Intelligent debate

August 10, 2008 ^ | Roger Palfree

[mrjesse]

LOL Breeding doesn't happen without mating.

Are you lying or are these honest mistakes? Breeding DOES happen without mating! According to WP, Artificial Insemination accounts for 75% inseminations in dairy cattle and up to %85 for swine.

I remember growing up we didn't have a bull and we didn't know anybody within walking distance who had one, so we'd always just call the veterinary (Animal Doctor) and say "We want our cow bread." they'd reply "What sire do you want - I have Angus, Hereford, Holstein," as well as some specialty breeds. The different sires had different prices, usually ranging from $50 to $100 if I remember correctly. In any case, the veterinary would come out and artificially inseminate our cow with whichever bull we had wanted. And some even had a guarantee where if the cow still didn't conceive, they'd come and do it again for half price.

So again, your statement is just outright untrue! I'm hoping it's just ignorance on your part, but on the other hand I'm having a hard time imagining you making incorrect statements so many times in a row without realizing that you need to look stuff up before saying I'm wrong. PS: By the way, a lot of fish don't mate, naturally. The female lays the eggs, and the male comes along and fertilizes them. What's he mating with - the bottom of the river?

But that isn't the point, you don't seem know what the definition of Species is and you have invented some ludicrous "same kind" definitions that says that anything that looks the same is the same kind. When you figure out the definition of species get back to me.

Well, we can't agree on simple geometry, and you think that breeding is the same thing as mating and that breeding doesn't happen without mating, and you think that it makes no difference regarding the angular optical displacement of the sun whether the earth turns at 360 degrees per 24 hours or the sun orbits the earth at that rate.

But with your obvious lack of understanding of how life works (re. you saying that breeding is the same as mating and breeding doesn't happen without mating) it is no surprise that a logical thing like my classification system will make no sense to you.

I haven't pointed it out because you have not agreed to my terms. You have repeatedly called me a liar and said that I didn't answer you. I am now simply asking you to renounce your belief in God when I show you were I answered your question. That should be no problem for a reprobate like yourself : )

I don't know what alternate reality you're living in, I'm guessing superglue. But I'm pretty sure that the reason you won't point the error in my way without me agreeing to something that you know I won't agree to is because you don't have any evidence on your side, and the only way to mask that is to say you'll do it - but make it conditional on something you know won't happen.

Why not be a grown up and support your claims like the rest of us? I looked over your pings and I see you call lots of people "reprobate liars" and the like. I also see that people aren't generally impressed with your veracity either.

Is that just what you do when you lose an argument for using bad facts - call names, with your favorite name being "Reprobate liar?"

Based on what you've said and done, I cannot come to any logical conclusion other then that you aren't big enough to admit it. I don't know what happened to your alledged Honor and Accountability - shouldn't honor and accountability deal with the truth on the spot rather then hiding behind some bribery or absurd bargaining?

So please, what is the truth? Why do you accuse me of lying without providing a single reference? I even provided in #75 a list of all our in-forum (which is all) of our communications so you could easily search forwards and backwards over our entire conversation without having to page through FR!

Thanks,

-Jesse

[LeGrande]

So you say mating isn't breeding? LOL

"mating n : the act of pairing a male and female for reproductive purposes;"

Artificial insemination, fish laying eggs, etc. It is all mating. In other words breeding.

I don't know what alternate reality you're living in, I'm guessing superglue. But I'm pretty sure that the reason you won't point the error in my way without me agreeing to something that you know I won't agree to is because you don't have any evidence on your side, and the only way to mask that is to say you'll do it - but make it conditional on something you know won't happen.

You have the record. All you have to do is go back and check. If you are so sure you are right, why don't you check the record and take me up on my challenge? You know that I am correct and that you are a liar. I can easily prove it and you know it. Take me up on my challenge. All you have to lose is your soul : ) Christians used to give this challenged to Jews and Heathens all the time. Muslims still do : ) I am just following a time honored tradition : )

[mrjesse]

So you say mating isn't breeding? LOL

"mating n : the act of pairing a male and female for reproductive purposes;"

Mating is not breeding! Mating is often the cause or method of breeding, but not all breeding requires mating and not all mating causes breeding! That's why they are different words with different definitions! And look at the definition you quote above: "The act of pairing a male and female for reproductive purposes" - it doesn't say anything about whether the reproductive purposes were successful, only that the two were put together in hopes that they would mate or that they did mate. It says nothing of whether the arrangement worked to produce offspring. It goes back to the horse and the panda - you well may be able to get them to mate but you cannot breed them.

Artificial insemination, fish laying eggs, etc. It is all mating. In other words breeding.

I notice that you didn't show any source for your idea that says that artificial insemination is mating! If you can't read the two dictionary definitions and see that mating is an act or pairing regardless of outcome, and breeding is the causing of an outcome, it is no wonder simple stuff confuses you so efficiently.

You have the record. All you have to do is go back and check. If you are so sure you are right, why don't you check the record and take me up on my challenge? You know that I am correct and that you are a liar. I can easily prove it and you know it.

Again, here you are accusing me of being a liar. If you can so easily prove it, please do so!

Are you on any medications that are reasonably likely to be interfering with your thinking capabilities? I can't imaging why else you'd have such a hard time understanding stuff.

Thanks,

-Jesse

[LeGrande]

Let us get to the point, is it 'breeding' if you mate a horse and an ass? Is it 'breeding" if you mate the offspring of a horse and an ass? What is your definition of 'kind' as regards to your definition of species?

Again, here you are accusing me of being a liar. If you can so easily prove it, please do so!

I am merely upping the anti. How certain are you of your convictions? The fact that you refuse to accept the terms are very telling. Honest people that I know are very willing to stand behind what they say. Why aren't you? If you are certain enough that you are correct to call me a liar, why aren't you certain enough to put your beliefs on the line?

Are you on any medications that are reasonably likely to be interfering with your thinking capabilities? I can't imaging why else you'd have such a hard time understanding stuff.

Your problem is that you are incapable of seeing beyond anything your Minister or Bible tells you. All you can do is parrot back what you have been taught and are incapable of thinking for yourself.

I will tell you a truth. You can think for yourself, you can challenge authority, just because an 'expert' says something doesn't mean it is true. Be a skeptic, the skeptic is always closer to the truth than a believer.

[js1138]

Let’s cut through the semantic games and consider a “kind” of bird whose range circles the earth.

Variety A has a territory that adjoins the territory of variety B.

A can and does occasionally produce offspring with B.
B occasionally produces offspring with adjoining variety C.
C occasionally produces offspring with adjoining variety D.
D occasionally produces offspring with adjoining variety D.

Variety D has a territory that adjoins the territory of variety A, but never attempts to mate with A.

[mrjesse]

Let’s cut through the semantic games and consider a “kind” of bird whose range circles the earth.

Variety A has a territory that adjoins the territory of variety B.

A can and does occasionally produce offspring with B. B occasionally produces offspring with adjoining variety C. C occasionally produces offspring with adjoining variety D. D occasionally produces offspring with adjoining variety D.

Variety D has a territory that adjoins the territory of variety A, but never attempts to mate with A

Good to hear from you, js1138, been a while!

Aren't you just describing a ring species..?

I can't figure out what your point is, if you did indeed make one.

Like my grampa could have but probably didn't say, if a man can't make his own point he probably doesn't have one :-)

Please explain. Thanks!

-Jesse

[js1138]

I’m asking how a ring species fits into the concept of kind.

[mrjesse]

Let us get to the point, is it 'breeding' if you mate a horse and an ass? Is it 'breeding" if you mate the offspring of a horse and an ass? What is your definition of 'kind' as regards to your definition of species?

I refer you to the dictionary again. This time check out the Synonyms and Related Words, specifically:

Verb	1.	breed - call forth
engender, spawn
cause, do, make - give rise to; cause to happen or occur, not always intentionally; "cause a commotion"; "make a stir"; "cause an accident"
AND
4.	breed - have young (animals) or reproduce (organisms); "pandas rarely breed in captivity"; "These bacteria reproduce"
multiply
procreate, reproduce, multiply - have offspring or produce more individuals of a given animal or plant; "The Bible tells people to procreate"
pullulate - breed freely and abundantly

Don't you see the explicit implication of causation for the word "breed?" That's why we have sayings like "Familiarity breeds contempt" - you may be able to get things to mate till the cows come home, but if you can't get offspring, then they didn't breed - because nothing was produced!

So to answer your question, according to the dictionary definition breeding creates offspring, horses and donkeys can (and do) breed and produce offspring, even though the offspring is generally infertile. You can read more about mules on WP so I will be brief here, but basically (and I'm generalizing, read WP for details) a horse and a donkey produce a mule. Mules are almost always infertile, although there have been a few dozen record cases of mare mules producing offspring, usually with a horse sire, usually giving a 100% horse offspring.

So yes, horses and donkeys interbreed to give mules, but mules usually (even though they may mate happily) will not breed - that is to say they usually will not conceive.

I am merely upping the anti. How certain are you of your convictions?

As I said, I am not aware of you answering the 102 degree question that I asked, but maybe you did and I just missed it. You say you did. All I'm asking is for you to show me where you answered it! Why does there need to be an anti? And why would I promise to do something absurd just because you show me where you answered my question? I've missed things when reading stuff before - I wouldn't stake my life on me having noticed every single statement you ever made to me, although I do try hard to do it. Your request is absurd and clearly indicates that you did indeed not answer my question!

The fact that you refuse to accept the terms are very telling.

No, it's telling that your terms are absurd. And the absurdity of your terms is very telling that you did not answer - otherwise you could just show me where!

Your terms really sound like a 2 year old's!

Imagine this:

Dad says: Jimmy, where did you leave the broom.
Jimmy says: I already told you where.
Dad: When was that? Tell me again.
Jimmy: Sign over the house and the car to me and I'll tell you.

See? Totally absurd! Did Jimmy really think he was going to get the car and the house just like that? No, but he knew his dad wouldn't do that and figured if his dad buys into this 2-year-old-logic, then his dad won't make him answer the question, and thereby Jimmy gets away with lying. But it's not honest fair logic!

Honest people that I know are very willing to stand behind what they say. Why aren't you?

I have stood behind what I've said! (except where I made an error, in which case I posted a correction and an apology as soon as I found out.) I'm the one that's saying "Show me where I lied! Show me that I'm wrong!" I have re-stated the same things over and over! You're the one that won't stand behind what you say (Unless it's unverifiable!) -- you won't even tell me ONE case where I lied nor will you tell me where you answered my pluto/102 degree question. (specifically the one that I asked.)

If you are certain enough that you are correct to call me a liar, why aren't you certain enough to put your beliefs on the line?

Where did I say that you did lie without demonstrating that you did lie?

And why would I want to put my beliefs on the line for someone who hasn't the decency to point out where he answered a question? As I said before, maybe you did answer and I just didn't see it. That is no wrong on my part - and it's no reason to put my beliefs about other things on the line. Let us not forget that I asked you to answer the question many times before you began claiming that you had answered it. So I know that you were reluctant to answer it in the first place, so I have all the more reason to suspect that you didn't answer it if I can't find the answer.

And you keep refusing to answer my question about whether you be on any medications which are likely to affect your thinking.

-Jesse

[mrjesse]

I’m asking how a ring species fits into the concept of kind.

Ahh, thanks for the clarification.

According to my classification system (roughly described on my about page) all the animals in a given ring species are descendants of the same original kind and are still of the same kind.

Does that answer your question?

Thanks,

-Jesse

[LeGrande]

So yes, horses and donkeys interbreed to give mules, but mules usually (even though they may mate happily) will not breed - that is to say they usually will not conceive.

Are they the same kind under your system? What is the difference between your 'kind' and a specie?

No, it's telling that your terms are absurd. And the absurdity of your terms is very telling that you did not answer - otherwise you could just show me where!

You act like you are incapable of reading. You know where it is. Why do I have any obligation to enlighten you? You have proven yourself to be unworthy of effort on my part.

See? Totally absurd! Did Jimmy really think he was going to get the car and the house just like that? No, but he knew his dad wouldn't do that and figured if his dad buys into this 2-year-old-logic, then his dad won't make him answer the question, and thereby Jimmy gets away with lying. But it's not honest fair logic!

LOL You are the one that believes in the Bible. Do you remember the story of the pot of porridge and birthright? If it is good enough for your God, certainly it is good enough for you : )

I have re-stated the same things over and over!

Did you know that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. I am pretty sure you are certifiable.

Where did I say that you did lie without demonstrating that you did lie?

You really are insane aren't you. You claimed that I lied about answering your Pluto question, without evidence, in fact you lied. Why don't you show where I didn't answer your question? You claim to have already done it. Do it again. You really are hilarious : )

[mrjesse]

Are they the same kind under your system? What is the difference between your 'kind' and a specie?

Yup, according to my "Distinct original kinds" classification system Horses, Donkeys, and Zebras are all the same kind - that is to say they all descended from the same original kind. They are difference species, but the same kind.

You act like you are incapable of reading. You know where it is.

Thanks for the clue. Are you talking about this:

Said LeGrande:Using the rotating earth as your frame of reference and recognizing that the light that you see originated 6.8 hours earlier from Plutos actual position, yes, from your perspective, Plutos apparent position is off by 102 degrees (close enough for government work anyway : ) ).

and you're saying that that's an answer to my question here?

Now all we need is for you to calculate the same difference between gravitational and optical angles for Pluto at any given instant for and observer on earth!

See? I asked for the difference between gravitational and optical angles for Pluto, at a given instant, for an observer on the earth! Is that what you answered? No!. You went into detail about 6.8 hours and so on and so forth, and didn't even mention gravity! Remember, I asked about an observer on the earth at a given instant. 6.8 hours is hardly an instant. But you talked about 6.8 hours - so you clearly addressed some related issues, but not the ones I asked about!

So how about answering the [pluto 102deg] question I did ask, as I asked it? Did you do that already?

By the way, I've also repeatedly asked about the angular displacement between gravitational direction and optical direction for a reasonably stationary heavenly body that is 12 light hours away from the earth. (stationary compared to the earth.) And you haven't answered that one either, as far as I can tell. Are you refusing to answer that one, or did I just miss it?

Why do I have any obligation to enlighten you? You have proven yourself to be unworthy of effort on my part.

You certainly have no obligation to post on FR to be sure. But I thought that you might want to show your integrity by backing up your claims - your claims that you did answer the question that I did ask, and your claims that I have lied to you or that I have argued an incorrect point.

LOL You are the one that believes in the Bible. Do you remember the story of the pot of porridge and birthright? If it is good enough for your God, certainly it is good enough for you : )

This is pretty funny! Here we are trying to discuss scientific issues and you keep talking about religion! Which one of us is the bible thumper anyway! (PS: I don't get your point about Esau.)

You claimed that I lied about answering your Pluto question, without evidence, in fact you lied.

Well, I still haven't found where you answered the question that I asked. You may have answered a number of question that I didn't ask - but as far as I can tell, you haven't answered the question that I did ask. Furthermore, your reluctance to even make your above alleged answer (which I'm saying isn't the answer to my question) coupled with your unwillingness to answer my question when presented numerous times as a "yes or no" question leads me to believe you really don't want to answer it - which would explain why your "answer" actually doesn't answer my question, and why you're unwilling to come right out and say "Yes, in the described scenario of 102 degrees, Pluto won't even be in the night sky when you look up and see it overhead - it'll be about 102 degrees off." This also explains your refusal to answer about a heavenly body 12 light hours away.

You recently spoke about how honest people you know are willing to stand behind what they say. Are you an honest person? Do you stand behind what you say? If so, then you shouldn't have any trouble whatsoever standing behind what you say and clarifying your answer so that it directly and exactly answers my question!

Thanks,

-Jesse

[js1138]

Does that answer your question?

That definition would mean that all living things are of the same kind.

[mrjesse]

That definition would mean that all living things are of the same kind.

How so? are you saying that all living species today form one big ring species, so to speak? You're not being terribly verbose here :-)

I'm not trying to put words in your mouth or anything, just trying to figure out what you mean and how you came to that conclusion.

Thanks,

-Jesse

[js1138]

You implied that all descendants of the same kind are still the same kind. Did I misread you?

But this brings up a point. How do you define a kind?

[mrjesse]

You implied that all descendants of the same kind are still the same kind. Did I misread you?

But this brings up a point. How do you define a kind?

You might have missed out on what we're talking about. Creationists are always referring to "distinct created kinds" and every one else is always saying "Well what in the world are you talking about?" so I hacked up a brief description of how I understand (and believe) which you can read (it's still a rough draft) here

The general idea is that Distinct kinds (i.e. created kinds) started out, then each one diversified. For example, all the dogs, whether they are a huge great Dane or the pocket pouch (I call them pouch pooch) are all the same kind.

This classification system is not compatible with the tranditional ASBE (All Species By Evolution) tree and data cannot be converted directly from one to the other because the lines of logic run crosswise between the two systems. They have incompatible dogmatic core assumptions. (And yes, any classification system has dogmatic core assumptions of how things ought to be classified.)

Indeed, in my classification system, all descendants of a particular original distinct kind are all the same kind - but they well may be different species within that kind (but the word species in my classification system may not have exactly the same meaning as in the ASBE system) so to clarify, in my classification system, Donkeys, Horses, and Zebras are all the same kind, but are different species, or perhaps subspecies would be better.

I realize that this is a way of thinking entirely different then you're used to and that it is a classification system that is not designed to work with the ASBE system, but hopefully you'll be able to see where I'm coming from and what I'm trying to explain, anyway.

I have come to realize there are two kinds of evolution, having grown up on the farm - that kind which I have seen and that kind which I have not seen. From my limited vantage point, distinct original created kinds actually makes a lot more sense with that part of life around me that I have personally witnessed. I never saw our livestock give birth to an exact replica - but I'm tellin' ya they were all the same kind :-)

Does that help?

Thanks,

-Jesse

[js1138]

This classification system is not compatible with the traditional ASBE (All Species By Evolution) tree and data cannot be converted directly from one to the other because the lines of logic run crosswise between the two systems.

Perhaps you could provide an example of two distinct kinds that do not share a common ancestor, and provide your evidence and reasoning for your claim. What, How, for example, do you classify creatures that share features of your kinds?

[mrjesse]

Perhaps you could provide an example of two distinct kinds that do not share a common ancestor, and provide your evidence and reasoning for your claim. What, How, for example, do you classify creatures that share features of your kinds?

As an example of two distinct kinds in my classification system which are unrelated I would say that hawk and pig ought to be two separate kinds.

As to things like whether cats are the same kind (of course I'm referring to kinds in my classification system here) as dogs, or other more tricky stuff, I haven't yet sorted all out. I hope to work more at it and try real world data with it and see how (if) it works, but haven't had the chance yet.

Does that help?

-Jesse

[js1138]

I would say that hawk and pig ought to be two separate kinds.

But they have a common ancestor. Explain why both fossils and DNA form the same nested hierarchy, using the same reasoning we use in courtrooms to demonstrate parentage.

http://www.tolweb.org/tree/phylogeny.html
http://www.tolweb.org/Animals/2374
http://www.tolweb.org/Bilateria/2459
http://www.tolweb.org/Deuterostomia/2466
http://www.tolweb.org/Chordata/2499
http://www.tolweb.org/Craniata/14826
http://www.tolweb.org/Vertebrata/14829
http://www.tolweb.org/Gnathostomata/14843
http://www.tolweb.org/Sarcopterygii/14922
http://www.tolweb.org/Terrestrial_Vertebrates/14952
http://www.tolweb.org/Amniota/14990

None of the major proponents of intelligent design deny common descent, so what is your competing hypothesis?

[mrjesse]

But they have a common ancestor. Explain why both fossils and DNA form the same nested hierarchy, using the same reasoning we use in courtrooms to demonstrate parentage.

http://www.tolweb.org/tree/phylogeny.html
http://www.tolweb.org/Animals/2374
http://www.tolweb.org/Bilateria/2459
http://www.tolweb.org/Deuterostomia/2466
http://www.tolweb.org/Chordata/2499
http://www.tolweb.org/Craniata/14826
http://www.tolweb.org/Vertebrata/14829
http://www.tolweb.org/Gnathostomata/14843
http://www.tolweb.org/Sarcopterygii/14922
http://www.tolweb.org/Terrestrial_Vertebrates/14952
http://www.tolweb.org/Amniota/14990


As I said before, I am well aware that the standard ASBE (All species by evolution) classification system does arrange everything descending from the first original living cell. But as you know, all classification systems have a dogmatic assumptions or theology of how things are to be classified in that system. And as I said before, my classification system if you want to call it that, has incompatible assumptions with the ASBE classification system. There are times when available data will fit at least to some degree to multiple contradicting classification systems, and the fact that it fits one isn'r proof that it's the correct one. But depending on how well the raw full data fits a certain classification system, one can get an idea of how likely it is the correct one. Was there a particular point you wanted to make with all the above links? Oh, and I realize that the ASBE classification system runs on assumptions which the ASBE system declares wrong. But then my system declares wrong the assumptions that ASBE runs on as well - they are just both classification systems and neither proves the correctness of the data fitted to them. That's why scientists try different systems and see which fits best! No one classification system trumps another - but they should both be trumped by the data. So what's the harm in me trying another, and see how that one looks? A classification system is much like a sorting system in a library. They well could sort books by size then color then thickness. But finding what you want wouldn't be very easy - but none the less it's a classification and sorting system. It just happens that dewy decimal system works much better!

You quite plainly state that the hawk and the pig have a common ancestor. What's your best evidence of that? You see, in my practiced area of science (electronic, mechanical, and software engineering) I really don't have to use much faith. I guess I'm spoiled. If someone says that a resistor or a transistor behaves a certain way and I doubt them, I can (and will) go test it myself. So, what is your best evidence for common ancestor between the pig and the hawk, without me having to place a lot of unfounded faith in people I've never met about things I've never seen?

None of the major proponents of intelligent design deny common descent, so what is your competing hypothesis?

Could you elaborate on what are a couple of major proponents of intelligent design are, show that they don't deny common descent, and what you mean by "common descent?"

Do you mean absolute exclusive common descent (ASBE)?

I would be interested in reading about a definitely major proponent of intelligent design who clearly says that all life came from one single original life form.

As to my "competing hypothesis" as you put it, I'm talking about a different classification system. If my explanations so far and my rough draft on my about page don't explain what I'm trying to say then you may have to wait for me to expand upon my idea (not that it's unique or particularly mine) before understanding it. But maybe this will help: As I said, I grew up on a farm. I watched many generations of livestock happen. I've seen very similar looking offspring to wildly varied offspring and even some critically deformed offspring. But I've never seen a horse give birth to a swine. So I well know that not all natural (if any) reproduction causes exact 100% perfect clones 100% of the time.

Then I look in the Bible, and it says that God created different kinds of animals, and that they each reproduce their own kind. Then I'm like "Well what do you know, that lines up with what I've observed."

So I'm working on a classification system which is oriented toward the Biblical idea (and my personal observations) to see how (and if) it works!

That's the way science is supposed to work. If a phenomenon is observed and the cause cannot be observed, then hypothesis and models are tried to see if they produce the same outcome as is observed. So just because there's already one or more classification systems does not mean that there is any reason I shouldn't try to come up with another.

Does that help any, considering that my efforts are at such an early stage?

Thanks,

-Jesse

[js1138]

But as you know, all classification systems have a dogmatic assumptions or theology of how things are to be classified in that system.

AI don't know any such thing. That is like saying the shape of the earth is based on dogmatic assumptions.

Now, please present a competing hypothesis that predicts where to look for things like Tiktaalik and why you should look in certain places and not others, or I will have to look elsewhere for a discussion. Not all "interpretations" are equivalent.