Posted on 12/21/2004 7:59:02 PM PST by postitnews.com
"God doesn't play dice (with the universe)". -- Albert Einstein
Another favorite:
"God may be subtle, but He isn't plain mean." -- Albert Einstein
[1] In Siberia, two distinct forms of greenish warblers coexist, one in the west and one in the east, their distributions narrowly overlapping in central Siberia, where they do not interbreed. These forms differ in color patterns, the songs that males sing to attract mates, and genetic characteristics. Also, males of each form usually do not recognize the song of the other form, but respond strongly to their own.
[2] The traits that differ between the two Siberian forms change gradually through the chain of populations encircling the Tibetan Plateau to the south.
[3] Thus two distinct species are connected by gradual variation in morphological, behavioral, and genetic traits.
Just a couple quick comments on this example. First, we find ourselves mise en scene WRT the "two distinct forms of greenish warblers." It's like coming into the middle of a movie; you missed the "set-up" in the beginning -- the initial conditions -- and now you have to figure out what the hail is going on. But even coming in late, if you notice you have two "forms" on the cinema screen that do not interbreed, and that do not share behavioral, morphological, or genetic traits then it seems to me the probability is very high that what you have are two different species.
If this were so, then what is happening at [2] is a non sequitur. And by [3] we are suddenly, magically equating what was formerly described as a "form" with what we mean by a "species."
There seem to be a number of semantic tricks involved in this "demonstration."
As already noted, there is a great deal of arbitrariness in the assignment of taxonomic categories. But this example seems to be "flexible," not on empirical grounds, but on quite subjective ones. Or so it seems to me. FWIW
of course, i could always be wrong. :^)
Merry Christmas, Patrick!
Thanks for the chuckle. Well-said. :)
You? Nah! Not you, BB.
Merry Christmas, Patrick!
Thank's, BB. And to you.
Only at the ends of the ring, though, BB. Did you catch that part? Everywhere else are little interbreeding subpopulations, like those dog breeds that are just another kind of dog so it doesn't prove anything etc. etc. etc.
The talk.origins website has a list of instances of observed biological speciation, in the sense of development of non-interfertility as a result of muatation followed by natural selection. Most of these instances are pretty limited - involving polyploidy, or mutation in a couple of genes, as one would expect when we've had a small number of generations to observe divergence. Nonetheless, they are speciation, according to the standard definition.
There are much more impressive instances of speciation on a near-historical timescale. The most impressive are the development of flightlessness in bird species over a time scale of a few thousand years. Birds that belong to usually sedentary species, such as rails, that arrive on new islands (produced usually by volcanism; it's straightforward to date recently formed volcanic islands), tend to become flightless on a time scale of a few thousand years. The 'just-so' story that explains this is that flight requires a lot of energy, and is needed primarily to escape predators. If there are no predators, birds tend to become flightless very quickly. New Zealand, which had no predatory land mammals at all, was full of flightless birds before the gentle, nature-attuned Maoris arrived and slaughtered most of 'em; so were the Hawaiian Islands. So, if you want macroevolution, we have strong circumstantial evidence bird wings have become vestigial appendages in a couple of thousand generations.
*Errrrrrnt*
NO SOUP FOR YOU!
Here are some ideas for Instructors:
For an appetizer, show the video “Unlocking the Mystery of Life” Preview
For the main course I recommend Dr. Stephen Meyer's paper for analysis: The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories
Then follow it up with the Privileged Planet for dessert.
This sad P.O.S. had its own thread. If you think it's a scientific paper, you probably think a Jack Chick comic is a scientific paper.
Oh, wait a minute! I'm talking to a YEC, here.
Please observe posting guidlines, and clean up your vile language.
Speaking of support, your arrogance has annoyed me enough to "up" my monthly donation to both Jim AND Discovery.org. You ole' atheist, you! You just cost me another $50!
Yeah! Abbreviate your curse words like Vade!
The main site for "Meyer's Hopeless Monster," a good critical review of Meyer, seems to be down right now, but here's another copy on the TalkReason.org site.
Note a considerable dissection of the scientific shortcomings of Meyer's thinly disguised Duane Gish tract. The paper's flaws and the embarrassment over them eventually led the minor journal which published it to acknowledge that its ID-enthusiast publisher had bypassed normal peer-review procedures, said back-door entrance being the only way a product in that shape could have seen print. So, in a way, ID has published in a peer-reviewed journal, but never published a peer-reviewed paper.
The only way Meyer's Jack Chick comic in words belongs in a High School classroom is that it is evidently written for about that level. It might actually fool some of them.
I thought POS was 'puzzling old sentence'.
But then I had a very sheltered upbringing. Jehu, however, has been cussing ever since we caught him in a whopper on another thread. Before that, he was quoting extensively from St. Paul to the Romans. Interesting mix, but a little unsettling.
There is nothing wrong with challenging conventional wisdom -- continuing challenge is a core feature of science. But challengers should at least be aware of, read, cite, and specifically rebut the actual data that supports conventional wisdom, not merely construct a rhetorical edifice out of omission of relevant facts, selective quoting, bad analogies, knocking down strawmen, and tendentious interpretations. Unless and until the "intelligent design" movement does this, they are not seriously in the game. They're not even playing the same sport.Why can't ID/creationism meet this challenge?
The deal is, if you don't want your children to get mixed up in the rough and tumble, either DON'T HAVE THEM, or don't tell us about them!
How you expect to live in a predominantly Christian society and keep your kids away from religious scam artists and cultists by keeping them ignorant of Christianity is a complete mystery to me and everybody else. You are just setting them up for a "fleecing", if I may coin yet another pun!
Why does that sound familiar?
"Those 'scientists' that won't print articles about perpetual motion machines are too invested in their 'laws of thermodynamics' to look at the truth. They can't afford to have all their precious theories thrown out the window!"
Plus, they're all bought and paid for by Big Oil.
I can now predict which posts will not be responded to. Yours is one of them.
Not that it's important (because these were just two names off the top of my head) but well, you're wrong about Parker - unless you believe that the bio on the back of one of his books is fraudulent. Let me quote -- 'Dr. Gary Parker earned his doctorate in biology, with a cognate in geology (paleontology). He has earned several academic awards, including election to the national university scholastic honorary society Phi Beta Kappa, and a Science Faculty Fellowship from the National Science Foundation.'
As far as Johnson goes, you're right - he's a lawyer. So what? The only people that should be listened to on this subject are the ones who have a zillion letters behind their names? Nothing self-taught has any standing? That sounds pretty doggone arrogant and let me tell you, I've met a few folks with grade 8 education who in their specific field of knowledge, knew vastly more than the zillion letter types - particularly when there was a 'hands-on' component. Johnson seems to have at least won the respect of physicist and outspoken atheist Steven Weinberg who, in his book Dreams of a Final Theory, calls him 'the most respectable academic critic of evolution.....'. But no, he should be dismissed out of hand because he is a lawyer?
All the education in the world matter nothing if the foundation upon which it is based is flawed. I'm oft reminded of the historical understanding of what causes stomach ulcers. Up until 25 years ago, any self-respecting GP or even a gastroenterologist would have told you that the cause was stress, diet, smoking, drinking etc etc. Lots of really really smart people believed that - I mean things have advanced since 1984 but it's not like we were in the dark ages of medicine a couple of decades ago. Two Australian scientists found that the real cause was that it was a bacterial infection - the spiral shaped helicobacter pylori. Whoops - up until that point, it was just another case of lots and lots of intelligentsia building up a wealth of science all based on a wrong understanding at the foundational level. Sound familiar?
Banned? Por quoi?
I really need to spend more time on controversial threads... then I'd be able to witness some of these bannings!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.