CDZ Another Evolution vs Creationism Debate

[pinqy]

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?

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.
Linnaeus popularizied it in a biological context in 1735, and he wasn't the first to use it that way. Lamarck also used it in the biological sense.

Including evolution?
Of course. Who claims we know everything there is to know about evolution??

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? There aren't so few of them. If you want to be technical, all fossils are transitional species. Fosilization is rare. We are undoubtably missing several species. And there's no clear chain..we dont necessarily know if a fossil is in a transitional chain, or a dead end, or where it fits. What we do have are biological features that change though time. The problem is that many people, especially creationists, seem to think a "missing link" is a Frankenstein composite with half a wing or partly feathered etc. Lungfish and the Northern Snakehead are fish that breathe air. They are not amphibians, but fish. And can be considered transitional. Or perhaps they won't change much.

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?[/QUOTE]
I haven't attacked anyone. And I've never heard of any biologist who did not admit gaps and issues or attack those who point out legitimate issues. But Creationists like to point out problems (Like "why are there still monkeys?)

 

[alpine]

What do you mean "humans evolved from apes", I didn't get the memo....

 

[S.J.]

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.

You are the one who has consistently been avoiding questions, yet you claim it's me who doesn't want a debate. I ask a question and you brush it aside and ask a question instead of answering. That's why I created the other two threads. That way we can discuss one thing at a time instead of avoiding answering by changing the subject like you've been doing.

 

[320 Years of History]

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.

In such a "debate" among the noted participant type, what would be the aim of the debate? Among a group of folks, all of whom believe in Creationism, what is there to debate about? Which "flavor" of Creationism holds the most/least intellectual merit?

Seems to me that in this venue, such a "debate" -- discussion, not debate, is more likely what it would be -- would be akin to a bunch of non-sommeliers "debating" whether Montrachet or Pouilly Fuisse is the better pairing with Dover sole in a lemon caper sauce.

 

[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.

You are the one who has consistently been avoiding questions, yet you claim it's me who doesn't want a debate. I ask a question and you brush it aside and ask a question instead of answering. That's why I created the other two threads. That way we can discuss one thing at a time instead of avoiding answering by changing the subject like you've been doing.

What questions have i 'consistently been avoiding?

Here is a list of your questions to me- and my answers

1. S.J. I've repeatedly asked for documented (and observed) evidence of how unrelated species are if fact related. .
2. Me: An 'unrelated species' by definition cannot be 'related'.
3. S.J. Exactly, yet you claim they have a common ancestor. That would mean they're related.
4. Me. A related species is a related species. An unrelated species is an unrelated species.
5. S.J. I agree. So how can two different species come from the same ancestor if they're not related
6. Me: Two different species can come from earlier ancestor- when that is the case they are related- not unrelated.
7. S.J. Tell us who or what the common ancestor is. A brown bear and a polar bear are both bears. You're talking about breeding and adaptation. That does not make a case for chickens and snakes coming from the same ancestor.

Reading back- this is the only question you asked of me that I did not answer- so we are even- since you have never answered my question to you.

Who is the 'common ancestor' of brown bears and polar bears? An earlier brown bear species. Modern brown bears and polar bears both descended from earlier brown bears. This is based upon both genetic evidence and fossil evidence.

Do you agree with that- or not? Yes or No- if no- what makes you come to that conclusion?

Still waiting for you to answer my question (remember this is a 'debate' Evolution vs. Creationism)-
what is your 'theory' as to the diversity of life on Earth? What is your explanation of why Kangaroos are found only in Australia and New Guinea?

 

[Syriusly]

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.

In such a "debate" among the noted participant type, what would be the aim of the debate? Among a group of folks, all of whom believe in Creationism, what is there to debate about? Which "flavor" of Creationism holds the most/least intellectual merit?

Seems to me that in this venue, such a "debate" -- discussion, not debate, is more likely what it would be -- would be akin to a bunch of non-sommeliers "debating" whether Montrachet or Pouilly Fuisse is the better pairing with Dover sole in a lemon caper sauce.

I strongly suspect you are correct.

 

[320 Years of History]

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.

Well, there's no denying that. (Transitional forms)

 

[320 Years of History]

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.

Most of the time that is true. There are some folks who focus on the exceptions to that general rule, and the existence of the exceptions gives them the idea that the exceptions define the general rule rather than the other way round.

 

[320 Years of History]

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 [who] actually read or comprehend them in their entirety, but some of us do.

Red:
That may be, and as you created it, I'll accept that you are correct. Rigor in thought and expression -- here, at home, at work, etc. -- is definitely my aim. Others may or may not share that goal, or the may do so to varying extents.

Blue:
That [small] subset of folks comprises the population of folks with whom I want to have discussions. LOL The rest is just "noise" AFAIAC.

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

Well, there's no denying that. (Transitional forms)

And yet that is exactly what he has done.

 

[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.

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?

Yes - it is completely different. Single members commonly have issues but that is not the same as when an entire subset of the species cannot breed with another. What you are looking at is the point where a species is diverging and becoming incompatible.

It is happening right now and right in front of you and you are still trying to deny that it is even possible.

 

[320 Years of History]

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?

Yes - it is completely different. Single members commonly have issues but that is not the same as when an entire subset of the species cannot breed with another. What you are looking at is the point where a species is diverging and becoming incompatible.

It is happening right now and right in front of you and you are still trying to deny that it is even possible.

Traditionally, a species is a group of organisms that share at least one unique characteristic, can interbreed to produce fertile offspring, and rarely reproduce with organisms of another species. But what to make of fertile hybrids like the sparred owl? "The old definition of a species doesn't really work today," Rhymer says. "We know of related species separated by millions of years that still have the ability to reproduce successfully."

Source: The mating game: ligers, zorses, wholphins, and other hybrid animals raise a beastly science question: what is a species?
​

I tried earlier to address this question by providing the link to the Standford University site that discusses it comprehensively. I realize, FA_Q2, you aren't among those who needed to or should have read the content there, but perhaps the "dumbed down" version will suffice for those who didn't bother to read it.

 

[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.

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?

Yes - it is completely different. Single members commonly have issues but that is not the same as when an entire subset of the species cannot breed with another. What you are looking at is the point where a species is diverging and becoming incompatible.

It is happening right now and right in front of you and you are still trying to deny that it is even possible.

Traditionally, a species is a group of organisms that share at least one unique characteristic, can interbreed to produce fertile offspring, and rarely reproduce with organisms of another species. But what to make of fertile hybrids like the sparred owl? "The old definition of a species doesn't really work today," Rhymer says. "We know of related species separated by millions of years that still have the ability to reproduce successfully."

Source: The mating game: ligers, zorses, wholphins, and other hybrid animals raise a beastly science question: what is a species?
​

I tried earlier to address this question by providing the link to the Standford University site that discusses it comprehensively. I realize, FA_Q2, you aren't among those who needed to or should have read the content there, but perhaps the "dumbed down" version will suffice for those who didn't bother to read it.

What I have been trying to get across (and one of the first things that needs to be addressed in a conversation like this) is that the term 'species' is essentially worthless with our current understanding of genetics. At one time it was a useful way of categorizing creatures that people could understand but we have progressed to an understanding beyond those basic categories. We still hold onto the idea of a species, family and kingdom because those ideas have been used for a long time though I cannot see a single scientific purpose for the terms anymore. These days the serve to confuse more than to enlighten.

Further, much contention that the creationists bring up centers around the idea that a 'species' cannot create another species. That argument hides behind a term that is basically nonsensical in this context as well as avoiding the process of slow drift. I have made several points already about how a species is undergoing this right now as well as how the idea of differing species is not even remotely cut and dry.

 

[Syriusly]

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?

Yes - it is completely different. Single members commonly have issues but that is not the same as when an entire subset of the species cannot breed with another. What you are looking at is the point where a species is diverging and becoming incompatible.

It is happening right now and right in front of you and you are still trying to deny that it is even possible.

Traditionally, a species is a group of organisms that share at least one unique characteristic, can interbreed to produce fertile offspring, and rarely reproduce with organisms of another species. But what to make of fertile hybrids like the sparred owl? "The old definition of a species doesn't really work today," Rhymer says. "We know of related species separated by millions of years that still have the ability to reproduce successfully."

Source: The mating game: ligers, zorses, wholphins, and other hybrid animals raise a beastly science question: what is a species?
​

I tried earlier to address this question by providing the link to the Standford University site that discusses it comprehensively. I realize, FA_Q2, you aren't among those who needed to or should have read the content there, but perhaps the "dumbed down" version will suffice for those who didn't bother to read it.

What I have been trying to get across (and one of the first things that needs to be addressed in a conversation like this) is that the term 'species' is essentially worthless with our current understanding of genetics. At one time it was a useful way of categorizing creatures that people could understand but we have progressed to an understanding beyond those basic categories. We still hold onto the idea of a species, family and kingdom because those ideas have been used for a long time though I cannot see a single scientific purpose for the terms anymore. These days the serve to confuse more than to enlighten..

I think you are incorrect- that is like saying the term "Tree" serves no purpose because it is too inexact.

Genetically, the term 'species' is indeed being used- it is the reason why for example during modern attempts at preserving endangered species, the attempts are made with genetically similar lines- i.e. not crossing Bengal Tigers with Siberian Tigers- because each 'species' has a distinct genetic make up.

 

[FA_Q2]

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?

Yes - it is completely different. Single members commonly have issues but that is not the same as when an entire subset of the species cannot breed with another. What you are looking at is the point where a species is diverging and becoming incompatible.

It is happening right now and right in front of you and you are still trying to deny that it is even possible.

Traditionally, a species is a group of organisms that share at least one unique characteristic, can interbreed to produce fertile offspring, and rarely reproduce with organisms of another species. But what to make of fertile hybrids like the sparred owl? "The old definition of a species doesn't really work today," Rhymer says. "We know of related species separated by millions of years that still have the ability to reproduce successfully."

Source: The mating game: ligers, zorses, wholphins, and other hybrid animals raise a beastly science question: what is a species?
​

I tried earlier to address this question by providing the link to the Standford University site that discusses it comprehensively. I realize, FA_Q2, you aren't among those who needed to or should have read the content there, but perhaps the "dumbed down" version will suffice for those who didn't bother to read it.

What I have been trying to get across (and one of the first things that needs to be addressed in a conversation like this) is that the term 'species' is essentially worthless with our current understanding of genetics. At one time it was a useful way of categorizing creatures that people could understand but we have progressed to an understanding beyond those basic categories. We still hold onto the idea of a species, family and kingdom because those ideas have been used for a long time though I cannot see a single scientific purpose for the terms anymore. These days the serve to confuse more than to enlighten..

I think you are incorrect- that is like saying the term "Tree" serves no purpose because it is too inexact.

Genetically, the term 'species' is indeed being used- it is the reason why for example during modern attempts at preserving endangered species, the attempts are made with genetically similar lines- i.e. not crossing Bengal Tigers with Siberian Tigers- because each 'species' has a distinct genetic make up.

However, where is the SCIENTIFIC use?

The problem lies in the difficulty drawing that line. There is no single definition that delineates a species. The reason that a Bengal Tiger and Siberian Tiger are different species really boils down to they look different. Not useful in any scientific means.

Edit: Tree also really does not serve a useful scientific purpose either. When talking about a scientific theory, the value of a term depends on how meaningful it is in that context.

 

[Syriusly]

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?

Yes - it is completely different. Single members commonly have issues but that is not the same as when an entire subset of the species cannot breed with another. What you are looking at is the point where a species is diverging and becoming incompatible.

It is happening right now and right in front of you and you are still trying to deny that it is even possible.

Traditionally, a species is a group of organisms that share at least one unique characteristic, can interbreed to produce fertile offspring, and rarely reproduce with organisms of another species. But what to make of fertile hybrids like the sparred owl? "The old definition of a species doesn't really work today," Rhymer says. "We know of related species separated by millions of years that still have the ability to reproduce successfully."

Source: The mating game: ligers, zorses, wholphins, and other hybrid animals raise a beastly science question: what is a species?
​

I tried earlier to address this question by providing the link to the Standford University site that discusses it comprehensively. I realize, FA_Q2, you aren't among those who needed to or should have read the content there, but perhaps the "dumbed down" version will suffice for those who didn't bother to read it.

What I have been trying to get across (and one of the first things that needs to be addressed in a conversation like this) is that the term 'species' is essentially worthless with our current understanding of genetics. At one time it was a useful way of categorizing creatures that people could understand but we have progressed to an understanding beyond those basic categories. We still hold onto the idea of a species, family and kingdom because those ideas have been used for a long time though I cannot see a single scientific purpose for the terms anymore. These days the serve to confuse more than to enlighten..

I think you are incorrect- that is like saying the term "Tree" serves no purpose because it is too inexact.

Genetically, the term 'species' is indeed being used- it is the reason why for example during modern attempts at preserving endangered species, the attempts are made with genetically similar lines- i.e. not crossing Bengal Tigers with Siberian Tigers- because each 'species' has a distinct genetic make up.

However, where is the SCIENTIFIC use?

The problem lies in the difficulty drawing that line. There is no single definition that delineates a species. The reason that a Bengal Tiger and Siberian Tiger are different species really boils down to they look different. Not useful in any scientific means.

Edit: Tree also really does not serve a useful scientific purpose either. When talking about a scientific theory, the value of a term depends on how meaningful it is in that context.

Except that science does use those terms- and does find them useful.

Which is the reason that scientists work on saving endangered Siberian Tigers even though we have plenty of Bengal Tigers- there is a genetic difference between them. Siberian Tigers share genetic material that makes them better adapted Siberia etc, than the genetic material of Bengal Tigers.

 

[FA_Q2]

Yes - it is completely different. Single members commonly have issues but that is not the same as when an entire subset of the species cannot breed with another. What you are looking at is the point where a species is diverging and becoming incompatible.

It is happening right now and right in front of you and you are still trying to deny that it is even possible.

Traditionally, a species is a group of organisms that share at least one unique characteristic, can interbreed to produce fertile offspring, and rarely reproduce with organisms of another species. But what to make of fertile hybrids like the sparred owl? "The old definition of a species doesn't really work today," Rhymer says. "We know of related species separated by millions of years that still have the ability to reproduce successfully."

Source: The mating game: ligers, zorses, wholphins, and other hybrid animals raise a beastly science question: what is a species?
​

I tried earlier to address this question by providing the link to the Standford University site that discusses it comprehensively. I realize, FA_Q2, you aren't among those who needed to or should have read the content there, but perhaps the "dumbed down" version will suffice for those who didn't bother to read it.

What I have been trying to get across (and one of the first things that needs to be addressed in a conversation like this) is that the term 'species' is essentially worthless with our current understanding of genetics. At one time it was a useful way of categorizing creatures that people could understand but we have progressed to an understanding beyond those basic categories. We still hold onto the idea of a species, family and kingdom because those ideas have been used for a long time though I cannot see a single scientific purpose for the terms anymore. These days the serve to confuse more than to enlighten..

I think you are incorrect- that is like saying the term "Tree" serves no purpose because it is too inexact.

Genetically, the term 'species' is indeed being used- it is the reason why for example during modern attempts at preserving endangered species, the attempts are made with genetically similar lines- i.e. not crossing Bengal Tigers with Siberian Tigers- because each 'species' has a distinct genetic make up.

However, where is the SCIENTIFIC use?

The problem lies in the difficulty drawing that line. There is no single definition that delineates a species. The reason that a Bengal Tiger and Siberian Tiger are different species really boils down to they look different. Not useful in any scientific means.

Edit: Tree also really does not serve a useful scientific purpose either. When talking about a scientific theory, the value of a term depends on how meaningful it is in that context.

Except that science does use those terms- and does find them useful.

Which is the reason that scientists work on saving endangered Siberian Tigers even though we have plenty of Bengal Tigers- there is a genetic difference between them. Siberian Tigers share genetic material that makes them better adapted Siberia etc, than the genetic material of Bengal Tigers.

And yet nothing on WHY or HOW they are useful. They are layman terms.

 

[jwoodie]

It is happening right now and right in front of you and you are still trying to deny that it is even possible.

What is "happening right now?" Dogs have been intensively bred for 5,000 years, yet they are all still dogs. The causes of your alleged Beagle/Setter reproductive anomaly are not known, so this example has no direct relevance to genetic evolution. More relevant is that a Great Dane and a Chihauhua have remained genetically compatible despite the fact that dogs represent the greatest variation in size and appearance of any animal that ever existed on Earth.

As to your word games about "species," it seems that you want to eat your cake and have it, too. Since this term doesn't always suit your purposes, why don't YOU come up with an alternative term that addresses genetic incompatibility or whatever else YOU mean by Evolution?

 

[320 Years of History]

I think you are incorrect- that is like saying the term "Tree" serves no purpose because it is too inexact.

Genetically, the term 'species' is indeed being used- it is the reason why for example during modern attempts at preserving endangered species, the attempts are made with genetically similar lines- i.e. not crossing Bengal Tigers with Siberian Tigers- because each 'species' has a distinct genetic make up.

Choose a different example or modify your argument. Bengal and Siberian tigers are different subspecies, not different species. They are capable of interbreeding and producing offspring that can reproduce no matter what one has to say or thinks about the meaning of the word "species."

• Siberian Tiger: Panthera tigris altaica
• Bengal Tiger: Panthera tigris tigris

On a different note, the situation above illustrates part of the problem with the debate between evolution and creationism: a great many folks who participate in the debate

1. don't know enough to do so, and
2. even professing to "give a damn" about the topic while not knowing enough, rely on the own perception of their knowledgeableness on the topic, and
3. don't/won't research enough to confirm whether what they believe to be so is so.

 

[320 Years of History]

Yes - it is completely different. Single members commonly have issues but that is not the same as when an entire subset of the species cannot breed with another. What you are looking at is the point where a species is diverging and becoming incompatible.

It is happening right now and right in front of you and you are still trying to deny that it is even possible.

Traditionally, a species is a group of organisms that share at least one unique characteristic, can interbreed to produce fertile offspring, and rarely reproduce with organisms of another species. But what to make of fertile hybrids like the sparred owl? "The old definition of a species doesn't really work today," Rhymer says. "We know of related species separated by millions of years that still have the ability to reproduce successfully."

Source: The mating game: ligers, zorses, wholphins, and other hybrid animals raise a beastly science question: what is a species?
​

I tried earlier to address this question by providing the link to the Standford University site that discusses it comprehensively. I realize, FA_Q2, you aren't among those who needed to or should have read the content there, but perhaps the "dumbed down" version will suffice for those who didn't bother to read it.

What I have been trying to get across (and one of the first things that needs to be addressed in a conversation like this) is that the term 'species' is essentially worthless with our current understanding of genetics. At one time it was a useful way of categorizing creatures that people could understand but we have progressed to an understanding beyond those basic categories. We still hold onto the idea of a species, family and kingdom because those ideas have been used for a long time though I cannot see a single scientific purpose for the terms anymore. These days the serve to confuse more than to enlighten..

I think you are incorrect- that is like saying the term "Tree" serves no purpose because it is too inexact.

Genetically, the term 'species' is indeed being used- it is the reason why for example during modern attempts at preserving endangered species, the attempts are made with genetically similar lines- i.e. not crossing Bengal Tigers with Siberian Tigers- because each 'species' has a distinct genetic make up.

However, where is the SCIENTIFIC use?

The problem lies in the difficulty drawing that line. There is no single definition that delineates a species. The reason that a Bengal Tiger and Siberian Tiger are different species really boils down to they look different. Not useful in any scientific means.

Edit: Tree also really does not serve a useful scientific purpose either. When talking about a scientific theory, the value of a term depends on how meaningful it is in that context.

Except that science does use those terms- and does find them useful.

Which is the reason that scientists work on saving endangered Siberian Tigers even though we have plenty of Bengal Tigers- there is a genetic difference between them. Siberian Tigers share genetic material that makes them better adapted Siberia etc, than the genetic material of Bengal Tigers.

There are genetic differences between Mongoloid and Negroid people, yet they can interbreed. Did the fact that they can interbreed remotely trigger in your mind that perhaps there isn't a species level difference between the two types of cat you mentioned? Did it cross your mind to confirm whether the different tigers you noted might not be different species and instead be different races within a species?.

"Trust but verity" needs to be a principle that applies to one's own beliefs as well as those of others' that oppose one's own.