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.

[Intrepidman]

Intrepidman

I am not making any claims. You made a claim, therefore it is up to you to defend that claim. The people you have slighted are not here to defend themselves.

The people I "slighted" WERE ignorant of the scientific facts. And I DO NOT have to go around disproving any and all claims of supernatural knowledge, it IS the resposibility of those making such ridiculous claims to provide proof.

I disagree. You are making a claim and I am asking you to back up that claim. That is what debate is all about.

Until that happens, I will continue to deal with the real world.

Grumpy

Where 6=4???

[Gonzo]

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)

[McCulloch]

It sounds like you are calling leading biologists liars and cowards and blaming religious people for their behavior. Are leading biologists really willfully ignorant (or just flat-out lying) and allowing religious dogma to impose things on them? That's a pretty strong indictment, if true.

If they allow non-peer pressure to influence them to that degree, that they would be willing to make false taxonomic statements, then I can't imagine how easy it would be to use peer pressure to get one to make false statements.

I thought better of them, but in light of this, maybe not.

If I misunderstood you, please correct me.

I don't think that scientists are any more noble than the rest of us. They find it difficult to give up their prejudices and are subject to pressures from society and funding organizations.

[Intrepidman]

It sounds like you are calling leading biologists liars and cowards and blaming religious people for their behavior. Are leading biologists really willfully ignorant (or just flat-out lying) and allowing religious dogma to impose things on them? That's a pretty strong indictment, if true.

If they allow non-peer pressure to influence them to that degree, that they would be willing to make false taxonomic statements, then I can't imagine how easy it would be to use peer pressure to get one to make false statements.

I thought better of them, but in light of this, maybe not.

If I misunderstood you, please correct me.

I don't think that scientists are any more noble than the rest of us. They find it difficult to give up their prejudices and are subject to pressures from society and funding organizations.

Yeouch. It's worse than I thought. How am I to differentiate between the truth, and things that are colored by prejudices, pressures from society and funding organizations?

[Intrepidman]

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

Wow, you found four whole cranks!!! Since 1939!!!

Oh, and BTW, there is an Ad Hom fallacy in calling them 'cranks'.
Also, there is a argumentum ad populum fallacy in there as well.

[Grumpy]

Intrepidman

Anyone who seriously tries to say a rabbit chews it's cud is a crank. The only ones I have seen do that are Creationists trying to patch a hole in the Bibles "scientific" cred.

If cranks don't want to be called cranks, they should refrain from saying absurd and cranky things.

Grumpy

[Intrepidman]

Intrepidman

Anyone who seriously tries to say a rabbit chews it's cud is a crank. The only ones I have seen do that are Creationists trying to patch a hole in the Bibles "scientific" cred.

If cranks don't want to be called cranks, they should refrain from saying absurd and cranky things.

Grumpy

More Ad Hom. You are attacking the person, and not addressing their claims.

Yeah, ya gotta watch out for those 'cranks'. Like:
The ones that said man could fly
The ones that said we could travel faster than a horse without losing the ability to breathe.
etc., etc. etc....

Carl Linnaeus (Latinized as Carolus Linnaeus, also known after his ennoblement as sv-Carl_von_Linné.ogg Carl von Linné (help·info), May 23 [O.S. May 13] 1707 – January 10, 1778) was a Swedish botanist, physician, and zoologist, who laid the foundations for the modern scheme of binomial nomenclature. He is known as the father of modern taxonomy, and is also considered one of the fathers of modern ecology.

Thought that rabbits chewed cud initially until he changed his mind. Was he a crank? I have to wonder if he had died before he changed his mind would he be a crank, or would we still say that 'rabbits chew cud'?

[byofrcs]

Intrepidman

Anyone who seriously tries to say a rabbit chews it's cud is a crank. The only ones I have seen do that are Creationists trying to patch a hole in the Bibles "scientific" cred.

If cranks don't want to be called cranks, they should refrain from saying absurd and cranky things.

Grumpy

More Ad Hom. You are attacking the person, and not addressing their claims.

Yeah, ya gotta watch out for those 'cranks'. Like:
The ones that said man could fly
The ones that said we could travel faster than a horse without losing the ability to breathe.
etc., etc. etc....

Carl Linnaeus (Latinized as Carolus Linnaeus, also known after his ennoblement as sv-Carl_von_Linné.ogg Carl von Linné (help·info), May 23 [O.S. May 13] 1707 – January 10, 1778) was a Swedish botanist, physician, and zoologist, who laid the foundations for the modern scheme of binomial nomenclature. He is known as the father of modern taxonomy, and is also considered one of the fathers of modern ecology.

Thought that rabbits chewed cud initially until he changed his mind. Was he a crank? I have to wonder if he had died before he changed his mind would he be a crank, or would we still say that 'rabbits chew cud'?

Arguing about the deliverer of the message makes as much sense as my arguing with the postman about a tax demand.

Scientists simply deliver a message that should stand up in its own right irrespective of which scientists delivers the message.

We call someone who presents pseudoscience a crank when they make what they say dependent upon them.

Within the context of this debate, the doubters of Evolution do not present evidence that can be verified. The many creation claims cannot be verified (given the cop-out of last-thursdayism) and it would appear that they simply die a death when there is no one left to preach the claim. (I would imagine that anyone in Egypt today who preached that the Ancient Egyptian creation myth are true would not live long).

Science presents a huge volume of supporting evidence that anyone can independently verify but as Andy Schlafly's very rude prejudice of the results of Lenski, that anyone should at least be a competent witness not just a "false witness".

[Intrepidman]

Intrepidman

Anyone who seriously tries to say a rabbit chews it's cud is a crank. The only ones I have seen do that are Creationists trying to patch a hole in the Bibles "scientific" cred.

If cranks don't want to be called cranks, they should refrain from saying absurd and cranky things.

Grumpy

More Ad Hom. You are attacking the person, and not addressing their claims.

Yeah, ya gotta watch out for those 'cranks'. Like:
The ones that said man could fly
The ones that said we could travel faster than a horse without losing the ability to breathe.
etc., etc. etc....

Carl Linnaeus (Latinized as Carolus Linnaeus, also known after his ennoblement as sv-Carl_von_Linné.ogg Carl von Linné (help·info), May 23 [O.S. May 13] 1707 – January 10, 1778) was a Swedish botanist, physician, and zoologist, who laid the foundations for the modern scheme of binomial nomenclature. He is known as the father of modern taxonomy, and is also considered one of the fathers of modern ecology.

Thought that rabbits chewed cud initially until he changed his mind. Was he a crank? I have to wonder if he had died before he changed his mind would he be a crank, or would we still say that 'rabbits chew cud'?

Arguing about the deliverer of the message makes as much sense as my arguing with the postman about a tax demand.

Scientists simply deliver a message that should stand up in its own right irrespective of which scientists delivers the message.

We call someone who presents pseudoscience a crank when they make what they say dependent upon them.

How is anything presented in this post 'pseudoscience'? It seems that you are calling them cranks not because they are using 'pseudoscience', but their conclusions make you unhappy. If that is the case then you are indeed 'judging the postman by the mail they bring'.

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

[Intrepidman]

Within the context of this debate, the doubters of Evolution do not present evidence that can be verified. The many creation claims cannot be verified (given the cop-out of last-thursdayism) and it would appear that they simply die a death when there is no one left to preach the claim. (I would imagine that anyone in Egypt today who preached that the Ancient Egyptian creation myth are true would not live long).

An interesting hypothesis. In Egypt today:

Egypt is predominantly Muslim, with Muslims comprising between 85% and 90% of a population of around 80 million Egyptians[1][2][3][4][5][6][7]Almost the entirety of Egypt's Muslims are Sunnis. Most of the non-Muslims in Egypt are Christians,[1][2][3][4][5] around 95% of whom belong to the native Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria[2][3]

There is also a small, but nonetheless historically significant, non-immigrant Bahá'í population, estimated around 2000 persons[21], and an even smaller community of Jews about 200,[21][23] then a tiny number of Egyptians who identify as atheist and agnostic. The non-Sunni, non-Coptic communities range in size from several hundreds to a few thousand. The original Ancient Egyptian religion has all but disappeared.

In Egypt, Muslims and Christians live as neighbors, they share a common history and national identity, they also share the same ethnicity, race, culture, and language.[24][21]

Atheism and agnosticism

There are Egyptians who identify as atheist and agnostic; till 2008 only one case is reported, but their numbers are unknown as openly advocating such positions risks legal sanction on the basis of apostasy (this occurs only if a citizen takes the step of suing the person engaging in apostasy, not automatically by the general prosecutor). In 2000, an openly atheist Egyptian writer, who called for the establishment of a local association for atheists, was tried on charges of insulting Islam in four of his books.[45]

I'm not aware of mass blood-letting of all non-Muslims in Egypt.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Egypt

So, since a person that was openly hostile to the state-sponsored religion was dealt with in a civil manner, why would you believe that if someone resurrected the ancient way would be treated worse?

While I was living in Dubai I made friends with an Egyptian. He seemed like a very nice guy. I take umbrage at your prejudicial view of an entire country.

Science presents a huge volume of supporting evidence that anyone can independently verify but as Andy Schlafly's very rude prejudice of the results of Lenski, that anyone should at least be a competent witness not just a "false witness".

All of the 'supporting evidence' is open to interpretation. Without a time machine it's impossible to prove that microbe-to-man evolution occurred, so the promulgators of evolution use cop-outs of their own.

I find it interesting that you consider Andy Schlafly to be 'rude' when we consider these comments by Lenski, from the page you cited.

I did not even have to go looking for these statements, as they were already bold on the page. Even if they are all true, they are not 'polite'. Also, and you prove that Lenski is not prejudiced himself?

reading might not be your strongest suit

your capacity to misinterpret and/or misrepresent facts is plain

you are not acting in good faith

I take education seriously,

remember to wash your hands after going to the toilet,