[_ Old Earth _] POST HERE TO MAKE A COMMENT ON THE DEBATE

[Blazin Bones]

To prevent a collapse in the debate, please post any comments you have here in this thread. This will allow both debators to consentrate on their debate.

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

Why?

 

[Blazin Bones]

Hey Vorlon, your free to monitor the debate thread, but as for keeping the debate fair, we should post our remarks here. Are you not confident in the ability of The Tuatha'an to debate this alone? I am fully behind Blue Lightning and I believe this debate will be quite revealing. If you would rather post in the debate thread, I can't stop you, but that takes away from the integrity of the debate. It was a one on one challenge.

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

Ah I see.

 

[Blazin Bones]

THE DEBATE HAS BEGUN!

FROM THIS POINT ON YOU MAY POST ANY OPINIONS ABOUT THE DEBATE.

 

[Blazin Bones]

In fact, I'll start. I believe this was a great place to start. Genetic Mutation is a huge part of evolution. I look forward to seeing how The Tuatha'an responds. 8-) God's love to all.

 

[Featherbop]

I'm looking foward to watching this debate as well.

One thing, who decides the victor of the debate as a whole or of each point?

 

[Asimov]

I'm looking foward to watching this debate as well.

One thing, who decides the victor of the debate as a whole or of each point?

I hadn't thought about that.

I didn't go into this debate thinking about winning or losing. I am just trying my hand at formal debating. I've never done it before.

 

[Featherbop]

I suppose that a winner does not need to be officially declared then.

Each veiwer of the debate can decide personally who "won" or "lost".

Like the presidential debates. 8-)

 

[keebs]

Man, it's so obvious that Bush wins everything... :-D

But, I do like the suggestion that the winner does not need to be officially declared. If we did that, then it would just be another 10 pages of worthless blah...

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

Well Blue has dropped the gauntlet, I'll refrain from kibitzing and let tua'athan make his reply first.

 

[Blazin Bones]

Well the debate is still young, but both have started with strong and clear posts. I've read the points of The Tuatha'an and she has clearly presented her rebutal. I'm looking forward to the response that is to be given by Blue-Lightning.

 

[Asimov]

Well the debate is still young, but both have started with strong and clear posts. I've read the points of The Tuatha'an and she has clearly presented her rebutal. I'm looking forward to the response that is to be given by Blue-Lightning.

Hehehe...brutus

I'm a dude

 

[Blue-Lightning]

Another question would be how many rounds this debate goes on for before it is over... after all, every good debate must end at some point.

BL

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

Problem #1 w/ the ToE:

One of the problems with the theory of evolution is that it depends on the classification of species in both modern and extinct organisms, but these classifications are largely subjective. For example, a teacher might say that macroevolution has been observed in a major organism group since the domesticated canine is a distinct species from the wolf, the known ancestor of the domestic dog.

As tuatha'an pointed out, they are not different species.

While it is true that the wolf is very close to the animal group that our lovable pooches most likely came from, the problem is that dogs and wolves often reproduce with each other - so are they truly separate species? As I have mentioned before, the chihuahua and the great dane are much more genetically different than wolves and huskies, yet it would be laughable to say that chihuahuas and great danes are of separate species. But what would a modern archaelogist say if he were to see a great dane and a chihuahua skeleton for the first time without having every known of the two breeds; would he believe that these two vastly different organisms were different species?

The fact that most of the taxonomy done on fossils is looking at bone structure, the near identical bone structure would not cause them to be considered separate species.

Most likely since the only thing that truly unites them from the skeletal perspective is their teeth alignment. Now some people would say however that this is an anomally because humans have bred dogs to capitalise on the diversity that can occur within a species and that naturally this would not occur since such radicals would not be beneficial (after all, does anyone truly believe a tea-cup chihuahua could survive in the wild?). However, take a look at the diversity within different cat species (and remember how loosely we can use the word 'species') and you'll see that reproducing animal groups diversify naturally quite a bit. In fact, I am providing a link to a website where people are breeding cats of different species to create hybrids (can anyone say new species?). While the cats are breeding in unnatural conditions, its completely conceivable that more similar cat species would likely breed together in nature over time, thus linking all these cat species in a genetic pool. I say this with the reminder however that not all cat species share a genetic pool and this should be stated (lions for example). But it seems to knock a big chink in our scientific classifications when species of cats that were supposed to have macroevolved from other species are now being bred with each other to create hybrid species... aren't hybrids supposed to just refer to breeds and cars?

http://www.chausie.net/aboutourcattery.html

The concept of a species has changed greatly over the past few centuries. Taxonomy has become less subjective because of the use of genetics, at least for modern animals, and we've gained far better information through that understanding of genetics. (For instance, pandas are no longer classified near racoons but with bears where they belong)
While it is true that some closely related species can intermingle, for the most part the non-viable offspring is true of all interspecies mating.
Speciation has been shown to happen, and under modern definition it can be said that when it happens a population of one species has become isolated hereditarily and genetically distant enough from the rest to make the production of viable offspring less and less likely.

 

[ThinkerMan]

I think this current debate topic is a bit of a red herring.

It simply plays around the fringes, the edges of evolution and speciation. The line between dogs/wolves and different types of cats is certainly not as black and white as, say, chimps and humans.

While there can be some degree of debate on the former, I think most people would readily and objectively accept the later. Also, centering this topic around domesticated animals automatically removes "natural selection". We are not discussing evolution in the purest sense of the term.

It's also interesting from a philosophical point of view. If creationism is to be credited with creating the seperate species at one point in time, then there should not be these "grey areas" of speciation. Each species should be clear and distinct from the others.

The very fact that this debate is having a tough time clearly identifying very closely related species indicates that they are indeed closely related, and that genetic drift (since we are talking domestication) is a assumed aspect of that relation.

 

[cubedbee]

But on a more serious note, the definition is completely ignored by the scientific community - just take a look at horses and donkeys again; they interbreed all the time, yet they are separate species. And I can name dozens if not hundreds other such examples.

Wikipedia[/url]]The biological species or isolation species concept identifies a species as a set of actually or potentially interbreeding organisms. This is generally the most useful formulation for scientists working with living examples of the higher taxa like mammals, fish, and birds, but meaningless for organisms that do not reproduce sexually. It distinguishes between the theoretical possibility of interbreeding and the actual likelihood of gene flow between populations. For example, it is possible to cross a horse with a donkey and produce offspring, however they remain separate speciesâ€â€in this case for two different reasons: first because horses and donkeys do not normally interbreed in the wild, and second because the fruit of the union is rarely fertile. The key to defining a biological species is that there is no significant cross-flow of genetic material between the two populations.

I think this last sentence is most significant. Horses and donkeys are not in the same species because there is no transfer of genetic material due to the infertile offspring. Great Danes and Chihuahas are the same species because, while they can't reproduce directly, there is genetic flow from one to the other through other dog breeds.

 

[cubedbee]

I also found this article to be interesting and pertinent to the current discussion. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3730574.stm

'New' giant ape found in DR Congo
Scientists believe they have discovered a new group of giant apes in the jungles of central Africa.
The animals, with characteristics of both gorillas and chimpanzees, have been sighted in the north of the Democratic Republic of Congo.

According to local villagers, the apes are ferocious, and even capable of killing lions.

A report about the mysterious creatures is published in this week's edition of the UK magazine New Scientist.

If they are a new species of primate, it could be one of the most important wildlife discoveries in decades.

The discovery of these apes "reveals just how much we still have to learn about our closest living relatives," New Scientist says.


They stand up to two metres tall, the size of gorillas, and like gorillas, they nest on the ground, not in trees.
But they live hundreds of km away from any other known gorilla populations, and their diet is closer to that of chimpanzees.

Primatologist Shelly Williams is thought to be the only scientist to have seen the apes.

During her visit to DR Congo two years ago, she says she captured them on video and located their nests.

She describes her encounter with them: "Four suddenly came rushing out of the bush towards me," she told New Scientist.

"If this had been a bluff charge, they would have been screaming to intimidate us. These guys were quiet. And they were huge. They were coming in for the kill. I was directly in front of them, and as soon as they saw my face, they stopped and disappeared."

Mystery

The discovery has baffled scientists. There are three controversial possibilities to explain the origin of the mystery apes:

They are a new species of ape
They are giant chimpanzees, much larger than any so far recorded, but behave like gorillas
They could be hybrids, the product of gorillas mating with chimpanzees.

So far, researchers have little to go on, but they now plan to return to northern DR Congo to study the apes further.
In the meantime, there are fears that unless measures are taken to protect them, poaching could threaten this new group of primates before the mystery of their identity is resolved.

"This is a lawless area," says Kenyan-based Swiss photographer Karl Ammann, who tipped Ms Williams off about the apes.

"The government has practically no control over hunting. If we found something interesting it would attract more investment. People would be more interested in conserving it."

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

Another question would be how many rounds this debate goes on for before it is over... after all, every good debate must end at some point.

BL

As long as the debate centers on major issues in biological evolution, then 4-5 would suffice. Less if that's too much.

 

[Blue-Lightning]

Horses and donkeys are not in the same species because there is no transfer of genetic material due to the infertile offspring.

That's the general rule... however there are exceptions. If you'll check the website I provided concerning mules and hinnies, you'll find that they are only usually sterile.

Great Danes and Chihuahas are the same species because, while they can't reproduce directly, there is genetic flow from one to the other through other dog breeds.

But then that leaves the question of the jungle cats that can breed between species and why they aren't a single species understood to be different breeds instead of completely different species.

If creationism is to be credited with creating the seperate species at one point in time, then there should not be these "grey areas" of speciation. Each species should be clear and distinct from the others.

Of course, I don't believe in simple creationism, but I would respond by saying that perhaps there aren't gray areas. Perhaps each species is clear and distinct. Look at horses, zebras, and donkeys (to name a few)... why is it that we just accept that they are a different species? They can breed together and they would over time if humanity hadn't separated them for the most part through urbanization and destruction of habitat. Perhaps it is us who make gray areas in our minds...

I think this current debate topic is a bit of a red herring.

Well, that's your opinion, but I used it to set up the future arguments that I have. And I think I've knocked enough holes in the idea that we have species classifications right that a few people may be more interested. Plus, its not a typical argument is it?

Now, I believe it is Tua's turn to start a topic. The debate would be severely one-sided if he were to get to respond twice to my statements and get the last word every time. So I will wait for the new topic Tua starts which should strengthen the argument for macroevolution.

BL