Do you believe in evolution?

[Coyote]

Even if speciation could happen gradually, it still requires a fertile male and female. And whatever changes in the male would have to be matched by different changes in the female. You see, the same mutation, or the same string of mutations, doesn't produce compatible males and females. The changes to the female have to be quite different from the male, but result in 100% sexual compatiblility.

Regardless of how you twist this to introduce millions of years into the speciation equation, you must have a male and female sexually compatible with each other who are alive in the same generation and successfully mate. If you don't have the following speciation can't occur:

1. A male and female must be sexually compatible with each other and not the remaining population.
2. The male and female must be alive in the same generation.
3. The male and female must successfully mate.

Speciation either occurs in one generation or it doesn't occur.

It really doesn't work like that at all - look at this for example:

1. You have a heard of animals: A,B,C,D,E,W,X,Y,Z
2. One group gets seperated by a geologic event so you have W,X,Y,Z isolated an island for a very long time.
3. Small mutations occur in that isolated group that are cumulative - in other words each mutation by itself is not enough to prevent mating among W,X,Y,Z and because they are isolated together they can share genes back and forth.
4. Eventually they are reunited with their original group but - by then - the additive effect of these small mutations is enough that W,X,Y,Z can no longer breed with A,B,C,D,E group, they can only breed amongst themselves and a new species develops.

 

[DrWho]

That requires a belief in a hypothetical deity that has no scientific proof to support it's existance.

Yes it would require a belief in a deity. And while said deity is not a proven fact there is evidence that points in that direction.

There is plenty of evidence for macroevolution which I outlined earlier in this thread - for example fish to amphibian in the fossil record. But aside from all that - just because we don't know the answer yet doesn't mean that a deity came in and created it. Negative evidence is not evidence - it just means we have to keep searching.

Yes there is evidence for macroevolution. But just as evidence for the existence of God does not prove God it does not prove macroevolution either. The thing about evidence is that it still needs to be interpreted by us. some of us will see it one way and some of us will see it another. I suggest that we all keep searching and that we be open to various possibilities.

I don't at all see how it's "evidence" for God - it could be evidence for the Flying Spaghetti Monster for all that. It's negative evidence and negative evidence is not scientific.

As I said evidence needs to be interpreted. So it could be God or it could be a God called the FSM or it could even be something else. But we have to admit that the evidence is open to interpretation at this time.

 

[ArmChair General]

Yes it would require a belief in a deity. And while said deity is not a proven fact there is evidence that points in that direction.




Yes there is evidence for macroevolution. But just as evidence for the existence of God does not prove God it does not prove macroevolution either. The thing about evidence is that it still needs to be interpreted by us. some of us will see it one way and some of us will see it another. I suggest that we all keep searching and that we be open to various possibilities.



As I said evidence needs to be interpreted. So it could be God or it could be a God called the FSM or it could even be something else. But we have to admit that the evidence is open to interpretation at this time.

Where is this evidence for the existence of a God?

 

[Coyote]

Yes it would require a belief in a deity. And while said deity is not a proven fact there is evidence that points in that direction.

Whether or not I or anyone believes in a deity is irrelevant - it's not science. There is no scientific evidence that points to the existance of a deity. It's a matter of faith and I respect those views but it is not science.

Yes there is evidence for macroevolution. But just as evidence for the existence of God does not prove God it does not prove macroevolution either.

What....? Thus far - macroevolution is the scientific theory that best fits the available facts.

The thing about evidence is that it still needs to be interpreted by us. some of us will see it one way and some of us will see it another. I suggest that we all keep searching and that we be open to various possibilities.

I believe science keeps an open mind - certainly it adjusts it's theories to fit new data and certainly the process can be contentious between different camps.

As I said evidence needs to be interpreted. So it could be God or it could be a God called the FSM or it could even be something else. But we have to admit that the evidence is open to interpretation at this time.

Keeping in mind that just because something is unexplained doesn't mean it's unexplainable - what scientific evidence is there to prove the existance of God?

 

[DrWho]

Whether or not I or anyone believes in a deity is irrelevant - it's not science. There is no scientific evidence that points to the existance of a deity. It's a matter of faith and I respect those views but it is not science.

You are right, it is not science - it is religion. We agree. Except that a person's religion is not irrelevant and religion in general is not irrelevant. There is scientific evidence that could point to a deity. If the universe were always in existence then there would be no need for it to have a creator. If the universe were created it would have to have been created by something or someone. Science says it was created. The something may or not be a God but this is situation that makes belief in God more likely than if the universe were always in existence.

What....? Thus far - macroevolution is the scientific theory that best fits the available facts.

Except for one problem. The deck has been stacked. Science starts with the assumption that only evidence that can be observed will be taken into account. Any evidence that comes from a place outside of nature will be ignored. This is a great way to maintain objectivity about the natural world but it is a lousy way to delve into the mysteries of the universe. Darwin specifically stated that evolution took place without the hand of a creator. This is a biased, illogical, and faith based statement. If it is to be true science then it will refrain from making statements about God and if it is to search for truth then it must be open to the possibility that God did have a hand in it.

I believe science keeps an open mind - certainly it adjusts it's theories to fit new data and certainly the process can be contentious between different camps.

It only keeps an open mind as long as the camps restrict themselves to the natural world. And that is fine as long as people do not get confused and think that science addresses the questions that rightfully belong to the religious camp. As soon as the physicists stated that there was a moment when the universe was created they needed to recognize that there was a line that a pure scientist could not cross without becoming a person of faith. Many renowned scientists did just that - and they saw God.

Keeping in mind that just because something is unexplained doesn't mean it's unexplainable - what scientific evidence is there to prove the existance of God?

Science starts with a person making an observation. Every once in a while a person makes an observation that is not consistent with what the current state of science knows about the universe. Sometimes this person becomes a father of a new scientific discovery, sometimes they are just a kook, and sometimes they have seen a miracle.

One of the evidences is the eyewitness accounts of miracles. Until you see it yourself, for you, it will be a matter of faith to believe the account or not.

 

[invest07]

2. One group gets seperated by a geologic event so you have W,X,Y,Z isolated an island for a very long time. QUOTE]

Interesting hypothesis but for the vast majority of specics this can't possibly be the case.

How does a school of ocean fish get separated from it's comrades?
How does a flock of flying birds get isolated?
Is isolation always necessary for speciation?
Are you saying that every one of the millions of species now in existence had to become isolated for speciation to occur?

coyote,
You are running out of science with such a wild and unlikely hypothesis. Isn't it about time to hide behind millions of years? Isn't it time to tell me again that the lack of transitional fossils is due to something like rare specific conditions necessary for fossilization. Isn't it time to explain to me that evolution is about populations and not individuals? (Forget the fact that mutations must first occur to an individual before spreading to the population).

Isn't it time to ask me if I still believe in a flat earth or magic wands?

 

[invest07]

Armie
Good to hear from you again.

"Too much order?

99% of the species that ever walked on Earth are extinct.

Galaxys collide with each other, stars supernova, meteors impact planets.


Every where you look, you see disorder. Consider that smallpox alone has killed around 500 million people, just in the 20th century, many of them were infants.

Where is all this 'order' that your speaking of?"

Order is a heart that is fed by veins and arteries. Order is lungs with a properly disgined windpipe and bmnasal passages that support respiration. Order is a sleletal framework to support the entire body. Order is skin to enclose and act as a barrier to uinfection. Order is a highly complex brain to contraol the whole business.

 

[Coyote]

Interesting hypothesis but for the vast majority of specics this can't possibly be the case.

How does a school of ocean fish get separated from it's comrades?

Geological events - inland seas closing up and turning into lakes, underground seismic and volcanic activities dividing oceanic regions into hospitable and inhospitable zones. Simple distance geography - a population expands or migrates to fill a vacuum say, and the groups at the extreme ends of the migration begin to change.

How does a flock of flying birds get isolated?

Same thing - expansion, migration into new habitats where they settle and breed amongst themselves.

Is isolation always necessary for speciation?
Are you saying that every one of the millions of species now in existence had to become isolated for speciation to occur?

Physical isolation in terms of geological barriers is not always necessary. Other types of isolation - such as migration will do the same.

coyote,
You are running out of science with such a wild and unlikely hypothesis. Isn't it about time to hide behind millions of years? Isn't it time to tell me again that the lack of transitional fossils is due to something like rare specific conditions necessary for fossilization. Isn't it time to explain to me that evolution is about populations and not individuals? (Forget the fact that mutations must first occur to an individual before spreading to the population).

Isn't it time to ask me if I still believe in a flat earth or magic wands?

No, I'm sticking to hard science here and I'm sticking to one of the bedrock principles of speciation and evolution - the study of population genetics. Am I losing you?

 

[invest07]

coyote
I'm not sure if your latest post answers my question:
Does speciation require isolation?
You seem to be saying it does.
Am I interpreting your post properly?

 

[Coyote]

coyote
I'm not sure if your latest post answers my question:
Does speciation require isolation?
You seem to be saying it does.
Am I interpreting your post properly?

Yes it requires some form of seperation from another population - that can be distance (ie from one end of the species' habitat to the other, or it can be physical - new mountain ranges, inland seas drying up and becoming lakes, flooding....etc.

 

[Coyote]

Actually, a bit more on the causes of speciation not necessarly caused by physical isolation, that may explain it better than I was able to:


http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article//evo_43
Reduction of gene flow

However, speciation might also happen in a population with no specific extrinsic barrier to gene flow. Imagine a situation in which a population extends over a broad geographic range, and mating throughout the population is not random. Individuals in the far west would have zero chance of mating with individuals in the far eastern end of the range. So we have reduced gene flow, but not total isolation. This may or may not be sufficient to cause speciation. Speciation would probably also require different selective pressures at opposite ends of the range, which would alter gene frequencies in groups at different ends of the range so much that they would not be able to mate if they were reunited.

Even in the absence of a geographic barrier, reduced gene flow across a species' range can encourage speciation.

 

[DrWho]

Yes it requires some form of seperation from another population - that can be distance (ie from one end of the species' habitat to the other, or it can be physical - new mountain ranges, inland seas drying up and becoming lakes, flooding....etc.

Since none of us has witnessed speciation the world may never know...


But isolation could also be anything that causes one subgroup to not breed with another subgroup. For example, some bird species have DNA that would be compatible but their mating rituals (dances and mating calls) are incompatible so they do not interbreed.

 

[Coyote]

Since none of us has witnessed speciation the world may never know...

Speciation on a small scale has been witnessed in some insects and possibly some fish and in bacteria and plants.

But isolation could also be anything that causes one subgroup to not breed with another subgroup. For example, some bird species have DNA that would be compatible but their mating rituals (dances and mating calls) are incompatible so they do not interbreed.

Yes exactly - good point.

 

[DrWho]

Speciation on a small scale has been witnessed in some insects and possibly some fish and in bacteria and plants.

Changes that cause one group of individual to be different than another group but still obviously the same species don't really count for much.

So what if the sheep on the left side of the mountain are mostly white and the sheep on the right side are mostly black.

If they do not become different species we have not observed anything significant. Are they a different species or not? If it is on a small scale then I assume you mean they are not different.

 

[Coyote]

Changes that cause one group of individual to be different than another group but still obviously the same species don't really count for much.

So what if the sheep on the left side of the mountain are mostly white and the sheep on the right side are mostly black.

That is not what I am referring to.

What is your definition of "species"?

If they do not become different species we have not observed anything significant. Are they a different species or not? If it is on a small scale then I assume you mean they are not different.

What is your definition of species?