Doubters of Evolution

[Gonzo]

I pose to you a hypothetical situation.

There are several assumptions which are known as facts that must be taken into account first though.

1) Genetic mutations exist (or at the very least accept that there are large amounts of varying genetics throughout a population). Examples would be varying eye color, hair color, and a variety of others regarding almost every aspect of an organism.

2) These mutations are coded for within DNA and can be passed down to offspring.

3) When mutations are selected for they have can "stacking up" effect to some degree, as we would see with dog breeding. (for example the breeding of bloodhounds with extremely sensitive sense of scent).


Now for my example lets say we take individuals from a human population and select for traits, much like animal breeding. We select for individuals with an extended tail bone/spine and continue to select for them throughout the generations. Based upon the above assumptions you will eventually have a group of individuals with an appendage much like a tail. Now if we select for smaller body size and body hair as well, we have something that looks very much like a monkey, but it wouldn't be and it would most likely still be able to breed with the regular human population. However, if you select for certain traits regarding sexual reproduction, specifically the acidity of the vagina and size of it as well (perhaps even shape). And you have the males in the population selected for characteristics that correspond, it will eventually make sexual reproduction with the normal human population impossible (Which under one definition of the species concept, will make them separate species). There are also some other wild genetic traits that exist in the human population that could be selected for, like webbed digits or blue skin even.


If this example does not convince you I ask that you point out the reasons so that I may use our existing knowledge of genetics and heritability to propose another hypothetical example that may persuade you. I also ask that you lay the groundwork on what constitutes a separate species in your opinion so that my example may incorporate it. Also, if you disagree with my assumptions I can help illustrate them as fact.

I realize my example uses artificial selection rather than natural selection, but I can substitute artificial pressures for environmental ones in the next situation I provide.

[byofrcs]

DO RABBITS CHEW THE CUD?
Leonard R. Brand
Chairman, Department of Biology
Loma Linda University

Quote:
Madsen (1939) wrote an article entitled "Does the Rabbit Chew the Cud?" Southern (1940) concluded that reingestion has an advantage to the rabbit "equivalent to 'chewing the cud'." Griffiths and Davies (1963) concluded that "we consider that the fundus of the rabbit stomach, loaded with soft pellets, is analogous to the rumens of sheep and cattle."
Carles (1977) compared cows and rabbits and reached the conclusion that rumination should not be defined from an anatomical point of view (the presence of a four-part stomach), but rather on presence of an adaptation for breeding bacteria to improve food. On this basis he stated that "it is difficult to deny that rabbits are ruminants."

http://www.grisda.org/origins/04102.htm

Leonard R. Brand in that link starts by referring to Leviticus 11:6 and claims that this "is sometimes used as an example of an error in the Bible; it states that hares chew the cud.".

They then go through a torturous route of showing that those animals that eat their faeces are effectively chewing cud as per the Bible. Given this is simply observed then it is a moot point in the end because the closing remark is what makes it pseudoscience as it presents a false dichotomy,

"What is the correct explanation for Leviticus 11:6 — is it an error in the Bible, or is it evidence that Moses had a source of information far ahead of his time?"

Brand concludes that it would be "difficult to justify interpreting Leviticus 11:6 as an error in the Bible" which means that they have only left us with one conclusion, that "Moses had a source of information far ahead of his time".

That is the pseudoscience because it is blatantly supporting the supernatural and revelation. It is not science.

A better undertanding is that rabbits and hares are nice to eat but we (the authors of Leviticus) haven't worked out a word for what the heck the rabbits do so we'll bundle them under "cows" because they eat grass.

What a waste of time. Leviticus specifically and the Bible in general have a lot more problems than Do We Eat Roger Rabbit ?

The babble of references is not un-typical of the more structured criticisms of Evolution by IDiots and the more coherent YECs. The first 2 pages consists of sometimes good argument and then somewhere along the way there'll be a clanger. A subtle word like "complexity" or as in the Rabbit link you gave us, a revealed knowledge or a blatant "God did it".

They are, in few words, "Time Bandits", because their purpose in life is to waste your time reading what they say.

[Jester]

The babble of references is not un-typical of the more structured criticisms of Evolution by IDiots and the more coherent YECs.

Try to watch out for referring to anyone as an idiot, even in a general sense.

[byofrcs]

The babble of references is not un-typical of the more structured criticisms of Evolution by IDiots and the more coherent YECs.

Try to watch out for referring to anyone as an idiot, even in a general sense.

I did look out and I'm not using the general sense but a specific sense. I didn't use "idiot" but IDiots. My form is the right semantic overload to use. I looked at liars, fraud, and various others and idiot was the shortest word that worked well but they are not just ordinary idiots but IDiots.

If they stopped being so stupid then they wouldn't be in the set of idiotic things. I am referring to the style of the argument of a particular class of ID promoters.

[Intrepidman]

The babble of references is not un-typical of the more structured criticisms of Evolution by IDiots and the more coherent YECs.

Try to watch out for referring to anyone as an idiot, even in a general sense.

I did look out and I'm not using the general sense but a specific sense. I didn't use "idiot" but IDiots. My form is the right semantic overload to use. I looked at liars, fraud, and various others and idiot was the shortest word that worked well but they are not just ordinary idiots but IDiots.

If they stopped being so stupid then they wouldn't be in the set of idiotic things. I am referring to the style of the argument of a particular class of ID promoters.

How is this not a violation of:

1. No personal attacks of any sort are allowed. Comments about another poster that are negative, condescending, frivolous or indicate in any way a lack of respect are not allowed.

13. Appeals and challenges to decisions made by moderators should not be made in public. The proper channel is to send a PM to a moderator and to discuss it directly and in private.

14. In general, all members are to be civil and respectful.

???

[Wyvern]

DO RABBITS CHEW THE CUD?
Leonard R. Brand
Chairman, Department of Biology
Loma Linda University

Madsen (1939) wrote an article entitled "Does the Rabbit Chew the Cud?" Southern (1940) concluded that reingestion has an advantage to the rabbit "equivalent to 'chewing the cud'." Griffiths and Davies (1963) concluded that "we consider that the fundus of the rabbit stomach, loaded with soft pellets, is analogous to the rumens of sheep and cattle."
Carles (1977) compared cows and rabbits and reached the conclusion that rumination should not be defined from an anatomical point of view (the presence of a four-part stomach), but rather on presence of an adaptation for breeding bacteria to improve food. On this basis he stated that "it is difficult to deny that rabbits are ruminants."

http://www.grisda.org/origins/04102.htm

[/quote]

So all you have to do to make the bible true is redefine what it means to chew cud. Ruminants are pretty well defined as are coprophages. The most recent paper written in favor of this redefinition is from 1977 and by all indications it has not caught on at all. In fact if you were to accept Carles new definition of what a ruminant as this paper stated other new ruminants include kangaroos, whales, many birds, some monkeys, amny other rodents and many others, in other words it becomes so diluted as to become nearly meaningless.

[byofrcs]

The babble of references is not un-typical of the more structured criticisms of Evolution by IDiots and the more coherent YECs.

Try to watch out for referring to anyone as an idiot, even in a general sense.

I did look out and I'm not using the general sense but a specific sense. I didn't use "idiot" but IDiots. My form is the right semantic overload to use. I looked at liars, fraud, and various others and idiot was the shortest word that worked well but they are not just ordinary idiots but IDiots.

If they stopped being so stupid then they wouldn't be in the set of idiotic things. I am referring to the style of the argument of a particular class of ID promoters.

How is this not a violation of:

1. No personal attacks of any sort are allowed. Comments about another poster that are negative, condescending, frivolous or indicate in any way a lack of respect are not allowed.

Because I'm referring to a class of other people who are not part of this discussion.

13. Appeals and challenges to decisions made by moderators should not be made in public. The proper channel is to send a PM to a moderator and to discuss it directly and in private.

Because it did not indicate that it was a moderation. What am I some kind of mind reader ? It needs to be clearly marked as MODERATOR.

14. In general, all members are to be civil and respectful.

???

I am but if YOU consider it to be a moderator action then why are YOU discussing this in public ?. Your argument is self-defeating.

[Intrepidman]

So all you have to do to make the bible true is redefine what it means to chew cud. Ruminants are pretty well defined as are coprophages. The most recent paper written in favor of this redefinition is from 1977 and by all indications it has not caught on at all. In fact if you were to accept Carles new definition of what a ruminant as this paper stated other new ruminants include kangaroos, whales, many birds, some monkeys, amny other rodents and many others, in other words it becomes so diluted as to become nearly meaningless.

Or, perhaps accept that when the bible speaks of 'cud' it doesn't mean just cow barf. In other words, perhaps we have redefined what 'cud' originally meant. Everywhere I found 'cud' in the bible it refered to Jewish Dietary Laws.

Animals have to have a split hoof and chew the cud. Horses chew the cud but do not have a split hoof. Rabbits chew the cud but do not have a hoof. Pigs have a split hoof but do not chew the cud. These animals are all unclean. Here are most of the (Torah) clean animals from Leviticus 11: sheep, goats, cows, dear, oxen, buffalo and moose all have split hooves and chew the cud. Here are some unclean animals: dog, cat, possum, squirrel, rat, ferret, monkey, kangaroo, elephant, rhinoceros and all reptiles.

http://tzion.org/devarim/Shimini.html

[Intrepidman]

The babble of references is not un-typical of the more structured criticisms of Evolution by IDiots and the more coherent YECs.

Try to watch out for referring to anyone as an idiot, even in a general sense.

I did look out and I'm not using the general sense but a specific sense. I didn't use "idiot" but IDiots. My form is the right semantic overload to use. I looked at liars, fraud, and various others and idiot was the shortest word that worked well but they are not just ordinary idiots but IDiots.

If they stopped being so stupid then they wouldn't be in the set of idiotic things. I am referring to the style of the argument of a particular class of ID promoters.

How is this not a violation of:

1. No personal attacks of any sort are allowed. Comments about another poster that are negative, condescending, frivolous or indicate in any way a lack of respect are not allowed.

Because I'm referring to a class of other people who are not part of this discussion.

13. Appeals and challenges to decisions made by moderators should not be made in public. The proper channel is to send a PM to a moderator and to discuss it directly and in private.

Because it did not indicate that it was a moderation. What am I some kind of mind reader ? It needs to be clearly marked as MODERATOR.

14. In general, all members are to be civil and respectful.

???

I am but if YOU consider it to be a moderator action then why are YOU discussing this in public ?. Your argument is self-defeating.

Interesting. Can a statement directed at a statement by another poster quoting a rule be considered in violation of the rule itself?

If that is true then ANY comment to a comment to a mod comment is in violation of rule 13.

If that is true, then ANY comment to a comment to a comment to a mod comment is in violation of rule 13.

Therefore, if we accept the above as true, then both of us are in violation of rule 13, since I made you aware that Jester was a mod.

In fact, this post is also a violation of rule 13.



Therefore, I retract my previous post, and this one.

[Jester]

Moderator Comment

I did look out and I'm not using the general sense but a specific sense. I didn't use "idiot" but IDiots. My form is the right semantic overload to use. I looked at liars, fraud, and various others and idiot was the shortest word that worked well but they are not just ordinary idiots but IDiots.

If they stopped being so stupid then they wouldn't be in the set of idiotic things. I am referring to the style of the argument of a particular class of ID promoters.

Because I'm referring to a class of other people who are not part of this discussion.

Byofrcs:
Apologies for not marking that previous comment as a moderator comment. To answer this. Insults to groups not present, while not as bad as personal attacks on your opponent, are considered to be a violation of the rules. They do not foster the kind of environment we're seeking to create. I happen to know that you are intelligent enough to make your points without the use of insults. Please do as much.
Everyone, please keep in mind that this is a discussion on evolution, not the forum rules. Please try to focus on debating.

[Intrepidman]

How did this thread get so derailed? I thought we were supposed to be discussing the mechanics of man-to-smurf evolution.