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.

[Confused]

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

MODERATOR NOTE:

Hence, not discussing moderators rulings in threads...................



GENERAL WARNING TO ALL

Keep this thread on topic or it will be closed.
Inventing words like "IDiots" is nothing more than finding sad ways to throw insults while thinking you are being clever. Despite your impression of the word, it is insulting.
Just because you see one person challenging a moderation in a thread doesn't mean you are allowed to as well.

[Gonzo]

Back to the topic at hand. Intrepidman if you please.

If you change the equation that much I'm pretty sure some one like that has or will exist. After all there are pygmies:

You forgot all the other features I listed, body size and skin color were just two aspects. Instead of dealing with semantics could you please comment on the paragraph I keep re-posting?

Despite inbreeding depression and the deleterious genes associated with it, populations still possess healthy individuals with recessive alleles expressed in their phenotypes. Doesn't it seem a bit odd for such a phenomena to occur if these deleterious genes should be stacking up? The simple reason is that natural selection weeds out deleterious genes expressed as by the genes' very nature they hinder the organisms ability to reproduce, this happens until you maintain the gene the environment pressures to be expressed (for increased reproduction).

Do you agree with the basic principle of Natural Selection? A trait that leads to increased reproduction will be passed on more readily than one that hinders reproduction or is just not as effective as the initial trait. Doesn't it make sense that future generations of animals initially in the same population will vary greatly over time if the environments they are exposed to vary greatly? We also see animals (and plants) that are different, that have similar characteristics due to similar environments (even though their populations are separate from one another) via Convergent Evolution . Here are some examples

Are you just looking for my opinion? If they mate, and produce fertile offspring as a matter of course, would be a good place to start. Subject to modification.

How far would an organism have to "change" from an initial population in order for you to consider them separate "kinds"?

Do you consider horses and donkeys separate "kinds"? (interchange llama, alpaca, camel, and zebra with the horse or donkey and amongst themselves as well)

[Wyvern]

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

Ahh now you don't want to just redefine what a ruminant is but what they are doing. Then please by all means put forth a new definition of cud that fits jewish dietary laws. Science has clearly defined what cud is and despite the paper from 1977 does not seem even remotely disposed towards altering definitions simply to come in line with the bible. Face it back in the day they saw rabbits chewing all the time just as cows or camels do so they assumed rabbits were doing the same thing they were.

[Grumpy]

Wyvern

Face it back in the day they saw rabbits chewing all the time just as cows or camels do so they assumed rabbits were doing the same thing they were.

Actually, they had devinely inspired knowledge straight from god, according to another of Intrepidman's claims.

Grumpy

[Intrepidman]

Wyvern

Face it back in the day they saw rabbits chewing all the time just as cows or camels do so they assumed rabbits were doing the same thing they were.

Actually, they had devinely inspired knowledge straight from god, according to another of Intrepidman's claims.

Grumpy

Please don't put words in my mouth. I quite clearly said that THEY claimed that.

[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

Ahh now you don't want to just redefine what a ruminant is but what they are doing. Then please by all means put forth a new definition of cud that fits jewish dietary laws. Science has clearly defined what cud is and despite the paper from 1977 does not seem even remotely disposed towards altering definitions simply to come in line with the bible. Face it back in the day they saw rabbits chewing all the time just as cows or camels do so they assumed rabbits were doing the same thing they were.

Can you prove this claim?

[Wyvern]

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

Ahh now you don't want to just redefine what a ruminant is but what they are doing. Then please by all means put forth a new definition of cud that fits jewish dietary laws. Science has clearly defined what cud is and despite the paper from 1977 does not seem even remotely disposed towards altering definitions simply to come in line with the bible. Face it back in the day they saw rabbits chewing all the time just as cows or camels do so they assumed rabbits were doing the same thing they were.

Can you prove this claim?

Of course I can't, it is just a much simpler explanation of how they came to their conclusion instead of having to involve god in the matter. In addition it also explains how they got it wrong and turns it into a simple mistake from bronze age goat herders which should be understandable.
Since you asked for proof from me I think I can do the same from you, can you prove cud meant something different in biblical times?

[Intrepidman]

...Face it back in the day they saw rabbits chewing all the time just as cows or camels do so they assumed rabbits were doing the same thing they were.

Can you prove this claim?

Of course I can't, it is just a much simpler explanation of how they came to their conclusion instead of having to involve god in the matter. In addition it also explains how they got it wrong and turns it into a simple mistake from bronze age goat herders which should be understandable.

Occam's Razor

A central maxim of skepticism, that given two explanations that equally describe a given situation, the simplest one is most likely to be the correct one.

Occam's razor concerns the choice of which alternative theory to tentatively accept; it by no means constitutes proof that the simpler theory is, in fact, correct.

http://skepticwiki.org/index.php/Occam%27s_Razor

Since you asked for proof from me I think I can do the same from you, can you prove cud meant something different in biblical times?

Nope. I can only infer that it might have. For the verse about 'cud chewing rabbits' to be wrong one would have to prove that 'cud' meant the same thing to people back then (specifically, barf) as today. I don't have to prove that it did not.

I have provided evidence that 'cud chewing rabbits' may not be in error. I have not seen any proof that the usage of the word 'cud' (as used in the bible) means the same thing both then and now. I think what might have happened it something like this when Linnaeus was working out taxonomy.

1) rudiments chew cud. Rabbits and cows are rudiments.
2) Oops, cows eat barf, rabbits eat poop and their stomachs are different.
3) Only rudiments chew cud.
4) Therefore, rabbits don't chew cud.

I think the simple, innocent initial mistake by Linnaeus might have altered the meaning of 'cud'.

I have provided biological evidence that the usage of 'cud' might refer to the biological action of re-ingesting food (that seems to be the way Linnaeus understood the word initially). It is entirely reasonable to assume that they were talking about biological processes.

[Intrepidman]

How far would an organism have to "change" from an initial population in order for you to consider them separate "kinds"?

I have not seen any organisms change enough within modern recorded, reliable history to consider them separate 'kinds'. Scandinavians and Aborigines are still humans. Chihuahuas and Great Danes are still dogs.

Do you consider horses and donkeys separate "kinds"? (interchange llama, alpaca, camel, and zebra with the horse or donkey and amongst themselves as well)

I don't know. I had not thought about them. What I find interesting is that Polar Bears and Grizzly Bears are breeding in the wild. This indicates that these could be considered the same 'kind'.

[Wyvern]

...Face it back in the day they saw rabbits chewing all the time just as cows or camels do so they assumed rabbits were doing the same thing they were.

Can you prove this claim?

Of course I can't, it is just a much simpler explanation of how they came to their conclusion instead of having to involve god in the matter. In addition it also explains how they got it wrong and turns it into a simple mistake from bronze age goat herders which should be understandable.

Occam's Razor

A central maxim of skepticism, that given two explanations that equally describe a given situation, the simplest one is most likely to be the correct one.

Occam's razor concerns the choice of which alternative theory to tentatively accept; it by no means constitutes proof that the simpler theory is, in fact, correct.

http://skepticwiki.org/index.php/Occam%27s_Razor

Since you asked for proof from me I think I can do the same from you, can you prove cud meant something different in biblical times?

Nope. I can only infer that it might have. For the verse about 'cud chewing rabbits' to be wrong one would have to prove that 'cud' meant the same thing to people back then (specifically, barf) as today. I don't have to prove that it did not.

I have provided evidence that 'cud chewing rabbits' may not be in error. I have not seen any proof that the usage of the word 'cud' (as used in the bible) means the same thing both then and now. I think what might have happened it something like this when Linnaeus was working out taxonomy.

1) rudiments chew cud. Rabbits and cows are rudiments.
2) Oops, cows eat barf, rabbits eat poop and their stomachs are different.
3) Only rudiments chew cud.
4) Therefore, rabbits don't chew cud.

I think the simple, innocent initial mistake by Linnaeus might have altered the meaning of 'cud'.

I have provided biological evidence that the usage of 'cud' might refer to the biological action of re-ingesting food (that seems to be the way Linnaeus understood the word initially). It is entirely reasonable to assume that they were talking about biological processes.

Thank you for bringing up Ockham's razor. More amazing is you bring up OR while at the same time you refute it. Hmm lets see the bible you are using is most likely either the KJV or a derivitive thereof, which means it was written probably in the 17th century. The word cud is from old english derivation. So are you trying to say that a word that has a very specific meaning in english which hasn't changed at all since its inception somehow means something else? Wow I just noticed, you proposed something and now you say you don't have to prove it or even give any evidence. You have not proved cud chewing rabbits may not be in error, at best you have attempted to muddy the water.
You are not correct, cud refers only to the regurgitated food packets which the ruminant then needs to chew again to further break down cellulose. Cud is an object not a biological process, you can not chew a biological process.