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

[SyntaxVorlon]

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.

Don't backpedal. Unless there is a mule population that is self sustaining this does not change the fact that genetic material from horses doesn't go into the stock of donkeys and vice versa.

[quote:eea5e]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.
[/quote:eea5e]
If you really want to argue on the taxonomy of jungle cats, you can go and scream your head off at a taxonomist. This doesn't change the fact that evolution happens and that isolated populations become more and more different from the rest of their species, to the point that they eventually become a new species. This can be shown to happen, it has happened. With long enough genetic isolation they can become a new genus, and further. And unless you're willing to make a sorites fallacy here, the debate is over.

[quote:eea5e]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...
[/quote:eea5e]
I doubt horses from Persia would have migrated to Africa or to the Mongolian steppe for an equus bootycall.

[quote:eea5e]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[/quote:eea5e]
I, too, am having problems with your argument in this area. I will look forward to seeing you put this into a more complete context. ON WITH THE FIRESTORM!!!

 

[Guest]

[/b]In my opinion,I honestly believe that evolution doesn't
deserve this much attention being that any serious researcher
can easily conclude that it did not happen,and it isn't happening.
It isn't going to happen either. This is easy to understand.
The only reason I debate these issues at all is to help the people
who reject the truth come to their senses someday.
May God save them all,in Jesus's sweet and holy name,amen.

 

[Blue-Lightning]

Unless there is a mule population that is self sustaining this does not change the fact that genetic material from horses doesn't go into the stock of donkeys and vice versa.

This would be assuming that horses, donkeys, and mules/hinnies are all of a separate population. I think I have shown enough evidence to sustain that they are indeed one reproducing group. Horses and donkeys mate and create mules/hinnies, most mules/hinnies are sterile but a few are not, those few mate with donkeys, horses, or other mules/hinnies continuing the swapping of genetic variation. One group.

This doesn't change the fact that evolution happens and that isolated populations become more and more different from the rest of their species, to the point that they eventually become a new species.

Never ever ever been observed to happen. Its part of a theory to explain how we have this diversity in life, but we have yet to observe it. That is, one group previously able to reproduce with another group which becomes completely isolated and then becomes incapable of sharing genes with its divergent group.

You can say that the argument is over if I do not accept that, but I say that you have yet to provide an instance where we have seen what you theorize happens happen.

I doubt horses from Persia would have migrated to Africa or to the Mongolian steppe for an equus bootycall.

Over a long span of time they might have...

And Blueeyliner, I strongly disagree. The ToE is a well formulated theory that has much merit in the amount of research, knowledge, and calcuating that went into it. It is an amazing theory. I don't think it is correct and I see major problems within it, but that doesn't mean that it isn't one honey of a theory.

BL

 

[keebs]

In my opinion,I honestly believe that evolution doesn't
deserve this much attention being that any serious researcher
can easily conclude that it did not happen,and it isn't happening.
It isn't going to happen either. This is easy to understand.
The only reason I debate these issues at all is to help the people
who reject the truth come to their senses someday.
May God save them all,in Jesus's sweet and holy name,amen.

Really? That's funny, as far as I can tell, there are many, many pro-evolution biologists out there with a much higher education that you doing research on evolution. Imagine that.

 

[Blazin Bones]

[quote="Brutus/HisCatalyst":8e9db]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 :D[/quote:8e9db]

I sincerely Apologize The Tuatha'an. : I've read others post and I saw I made that error a little too late.

 

[Asimov]

[quote="The Tuatha'an":8fa29][quote="Brutus/HisCatalyst":8fa29]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 :D[/quote:8fa29]

I sincerely Apologize The Tuatha'an. : I've read others post and I saw I made that error a little too late.[/quote:8fa29]

Haha, it's all good.

 

[Blazin Bones]

In my opinion,I honestly believe that evolution doesn't
deserve this much attention being that any serious researcher
can easily conclude that it did not happen,and it isn't happening.
It isn't going to happen either. This is easy to understand.
The only reason I debate these issues at all is to help the people
who reject the truth come to their senses someday.
May God save them all,in Jesus's sweet and holy name,amen.

Really? That's funny, as far as I can tell, there are many, many pro-evolution biologists out there with a much higher education that you doing research on evolution. Imagine that.

My friend keebs, Just because they support it, doesn't mean it's anymore right. As we've seen you ignore some of the facts anyway.

That's okay my friend, we knew you had a biased opinion anyway.

And I also excluded it because if it did happen, then my expectation would just be an underestimate

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

In my opinion,I honestly believe that evolution doesn't
deserve this much attention being that any serious researcher
can easily conclude that it did not happen,and it isn't happening.
It isn't going to happen either. This is easy to understand.
The only reason I debate these issues at all is to help the people
who reject the truth come to their senses someday.
May God save them all,in Jesus's sweet and holy name,amen.

Really? That's funny, as far as I can tell, there are many, many pro-evolution biologists out there with a much higher education that you doing research on evolution. Imagine that.

My friend keebs, Just because they support it, doesn't mean it's anymore right. As we've seen you ignore some of the facts anyway.

Incorrect, for two reasons. The first is that they are in fact experts in the area of study that they are researching and are doing empirical studies in. The second is that you said "ANY" serious researcher, implying that the whole of biological science is either inept or not doing research, both of which are refuted in the first reason.

That's okay my friend, we knew you had a biased opinion anyway.

Bias matters not, all that matters is the strength and validity of the argument.

 

[Blazin Bones]

SyntaxVorlon, the post that keebs quoted was that of my good friend blueeyeliner. Why is it that you men Ignore my entire post, just because they support it doesn't make it anymore right. A person who argue's on a bias will never except facts from the other opinion, because they don't agree with it. A bias is a sign that you are unwilling to change even if proven wrong, which wastes time and words.

 

[Featherbop]

I agree, Bias is very important. Or I should say, the lack of bias is important. If no bias existed, then all people would esentially be the same, or rather, no people would exist.

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

SyntaxVorlon, the post that keebs quoted was that of my good friend blueeyeliner. Why is it that you men Ignore my entire post, just because they support it doesn't make it anymore right.

Since they study it, understand it, and are highly knowledgable in the field then their judgement is probably right. It doesn't make it any more right, no, but neither does anyone saying something is right or wrong. However, defering to the knowledge of someone who has credibility in the area IS a viable argument. If you were talking about ethics and someone quoted a famous geneticist, then that lacks argumentive force.

A person who argue's on a bias will never except facts from the other opinion, because they don't agree with it. A bias is a sign that you are unwilling to change even if proven wrong, which wastes time and words.

I AM willing to accept facts based on their truth, and just because I disagree with you on the truthfulness of the facts does not make me biased any more than it makes YOU biased.

 

[Blazin Bones]

Temper, temper my vorlon friend. I still make every effort to reveiw your arguements with the facts proven by both side of the coin. Unfortunately, creationist still have faith as a final missing link because we choose to believe God. Can He be proven, not unless you yourself encounter him, as some of us have.

 

[Asimov]

I AM willing to accept facts based on their truth, and just because I disagree with you on the truthfulness of the facts does not make me biased any more than it makes YOU biased.

Just as an aside:

It is true that scientists can be biased to their own beliefs. Which is why we have many many scientists working on the same thing. We look at all the evidence provided, put it in a bias filter and voila! We have as near to the truth as we can get.

 

[Blazin Bones]

A much better response, Tuatha'an. I told you all, A temper gets nowhere with me. Tua, was calm and I can undserstand better his reasoning, because his temper was in check. Thanks the Tuatha'an for being so reasonable. 8-)

 

[Blazin Bones]

I had never heard of ERV's. I look forward to learning more about them.

 

[ThinkerMan]

I haven't heard of them either...but here is my first blush...someone who knows more feel free to correct me, etc.

Essentially, ERVs seem to be mutations. Now, they are external mutations, an addition of genetic material, not just a copying error or otherwise (which would be an internal mutation).

Given that that are simply a mutation, there effects could be negative, neutral, or beneficial.

Once again, as with other mutations, one would expect for them to suceed better and be more prevelant. I don't necessarily see how this is detrimental to the TOE.

Unless there is some precondition that all ERVs, by definition of adding previously unhad genetic code, is incapable of having an effect on the existing genetic orders.

I don't know the answer to that, but if it is no, then beneficial ERV's should be expected, right?

 

[Blazin Bones]

Well, ThinkerMan, In this case I'll stick with the experts. I know just about the same, now that I've reveiwed the topic for a little while. How are you today, ThinkerMan?

 

[Sophistress]

A much better response, Tuatha'an. I told you all, A temper gets nowhere with me. Tua, was calm and I can undserstand better his reasoning, because his temper was in check. Thanks the Tuatha'an for being so reasonable. 8-)

What's with the condescending attitude?

 

[ThinkerMan]

Well, ThinkerMan, In this case I'll stick with the experts.

That's precisely what I have done. If you look at the very top of this thread it says "Post here to make a comment". That is what I did.

I did not claim to be an expert, I simply issued an opinion with a qualifyer that I may be in error, and solicited a correction if warrented.

Either....

1. Refute my logic
2. Refute my underlying facts (which I said may be in error)
3. Make your own comment
4. Ignore my post

Any of the above will do....

What's with the condescending attitude?

I agree, your posts have a condescending edge to them.

 

[Blazin Bones]

That's not my intent at all. : I apologize If they seem as such. I forget sometimes that sarcasim is hard to read while typing on a computer.