a group of organisms that can naturally breed together" there are exceptions, but for the most part, this definition gets the gist of what a species is. Species is a classification used in the fields known as Phylogeny and Taxonomy. The term species predates both the theory of Evolution and Genetics, which replaced many of the ways organisms are classified today. That means that the term has gone through a lot of "evolution" as time has passed. Species is an arbitrary term used for classification for easier cataloging of organisms. To be frank, the only definition that holds any special weight is the term Organism. Organism means something that is alive. What happens from here is that organisms are split into groups based on similarities. Archea, Bacteria, Animals, Plants, fungus. These 5 are the basic groups everything is grouped into. Another set of groups that are known as Eukaryotes and Prokaryotes. Archea and Bacteria are for the most part Prokaryotes, meaning they are single celled organisms. However there is a group of bacteria called Eukaryotes that are multi-cellular. In this group we see the split of animals, plants and fungus for classification purposes.

Now, this deal with classification, this is not necessarily stating that this is exactly how life arose. This is purely for classification purposes. However, Genetics has shown that all organisms in these classification bubbles share the same genetic material. As far as we understand, genetic material is shared through reproduction. There are exceptions in Prokaryotes, but nothing in Eukaryotes suggests otherwise. I bring this up because Vaccine has an article that he/she likes to share that explains that there are exceptions in Prokaryotes, but says nothing about Eukaryotes, which is what all plants, animals, and fungus are.

So If you have a problem with the term species not being Objective, you should be asking Phylogenists to explain themselves, not evolutionists because they have nothing to do with the classification system.

Evolution explains the mechanism used to cause diversity, and Genetics explains what the mechanism uses and how the resources for mechanism come about. Phylogeny and Taxonomy then give organisms names based on criteria relevant for classification. The term Species will always be subject to the objective understanding of the field of Phylogeny.

Unlike math, science doesn't invent objective definitions, Science is subject to Math. That is why Math has Proofs, and Science has the Null Hypothesis.

 

[TOG]

TOG, I think I understand what you want answers for. The problem is, you aren't arguing against the Theory of Evolution, but entirely different field of study.


Your challenge ( Or who ever you got it from, because I've seen it before.) that there be an objective term for species.

It's a pretty obvious thought. Many people have probably thought of it independently. I did.

The challenge assumes that:
1. The Theory of Evoltuion depends on the definition of species.
2. If there is not objective definition, Evolution is false.

Close, but not quite. I understand about natural selection (which you mention later in your post), and I don't deny that natural selection occurs. But the theory of evolution is much more than just natural selection. If the theory of evolution is true, then once species must be able to evolve over time into more than one species. We can't determine whether this is possible without an objective definition of "species". Let me explain it with an analogy. Consider the claim "when cats grow old, they become dogs". Of course, we both know that statement is absurd, but how do we know that? It is because we know the definitions of "cat" and "dog". But what if I made that claim, and then I demanded exclusive rights to define the word "dog". Then any time you showed me an old cat and pointed out that it's still a cat, I would redefine what a dog is and prove you wrong. I could produce a dozen definitions and use whichever definition happened to suit me at the time to prove that old cats are dogs. That's the problem I'm trying to address. Evolutionists demand exclusive rights to define the term "species" and they have many definitions (I've looked online and found at least 13) and they pick whichever definition suits them in any particular case. All breeds of domestic dogs are considered a single species, because although they can't all interbreed directly with each other, they can do so indirectly (they are a ring species). But the gulls Barbarian mentioned earlier are also a ring species, yet they are all considered different species, even the ones that can and do interbreed directly, such as the American herring gull (larus smithsonianus) and the European herring gull (larus argentatus).

To be considered scientific, a theory has to be both testable and falsifiable. How can we either test or falsify something when, every time some evidence is found against the theory, the definitions change to make it fit?

Whenever a person states that they want to challenge the theory, Natural selection is what is expected to be challenged. Right now you are probably wondering, "what about species? I thought evolution led to new species?" It does, but that is a side effect, not a direct effect.

People often confuse "evolution" with "the theory of evolution". (I sometimes think evolutionists mix the two up on purpose). Evolution is simply a term that can be applied to many kinds of change, not only biological, but also non-biological, such as "the evolution of the space shuttle". The theory of evolution is a theory which claims that all life forms on earth today evolved from a single common ancestor. Evolution and natural selection are generally accepted as facts. It is whether those facts necessarily lead to the theory of evolution that is debatable.

Species in its most simplified term is " a group of organisms that can naturally breed together" there are exceptions, but for the most part, this definition gets the gist of what a species is.

I understand that there can be exceptions and circumstances where a single definition won't fit, but that doesn't have to prevent us from having an objective definition. Look at the following definitions that could apply to ring species.

1. In the case of ring species, all the groups within the ring are considered a single species.
2. In the case of ring species, one of the groups within the ring is considered the main species, and the other groups are considered sub-species.
3. In the case of ring species, each group within the ring is considered a separate species.

All of those definitions are objective. any of them could work as a definition of "species" which would apply to these specific circumstances. What doesn't work, in my opinion, is using one of those definitions for dogs and a different definition for gulls, when the exact same situation exists for both. There can be many definitions which would apply to many different situations, such as one definition for organisms that reproduce sexually and another definition for organisms that reproduce asexually or one definition that applies to ring species and another definition that applies to species that are not part of a ring. But however many definitions there are, they need to be applied consistently to all groups that fulfill the same criteria. Picking which definition to use depending on what best fits the theory is completely unscientific, which is what this thread was originally about.

Note that saying something isn't scientific isn't the same as saying that it's wrong. Look at these three statements.

1. There is no god
2. There is one god
3. There are many gods

None of these statements is scientific, since they are neither testable nor falsifiable. But logic dictates that one of them must be true.

The TOG​

 

[Barbarian]

Close, but not quite. I understand about natural selection (which you mention later in your post), and I don't deny that natural selection occurs. But the theory of evolution is much more than just natural selection. If the theory of evolution is true, then once species must be able to evolve over time into more than one species. We can't determine whether this is possible without an objective definition of "species".

We can agree that any two populations that are totally interfertile and have no connecting populations with which they are both interfertile, must be two separate species. So obviously, there are such taxa. The issue is whether or not there should be intermediate cases in which it's difficult to determine whether two populations are separate species or not. It is the prediction of Darwin's theory that such cases must exist. It's the prediction of creationism that no such populations should exist. This continues to be a huge problem for creationism.

Let me explain it with an analogy. Consider the claim "when cats grow old, they become dogs". Of course, we both know that statement is absurd, but how do we know that? It is because we know the definitions of "cat" and "dog". But what if I made that claim, and then I demanded exclusive rights to define the word "dog". Then any time you showed me an old cat and pointed out that it's still a cat, I would redefine what a dog is and prove you wrong.

See above. Is a hyena a cat kind or a dog kind? The problem with your argument, is that it moves the issue to the evolution of higher taxa, where there is no lack of transitionals between them. The evidence for evolution of new families orders, and classes is much, much better than for evolution of new species, except for the cases of speciation directly observed. This is a continuing issue for the "baraminologists", creationists who would like to admit evolution up to the family level, but want higher taxa to be created apart from the others.

Evolutionists demand exclusive rights to define the term "species" and they have many definitions (I've looked online and found at least 13) and they pick whichever definition suits them in any particular case.

As Darwin pointed out, "species" is an artificial construct, which often does not fit the real world. It is one of the reasons his theory is well-accepted. That prediction has been verified repeatedly.

All breeds of domestic dogs are considered a single species, because although they can't all interbreed directly with each other, they can do so indirectly (they are a ring species). But the gulls Barbarian mentioned earlier are also a ring species, yet they are all considered different species, even the ones that can and do interbreed directly, such as the American herring gull (larus smithsonianus) and the European herring gull (larus argentatus).

Which is what you'd expect if they had evolved from a common ancestor, but not if they were individually created apart from all others. You seem to expect evolutionary theory to conform to the religion of creationism. Reality isn't like that.

To be considered scientific, a theory has to be both testable and falsifiable. How can we either test or falsify something when, every time some evidence is found against the theory, the definitions change to make it fit?

You have to consider the testable claims. In this case, it's Darwin's prediction that "species" can not always be absolutely defined. That has been confirmned. Other predictions, such as "there must have been feathered dinosaurs" or "tetrapods and lungfish should be more closely related to each other than either is to a perch" or "birds and dinosaurs should be more similar to each other than dinosaurs are similar to lizards."

And many others like that. Because these predictions have all been tested and verified, the theory is considered to be true.

Note that saying something isn't scientific isn't the same as saying that it's wrong.

It's quite possible to be scientific and wrong. Suppose Darwin had predicted species to be absolute entities, and always clearly defined. That part of the theory would have been falsified. He did propose that acquired characteristics could be inherited, which was wrong, and that part of the theory was falsified, and is no longer part of evolutionary theory.

 

[Milk-Drops]

Close, but not quite. I understand about natural selection (which you mention later in your post), and I don't deny that natural selection occurs. But the theory of evolution is much more than just natural selection.

Not according to Darwin, who invented the theory. The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin is a large collection of research explaining how natural selection works.

If the theory of evolution is true, then once species must be able to evolve over time into more than one species. We can't determine whether this is possible without an objective definition of "species".

I've already explained the the term species has a lot of qualifiers around it and its just a classification term based on similar traits.

Let me explain it with an analogy. Consider the claim "when cats grow old, they become dogs". Of course, we both know that statement is absurd, but how do we know that? It is because we know the definitions of "cat" and "dog". But what if I made that claim, and then I demanded exclusive rights to define the word "dog". Then any time you showed me an old cat and pointed out that it's still a cat, I would redefine what a dog is and prove you wrong. I could produce a dozen definitions and use whichever definition happened to suit me at the time to prove that old cats are dogs. That's the problem I'm trying to address.

That isn't whats going on. I already pointed out that the term species is hard to use because it existed before the discovery of both Evolution and Genetics. It has a ton of modifiers because a ton of organisms were said to be different species well before genetics was advanced enough of a field to fully define the line.

Evolutionists demand exclusive rights to define the term "species" and they have many definitions (I've looked online and found at least 13) and they pick whichever definition suits them in any particular case.

may I ask who these "evolutionists" are please? I ask because I'm by no means aware of 13 definitions for species.

All breeds of domestic dogs are considered a single species, because although they can't all interbreed directly with each other, they can do so indirectly (they are a ring species).

Dogs are not a ring species. Most dogs go through artificial selection through breeders with specific traits being bread for. For the most part, dog genealogy should split into new species because of the vast differences.

But the gulls Barbarian mentioned earlier are also a ring species, yet they are all considered different species, even the ones that can and do interbreed directly, such as the American herring gull (larus smithsonianus) and the European herring gull (larus argentatus).

I'd like to point out that a ring species are species cut off from each other due to geographical isolation, and usually form a ring. Also, this goes back to how I mentioned that the naming and classifying of species is older then the theory of Evolution. We are finding out that some things are closer then we thought, and somethings completely unrelated. Like I said, your problem is with phylogeny and not the theory of evolution.

To be considered scientific, a theory has to be both testable and falsifiable. How can we either test or falsify something when, every time some evidence is found against the theory, the definitions change to make it fit?

The Theory of evolution is completely testable and falsifiable. It can be tested through genetics, taxonomy/homology, and it can be tested through controlled breading. Darwin observed it directly with the different species of Finches on his travels. Us humans, Canines, Felines, horses, whales, birds, etc have massive finding of our ancestries. Not to mention Biologists have found the possible linking ancestor betweens even Felines and Canines.

There is a lot out there. Definition of species does not make the theory unfalsifiable or untestable.

People often confuse "evolution" with "the theory of evolution". (I sometimes think evolutionists mix the two up on purpose). Evolution is simply a term that can be applied to many kinds of change, not only biological, but also non-biological, such as "the evolution of the space shuttle". The theory of evolution is a theory which claims that all life forms on earth today evolved from a single common ancestor.

No, common decent theory states that. Common decent takes the theories of Evolution, Genetics, and phylogeny to make its case. The thing I'm not understanding is why you think "evolutionists" are purposely mixing terms. I think its actually a tad bit dishonest to claim that when you state Evolution, you are talking about the theory of evolution, considering all your claims have been against the theory itself.

Evolution and natural selection are generally accepted as facts. It is whether those facts necessarily lead to the theory of evolution that is debatable.

You can't have natural selection without the theory of evolution. Thats like saying that the law of gravity is a fact, but it doesn't back up the theory.

If organisms adapt to their environments through natural selection, they are in fact evolving.

I understand that there can be exceptions and circumstances where a single definition won't fit, but that doesn't have to prevent us from having an objective definition. Look at the following definitions that could apply to ring species.

1. In the case of ring species, all the groups within the ring are considered a single species.
2. In the case of ring species, one of the groups within the ring is considered the main species, and the other groups are considered sub-species.
3. In the case of ring species, each group within the ring is considered a separate species.

1. may I ask you where you got these definitions?

All of those definitions are objective.

By what standard?

any of them could work as a definition of "species" which would apply to these specific circumstances.

Actually, it says in the definitions that they apply to ring species. That isn't all inclusive to all species.

What doesn't work, in my opinion, is using one of those definitions for dogs and a different definition for gulls, when the exact same situation exists for both.

I explained above that it wasn't the exact same situation.

There can be many definitions which would apply to many different situations, such as one definition for organisms that reproduce sexually and another definition for organisms that reproduce asexually or one definition that applies to ring species and another definition that applies to species that are not part of a ring. But however many definitions there are, they need to be applied consistently to all groups that fulfill the same criteria.

For the most part they are used the same way.

Picking which definition to use depending on what best fits the theory is completely unscientific, which is what this thread was originally about.

That isn't what is going on though. The definition of species does not nullify nor support the theory of evolution, nor does it make it a religion.

You are so wrapped up over the definition of species, you aren't even addressing the actual supporting arguments and evidence for the theory of evolution.

Note that saying something isn't scientific isn't the same as saying that it's wrong. Look at these three statements.

1. There is no god
2. There is one god
3. There are many gods

None of these statements is scientific, since they are neither testable nor falsifiable. But logic dictates that one of them must be true.

The TOG​

Thankfully the Theory of Evolution is not balanced on the definition of species.

 

[Sailingflutist-SF]

Darwin gave this collection of observations a name but he was NOT the first to compile such observations. Origin of the Spieces, a singular book however big, was copyrighted in 1849, I have held a copy in the bsmt of MSU library. A French botanist compiled an exhaustive encyclopedia of such observations 200 years earlier. What Darwin "came up with" was well-developed and worn by 1849. In the late 1800's a Russian scientist, Dobonosky or something like that was head over heels in love with the theory. He was one of the initial propagators of the idea of evolution which was gaining popularity becasue that was also the era of the origin of humanism as a religion, which denies any involovement of a super-natural being or design for humanity. He would begin every chapter of a book of his propagating evolution with a religous prose verse refering to evolution as the "light" and such.

 

[Barbarian]

Darwin gave this collection of observations a name but he was NOT the first to compile such observations.

Darwin was not the first to realize evolution. By the time he wrote his book, most scientists knew that some kind of change over time must be happening. He was the first to come up with a comprehensive explanation of why evolution happened.

Origin of the Spieces, a singular book however big, was copyrighted in 1849, I have held a copy in the bsmt of MSU library. A French botanist compiled an exhaustive encyclopedia of such observations 200 years earlier. What Darwin "came up with" was well-developed and worn by 1849. In the late 1800's a Russian scientist, Dobonosky or something like that was head over heels in love with the theory.

There were many theories of evolution. Darwin's became the one that survived, because it explains the evidence, and because it made predictions which have been repeatedly verified.

He was one of the initial propagators of the idea of evolution which was gaining popularity becasue that was also the era of the origin of humanism as a religion, which denies any involovement of a super-natural being or design for humanity.

Desiderius Erasmus: "Prince of the Humanists":
He is perhaps best known for his work De Libero Arbitrio (On the Freedom of the Will), which used Scripture and the thoughts of church fathers to prove the freedom of the will in contravention of what Martin Luther believed. Erasmus defined free will as the power of choice by which every human being can apply himself to the things which lead to everlasting safety or turns himself away from them. In contrast to the fiery oratory of Martin Luther, Erasmus' works were calmer and provided a voice for reason in the rocky period of Christianity in Europe.
http://voices.yahoo.com/desiderius-erasmus-prince-humanists-32642.html

Humanism is the Christian reform movement that attempted to moderate the religious hatreds of the time.

Darwin's faith said that God created the first living things, as he wrote in The Origin of Species.

 

[Milk-Drops]

Darwin gave this collection of observations a name but he was NOT the first to compile such observations. Origin of the Spieces, a singular book however big, was copyrighted in 1849, I have held a copy in the bsmt of MSU library. A French botanist compiled an exhaustive encyclopedia of such observations 200 years earlier. What Darwin "came up with" was well-developed and worn by 1849. In the late 1800's a Russian scientist, Dobonosky or something like that was head over heels in love with the theory. He was one of the initial propagators of the idea of evolution which was gaining popularity becasue that was also the era of the origin of humanism as a religion, which denies any involovement of a super-natural being or design for humanity. He would begin every chapter of a book of his propagating evolution with a religous prose verse refering to evolution as the "light" and such.

I'm being polite here. Did you verify any of this before you posted this? Especially the concept of humanism being a religion when it's a philosophy, and how a botanist came up with evolution 200 years before Darwin. The concept of evolution had been around but no one had penned any specific research toward it. Darwin was the first to fully explain mechanisms and ways to test the theory's that is why he is recofnized for it. Also the concept of evolution that was floating around before Darwin was Lemarkism.



Guys, verify your facts.

 

[Barbarian]

In fact, even natural selection was considered by some biologists before Darwin. They just could quite put it all together in a testable hypothesis. Darwin's great contribution was to show how it works, and provide some predictions that would either verify or refute it.

Hence his place as one of the great scientists.