CDZ Another Evolution vs Creationism Debate

[320 Years of History]

You do understand there is no actual debate taking place, right?

Yep- but I am ever hopeful.

I don't know how much of a good debate you'll get. There's a lot of ground to cover and the other person with whom you began the debate in the Bullring has asked for one point per post. A comprehensive argument one way or the other takes making more than one point.

Another impediment to getting good debate in this thread is that the OP has a tacit assumption in it that science is trying to prove that there is not a god, and thus that no god could have created the life we observe, and the problem with that is that it is not an assertion science has made.

A third limiter to the merit of the debate is that the nature of the way the question was framed presupposes that one accept that there is a god of some sort. One can't have much of a debate about whether a god effected the existence of life on Earth until one accepts that god exists. It's only after establishing and agreeing that a god does exist that one can next debate/discuss what s/he/it created or didn't create, and how.

Given at least those three things, I don't see much cause for expecting rigorous thinkers to engage too deeply in debate here, in this thread. If you want to engage is mindless prattling with "mental midgets," you may well get exactly what you want.

 

[S.J.]

Let's try this.

CDZ - Questions About Creation

CDZ - Questions About Evolution

 

[FA_Q2]

The objective terminology in this debate should be "gradual transformation into new species" vs. "interventional creation of new species." The former theory is derived from the observable adaptation of species to their local environment (e.g., polar bears), but has little archaeological evidence or biological explanation for their transformation into entirely new species. .

That is a great jumping off point for a discussion.

And polar bears are a great example. As you note- polar bears clearly are adapted to their environment. But "Polar Bears" didn't turn from a brown bear to a "white bear"- Polar Bears evolved from Brown Bears into the separate species- polar bear. This evolution from one species to another is supported both by fossil evidence- and by DNA

http://www.geol.umd.edu/~candela/pbevol.html

Hecht (in Chaline, 1983) describes polar bear evolution: the first "polar bear", Ursus maritimus tyrannus, was essentially a brown bear subspecies, with brown bear dimensions and brown bear teeth. Over the next 20,000 years, body size reduced and the skull elongated. As late as 10,000 years ago, polar bears still had a high frequency of brown-bear-type molars. Only recently have they developed polar-bear-type teeth.
Kurten (1976) describes bear transitions: "From the early Ursus minimus of 5 million years ago to the late Pleistocene cave bear, there is a perfectly complete evolutionary sequence without any real gaps. The transition is slow and gradual throughout, and it is quite difficult to say where one species ends and the next begins. Where should we draw the boundary between U. minimus and U. etruscus, or between U. savini and U. spelaeus? The history of the cave bear becomes a demonstration of evolution, not as a hypothesis or theory but as a simple fact of record." He adds, "In this respect the cave bear's history is far from unique."

One small fossil, one giant step for polar bear evolution

Polar Bears can and do mate with Grizzly Bears and produce viable offspring. From a genetic standpoint, they are not different species.

Again, the very term species is virtually useless in an real discussion on evolution or science. We have come to understand that there are no hard lines or rules that delineates one species from another.

 

[FA_Q2]

adaptation is not evolution, evolution means you are not the same species, while adaptation can be as minor as a change in size, still the same, just look different.

evolution fails at the TK boundary, utterly.

after that event the only thing left were a few small, underground mammals and some sea life.

even over million of years you are not going to go from rodent to crocodile.

case in point; we share dna with bananas

The very concept of specie is an old idea that is meaningless. The differences in species are nothing more than a very large amount of adaptation.

adapted from what?

earth was a tumbling ball of flaming rock
then we got hit by a lot of comets and we got water, still tumbled
then we got hit by a rock the size of the moon
that gave the earth rings that eventually became the moon
that gave us spin, season and weather
where did life come from?
from random lighting hitting rocks and water?

evolution fails from the start and refails, hard, at the tk

Considering that abiogenesis has absolutely nothing to do with evolution, it really does not.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

You do understand there is no actual debate taking place, right?

Yep- but I am ever hopeful.

I don't know how much of a good debate you'll get. There's a lot of ground to cover and the other person with whom you began the debate in the Bullring has asked for one point per post. A comprehensive argument one way or the other takes making more than one point.

Another impediment to getting good debate in this thread is that the OP has a tacit assumption in it that science is trying to prove that there is not a god, and thus that no god could have created the life we observe, and the problem with that is that it is not an assertion science has made.

A third limiter to the merit of the debate is that the nature of the way the question was framed presupposes that one accept that there is a god of some sort. One can't have much of a debate about whether a god effected the existence of life on Earth until one accepts that god exists. It's only after establishing and agreeing that a god does exist that one can next debate/discuss what s/he/it created or didn't create, and how.

Given at least those three things, I don't see much cause for expecting rigorous thinkers to engage too deeply in debate here, in this thread. If you want to engage is mindless prattling with "mental midgets," you may well get exactly what you want.

You're over thinking the thread's premise. It was supposed to just be a debate-ish/discussion between two people in the Bullring, but we then decided to bring the discussion to the CDZ because of rules about time limits and numbers of posts for determining a "winner". This was never meant as a rigorous debate of focused subject between two grand thinkers who are masters in their fields of expertise.

Great posts by the way, honestly. I don't know how many people on USMB actually read or comprehend them in their entirety, but some of us do.

 

[Syriusly]

Let's try this.

CDZ - Questions About Creation

CDZ - Questions About Evolution

Well I am a little disappointed that you weren't willing to actually engage in a debate- instead you have established new formats where you can try to limit any discussion of Evolution to questions posed by Creationists.

But I kind of expected that there would be no substantive debate on evolution here.

 

[Syriusly]

You do understand there is no actual debate taking place, right?

Yep- but I am ever hopeful.

I don't know how much of a good debate you'll get. There's a lot of ground to cover and the other person with whom you began the debate in the Bullring has asked for one point per post. A comprehensive argument one way or the other takes making more than one point.

Another impediment to getting good debate in this thread is that the OP has a tacit assumption in it that science is trying to prove that there is not a god, and thus that no god could have created the life we observe, and the problem with that is that it is not an assertion science has made.

A third limiter to the merit of the debate is that the nature of the way the question was framed presupposes that one accept that there is a god of some sort. One can't have much of a debate about whether a god effected the existence of life on Earth until one accepts that god exists. It's only after establishing and agreeing that a god does exist that one can next debate/discuss what s/he/it created or didn't create, and how.

Given at least those three things, I don't see much cause for expecting rigorous thinkers to engage too deeply in debate here, in this thread. If you want to engage is mindless prattling with "mental midgets," you may well get exactly what you want.

You're over thinking the thread's premise. It was supposed to just be a debate-ish/discussion between two people in the Bullring, but we then decided to bring the discussion to the CDZ because of rules about time limits and numbers of posts for determining a "winner". This was never meant as a rigorous debate of focused subject between two grand thinkers who are masters in their fields of expertise.

Great posts by the way, honestly. I don't know how many people on USMB actually read or comprehend them in their entirety, but some of us do.

I think the premise of the debate was very good. Unfortunately there hasn't been a substantive participation by those who believe in Creationism, and now the effort is to avoid a debate entirely.

Which is sad- I am more than willing to engage in an informed debate on Evolution in a format like this that at least attempts to restrict personal attacks rather than discussion.

 

[Elvis Obama]

The Cosmological Argument

Neither side of this argument answers the question that comes to me every time it comes up. What was before the before? Evolution arguments will go to the point of the Big Bang which only raises the question of what or where did this singularity come from? Religious arguments only raise the question of where did this God come from? Logic would dictate that if there was a creator or intelligent designer, that creator/designer would be very scientific in knowledge and would incorporate evolution within its creation. Therefore, I see no reason for the evolution vs. creation argument as I see both as coexisting. I personally don't believe in God in the religious sense but can imagine in a very large and old Universe that an Intelligence has had the time to "evolve" way beyond our capability of understanding. That still brings me to the what was before the before?

I understand your questions- but you do realize that they aren't really part of the debate- right?

You do understand there is no actual debate taking place, right?

Yep- but I am ever hopeful.

May I ask what you are hopeful of? That people will accept creationism as science? That they will see the two concepts as equally valid? Otherwise, how can you debate the question? Creationism is religion and has no place in the classroom. Creationism is not science. What the supporters of creationism fail to understand is that the only way you get to be science is if the scientific community says you are, through peer review.

 

[jwoodie]

Again, the very term species is virtually useless in an real discussion on evolution or science. We have come to understand that there are no hard lines or rules that delineates one species from another.

The term "species" has been a problem for "evolutionists" ever since Darwin popularized it in a biological context. Having no knowledge of DNA or genetic science, he simply used the term to describe groups of animals with similar appearances. It was not until after his death that biologists began to understand that the significance of that term lay in the ability to procreate and produce viable offspring.

In the early 20th Century, further discoveries led to a schism between modern scientific method and traditional religious beliefs (e.g., Scopes trial). The subsequent waning of belief in a literal seven day Biblical Creation contributed to a growing moral certainty among many in the scientific community that that they had, or were on the verge of having, discovered exactly how life developed on Earth. This secular orthodoxy persisted until the 1970s, when further research began to run into new developmental questions which could not be answered by the existing theory.

As a result, a new crusade began to find "missing links" or any other archaeological evidence to shore up the assumption that one species could automatically turn into a completely different species (e.g., dinosaurs into birds). The problems faced by that endeavor were that these "missing links" were extremely hard to find and required great leaps of scientific faith to assign them any true significance. On the contrary, further archaeological research was indicating that new species of animals seemed to appear within relatively narrow geologic periods, thus belying the idea of "gradual" evolution.

Ironically, we have now come almost full circle, where traditional Darwinists seek to suppress contradictory evidence though manipulation of language (and vilification of nonbelievers). As an example, the definition of the term "species" is now being reverted to its pre-scientific meaning of groups of animals with distinctive appearances. This way pesky questions about DNA transference and biological process can be avoided by these "scientists."

 

[FA_Q2]

Again, the very term species is virtually useless in an real discussion on evolution or science. We have come to understand that there are no hard lines or rules that delineates one species from another.

The term "species" has been a problem for "evolutionists" ever since Darwin popularized it in a biological context. Having no knowledge of DNA or genetic science, he simply used the term to describe groups of animals with similar appearances. It was not until after his death that biologists began to understand that the significance of that term lay in the ability to procreate and produce viable offspring.

In the early 20th Century, further discoveries led to a schism between modern scientific method and traditional religious beliefs (e.g., Scopes trial). The subsequent waning of belief in a literal seven day Biblical Creation contributed to a growing moral certainty among many in the scientific community that that they had, or were on the verge of having, discovered exactly how life developed on Earth. This secular orthodoxy persisted until the 1970s, when further research began to run into new developmental questions which could not be answered by the existing theory.

As a result, a new crusade began to find "missing links" or any other archaeological evidence to shore up the assumption that one species could automatically turn into a completely different species (e.g., dinosaurs into birds). The problems faced by that endeavor were that these "missing links" were extremely hard to find and required great leaps of scientific faith to assign them any true significance. On the contrary, further archaeological research was indicating that new species of animals seemed to appear within relatively narrow geologic periods, thus belying the idea of "gradual" evolution.

Ironically, we have now come almost full circle, where traditional Darwinists seek to suppress contradictory evidence though manipulation of language (and vilification of nonbelievers). As an example, the definition of the term "species" is now being reverted to its pre-scientific meaning of groups of animals with distinctive appearances. This way pesky questions about DNA transference and biological process can be avoided by these "scientists."

That entire tirade was absolute bunk. You make blanket claims that the scientific community is 'suppressing' contrary evidence without showing any actual proof. You also make claims that they are suppressing language in things like the term species when that is also bunk. I have already addressed the problems with trying to divide animals by species - it becomes nonsensical with what we now know through genetics.

There are also plenty of transitional fossils around. The fact that you reject them does not change their existence.

 

[Syriusly]

The Cosmological Argument

Neither side of this argument answers the question that comes to me every time it comes up. What was before the before? Evolution arguments will go to the point of the Big Bang which only raises the question of what or where did this singularity come from? Religious arguments only raise the question of where did this God come from? Logic would dictate that if there was a creator or intelligent designer, that creator/designer would be very scientific in knowledge and would incorporate evolution within its creation. Therefore, I see no reason for the evolution vs. creation argument as I see both as coexisting. I personally don't believe in God in the religious sense but can imagine in a very large and old Universe that an Intelligence has had the time to "evolve" way beyond our capability of understanding. That still brings me to the what was before the before?

I understand your questions- but you do realize that they aren't really part of the debate- right?

You do understand there is no actual debate taking place, right?

Yep- but I am ever hopeful.

May I ask what you are hopeful of? That people will accept creationism as science? That they will see the two concepts as equally valid? Otherwise, how can you debate the question? Creationism is religion and has no place in the classroom. Creationism is not science. What the supporters of creationism fail to understand is that the only way you get to be science is if the scientific community says you are, through peer review.

Oh despite the evidence, I still harbor the slight hope that someone would actually be willing to participate in an honest debate. I am pretty much doomed to disappointment.

 

[jwoodie]

Again, the very term species is virtually useless in an real discussion on evolution or science. We have come to understand that there are no hard lines or rules that delineates one species from another.

The term "species" has been a problem for "evolutionists" ever since Darwin popularized it in a biological context. Having no knowledge of DNA or genetic science, he simply used the term to describe groups of animals with similar appearances. It was not until after his death that biologists began to understand that the significance of that term lay in the ability to procreate and produce viable offspring.

In the early 20th Century, further discoveries led to a schism between modern scientific method and traditional religious beliefs (e.g., Scopes trial). The subsequent waning of belief in a literal seven day Biblical Creation contributed to a growing moral certainty among many in the scientific community that that they had, or were on the verge of having, discovered exactly how life developed on Earth. This secular orthodoxy persisted until the 1970s, when further research began to run into new developmental questions which could not be answered by the existing theory.

As a result, a new crusade began to find "missing links" or any other archaeological evidence to shore up the assumption that one species could automatically turn into a completely different species (e.g., dinosaurs into birds). The problems faced by that endeavor were that these "missing links" were extremely hard to find and required great leaps of scientific faith to assign them any true significance. On the contrary, further archaeological research was indicating that new species of animals seemed to appear within relatively narrow geologic periods, thus belying the idea of "gradual" evolution.

Ironically, we have now come almost full circle, where traditional Darwinists seek to suppress contradictory evidence though manipulation of language (and vilification of nonbelievers). As an example, the definition of the term "species" is now being reverted to its pre-scientific meaning of groups of animals with distinctive appearances. This way pesky questions about DNA transference and biological process can be avoided by these "scientists."

That entire tirade was absolute bunk. You make blanket claims that the scientific community is 'suppressing' contrary evidence without showing any actual proof. You also make claims that they are suppressing language in things like the term species when that is also bunk. I have already addressed the problems with trying to divide animals by species - it becomes nonsensical with what we now know through genetics.

There are also plenty of transitional fossils around. The fact that you reject them does not change their existence.

Countering generalizations with even greater generalizations, eh? By the way, why do you have a problem with defining "species" as a group of animals which are able to procreate and reproduce viable offspring? Inconvenient to your theory?

 

[FA_Q2]

Again, the very term species is virtually useless in an real discussion on evolution or science. We have come to understand that there are no hard lines or rules that delineates one species from another.

The term "species" has been a problem for "evolutionists" ever since Darwin popularized it in a biological context. Having no knowledge of DNA or genetic science, he simply used the term to describe groups of animals with similar appearances. It was not until after his death that biologists began to understand that the significance of that term lay in the ability to procreate and produce viable offspring.

In the early 20th Century, further discoveries led to a schism between modern scientific method and traditional religious beliefs (e.g., Scopes trial). The subsequent waning of belief in a literal seven day Biblical Creation contributed to a growing moral certainty among many in the scientific community that that they had, or were on the verge of having, discovered exactly how life developed on Earth. This secular orthodoxy persisted until the 1970s, when further research began to run into new developmental questions which could not be answered by the existing theory.

As a result, a new crusade began to find "missing links" or any other archaeological evidence to shore up the assumption that one species could automatically turn into a completely different species (e.g., dinosaurs into birds). The problems faced by that endeavor were that these "missing links" were extremely hard to find and required great leaps of scientific faith to assign them any true significance. On the contrary, further archaeological research was indicating that new species of animals seemed to appear within relatively narrow geologic periods, thus belying the idea of "gradual" evolution.

Ironically, we have now come almost full circle, where traditional Darwinists seek to suppress contradictory evidence though manipulation of language (and vilification of nonbelievers). As an example, the definition of the term "species" is now being reverted to its pre-scientific meaning of groups of animals with distinctive appearances. This way pesky questions about DNA transference and biological process can be avoided by these "scientists."

That entire tirade was absolute bunk. You make blanket claims that the scientific community is 'suppressing' contrary evidence without showing any actual proof. You also make claims that they are suppressing language in things like the term species when that is also bunk. I have already addressed the problems with trying to divide animals by species - it becomes nonsensical with what we now know through genetics.

There are also plenty of transitional fossils around. The fact that you reject them does not change their existence.

Countering generalizations with even greater generalizations, eh? By the way, why do you have a problem with defining "species" as a group of animals which are able to procreate and reproduce viable offspring? Inconvenient to your theory?

No. The problem with categorizing species as those that can reproduce is that it is nonsensical. Beagles and Irish setters are unable to reproduce. Zebras and horses are. Tigers and lions are. If you bothered to read the thread you would already see many examples that I already posted making your definition of species completely untenable. The term is no longer of any scientific value that I can see.

I didn't counter 'generalities' with grater generalities. I countered falsehoods by pointing out they are false.

 

[Syriusly]

Again, the very term species is virtually useless in an real discussion on evolution or science. We have come to understand that there are no hard lines or rules that delineates one species from another.

The term "species" has been a problem for "evolutionists" ever since Darwin popularized it in a biological context. Having no knowledge of DNA or genetic science, he simply used the term to describe groups of animals with similar appearances. It was not until after his death that biologists began to understand that the significance of that term lay in the ability to procreate and produce viable offspring.

In the early 20th Century, further discoveries led to a schism between modern scientific method and traditional religious beliefs (e.g., Scopes trial). The subsequent waning of belief in a literal seven day Biblical Creation contributed to a growing moral certainty among many in the scientific community that that they had, or were on the verge of having, discovered exactly how life developed on Earth. This secular orthodoxy persisted until the 1970s, when further research began to run into new developmental questions which could not be answered by the existing theory.

As a result, a new crusade began to find "missing links" or any other archaeological evidence to shore up the assumption that one species could automatically turn into a completely different species (e.g., dinosaurs into birds). The problems faced by that endeavor were that these "missing links" were extremely hard to find and required great leaps of scientific faith to assign them any true significance. On the contrary, further archaeological research was indicating that new species of animals seemed to appear within relatively narrow geologic periods, thus belying the idea of "gradual" evolution.

Ironically, we have now come almost full circle, where traditional Darwinists seek to suppress contradictory evidence though manipulation of language (and vilification of nonbelievers). As an example, the definition of the term "species" is now being reverted to its pre-scientific meaning of groups of animals with distinctive appearances. This way pesky questions about DNA transference and biological process can be avoided by these "scientists."

That entire tirade was absolute bunk. You make blanket claims that the scientific community is 'suppressing' contrary evidence without showing any actual proof. You also make claims that they are suppressing language in things like the term species when that is also bunk. I have already addressed the problems with trying to divide animals by species - it becomes nonsensical with what we now know through genetics.

There are also plenty of transitional fossils around. The fact that you reject them does not change their existence.

Countering generalizations with even greater generalizations, eh? By the way, why do you have a problem with defining "species" as a group of animals which are able to procreate and reproduce viable offspring? Inconvenient to your theory?

No. The problem with categorizing species as those that can reproduce is that it is nonsensical. Beagles and Irish setters are unable to reproduce. Zebras and horses are. Tigers and lions are. If you bothered to read the thread you would already see many examples that I already posted making your definition of species completely untenable. The term is no longer of any scientific value that I can see.

I didn't counter 'generalities' with grater generalities. I countered falsehoods by pointing out they are false.

Interesting and succinct discussion on the 'definition of species'- final line:
Defining a species
It's not so surprising that these blurry places exist — after all, the idea of a species is something that we humans invented for our own convenience!

 

[pinqy]

Again, the very term species is virtually useless in an real discussion on evolution or science. We have come to understand that there are no hard lines or rules that delineates one species from another.

The term "species" has been a problem for "evolutionists" ever since Darwin popularized it in a biological context. Having no knowledge of DNA or genetic science, he simply used the term to describe groups of animals with similar appearances. It was not until after his death that biologists began to understand that the significance of that term lay in the ability to procreate and produce viable offspring.

The word species had been in use since at least Aristotle's time as a biological division. The first real definition was in the 17th century, and then Linnaeus' classifications in the 18th century set the foundations. Lamarck's theory of evolution was based on how species evolved.

So it seems odd to try and tie the concept of species with Darwin. And it has always and ever been understood to be loose groupings subject to revisions and reclassifications.

In the early 20th Century, further discoveries led to a schism between modern scientific method and traditional religious beliefs (e.g., Scopes trial). The subsequent waning of belief in a literal seven day Biblical Creation contributed to a growing moral certainty among many in the scientific community that that they had, or were on the verge of having, discovered exactly how life developed on Earth. This secular orthodoxy persisted until the 1970s, when further research began to run into new developmental questions which could not be answered by the existing theory.

There were always and still are questions not fully answered by the theories current to the time period.

As a result, a new crusade began to find "missing links" or any other archaeological evidence to shore up the assumption that one species could automatically turn into a completely different species (e.g., dinosaurs into birds).

Huh? No one has ever claimed any species "automatically" could turn into another, nor has any scientist that I'm aware of ever proposed a "missing link." That is more a layman's concept. Many transitional fossiles have been found.

The problems faced by that endeavor were that these "missing links" were extremely hard to find and required great leaps of scientific faith to assign them any true significance. On the contrary, further archaeological research was indicating that new species of animals seemed to appear within relatively narrow geologic periods, thus belying the idea of "gradual" evolution.

The world is messy. You just won't get any exact, detailed, simple line of transitional fossils for a species.

 

[jwoodie]

The problem with categorizing species as those that can reproduce is that it is nonsensical. Beagles and Irish setters are unable to reproduce. Zebras and horses are. Tigers and lions are. If you bothered to read the thread you would already see many examples that I already posted making your definition of species completely untenable. The term is no longer of any scientific value that I can see.

The issue of reproductive capability is central to a discussion of evolution (unless you believe in immaculate conception): How can one species reproduce a different (genetically incompatible) species?

If you have an answer, why don't you spell it out in plain English instead of resorting to deflective semantic arguments? I'm waiting...

P.S. I am not impressed by recitations from your high school biology workbook:

Dog Breeds - Science Updates - Science NetLinks

 

[FA_Q2]

The problem with categorizing species as those that can reproduce is that it is nonsensical. Beagles and Irish setters are unable to reproduce. Zebras and horses are. Tigers and lions are. If you bothered to read the thread you would already see many examples that I already posted making your definition of species completely untenable. The term is no longer of any scientific value that I can see.

The issue of reproductive capability is central to a discussion of evolution (unless you believe in immaculate conception): How can one species reproduce a different (genetically incompatible) species?

If you have an answer, why don't you spell it out in plain English instead of resorting to deflective semantic arguments? I'm waiting...

P.S. I am not impressed by recitations from your high school biology workbook:

Dog Breeds - Science Updates - Science NetLinks

Of course you are not. You are given an example of exactly what you ask for and then reject it because.... well just because.

 

[pinqy]

The problem with categorizing species as those that can reproduce is that it is nonsensical. Beagles and Irish setters are unable to reproduce. Zebras and horses are. Tigers and lions are. If you bothered to read the thread you would already see many examples that I already posted making your definition of species completely untenable. The term is no longer of any scientific value that I can see.

The issue of reproductive capability is central to a discussion of evolution (unless you believe in immaculate conception): How can one species reproduce a different (genetically incompatible) species?

They can't. and no one claims they can.

 

[jwoodie]

The word species had been in use since at least Aristotle's time as a biological division. The first real definition was in the 17th century, and then Linnaeus' classifications in the 18th century set the foundations. Lamarck's theory of evolution was based on how species evolved.

So it seems odd to try and tie the concept of species with Darwin. And it has always and ever been understood to be loose groupings subject to revisions and reclassifications.

Darwin popularized it in a biological context. See Origin of Species. Prior to that, "specie" was a common reference to money or payment in kind.

In the early 20th Century, further discoveries led to a schism between modern scientific method and traditional religious beliefs (e.g., Scopes trial). The subsequent waning of belief in a literal seven day Biblical Creation contributed to a growing moral certainty among many in the scientific community that that they had, or were on the verge of having, discovered exactly how life developed on Earth. This secular orthodoxy persisted until the 1970s, when further research began to run into new developmental questions which could not be answered by the existing theory.

There were always and still are questions not fully answered by the theories current to the time period.

Including evolution?

As a result, a new crusade began to find "missing links" or any other archaeological evidence to shore up the assumption that one species could automatically turn into a completely different species (e.g., dinosaurs into birds).

Huh? No one has ever claimed any species "automatically" could turn into another, nor has any scientist that I'm aware of ever proposed a "missing link." That is more a layman's concept. Many transitional fossiles have been found.

Automatically=gradually, without external intervention. Missing link=transitional. Why are there so few of them? Did dinosaurs turn into birds overnight? Isn't evolution supposed to be gradual?

The problems faced by that endeavor were that these "missing links" were extremely hard to find and required great leaps of scientific faith to assign them any true significance. On the contrary, further archaeological research was indicating that new species of animals seemed to appear within relatively narrow geologic periods, thus belying the idea of "gradual" evolution.

The world is messy. You just won't get any exact, detailed, simple line of transitional fossils for a species.

The world is messy and so is the popular theory of evolution. Why not admit the gaps and inconsistencies instead of attacking those who point them out?

 

[jwoodie]

The problem with categorizing species as those that can reproduce is that it is nonsensical. Beagles and Irish setters are unable to reproduce. Zebras and horses are. Tigers and lions are. If you bothered to read the thread you would already see many examples that I already posted making your definition of species completely untenable. The term is no longer of any scientific value that I can see.

The issue of reproductive capability is central to a discussion of evolution (unless you believe in immaculate conception): How can one species reproduce a different (genetically incompatible) species?

If you have an answer, why don't you spell it out in plain English instead of resorting to deflective semantic arguments? I'm waiting...

P.S. I am not impressed by recitations from your high school biology workbook:

Dog Breeds - Science Updates - Science NetLinks

Of course you are not. You are given an example of exactly what you ask for and then reject it because.... well just because.

Which of your "examples" represents one species reproducing a different (genetically incompatible) species?

P.S. The difficulties that Beagles and Irish Setters may have in reproducing is not materially different from what some human couples experience. Are they different species, too?