How is there reality without God?

[EarthScienceguy]

Neils Bohr
"No Phenomenon is a phenomenon until it is an observed phenomenon." Or another way to say this is that a tree does not fall in a forest unless it is observed.

The only way for there to be an objective reality is if God is the constant observer everywhere.

Physicist John Archibald Wheeler: "It is wrong to think of the past as 'already existing' in all detail. The 'past' is theory. The past has no existence except as it is recorded in the present."

God is everywhere so He can observe everywhere and produce objective reality.

[Jose Fly]

[Replying to Jose Fly in post #140]

So if achieving reproductive isolation is not speciation to you, what is?

Can a Great Dane mate with a Chihuahua? Or are they mechanically isolated?

From your article.

The partial reproductive isolation that evolved between lice on giant runts and feral pigeons likely represents the first, and arguably most critical, stage of speciation. If lice continue to increase in size over time, the difference in body size between populations on giant runts and feral pigeons may be large enough for complete prezygotic reproductive isolation, resulting in the formation of a new species.

You might want to try another example. Because your article says that they did not form a new species. But you can argue with your own article if you want to.

Look at Fig. 4 and notice how all the matings that took place between pairs that showed sexual dimorphism outside the typical range (IOW, all the parings between "natural" females and evolved males) produced zero eggs.

And yes, the authors do imply that a new species was produced.

"Ecological speciation occurs when local adaptation generates reproductive isolation as a by-product of natural selection."

"Here, we show that experimental evolution of parasite body size over 4 y (approximately 60 generations) leads to reproductive isolation in natural populations of feather lice on birds."

Obviously if "ecological speciation = reproductive isolation due to natural selection", then achieving reproductive isolation via selection = ecological speciation.

But then this is just another demonstration of the folly of showing science to creationists, whose only interest in it is to find some excuse to wave it away. And btw, didn't you used to advocate for rapid speciation over at ToL as part of your flood beliefs?

[Jose Fly]

I get that part, but why do they have to be so ridiculously dishonest as well?

Maintaining the beleif is what is most important.
Statements like "a monkey cannot give birth to a human" are true. Why would they give up such arguments when they refute the evolution that exists in their mind? Again, the goal is not accuracy (no monkey gave birth to a human), but to maintain a belief. Therefore, the ends justify the means.

creationism is effectively dead.

This is not in dispute. As we see here, there is no defense for creationism, the best we see is complaints made against the best we got (ToE).

Yep, that pretty much sums it up. Maintaining their belief system is so important, they'll employ "any means necessary" to do so, including blatantly lying.

[Jose Fly]

BTW, if anyone is truly interested in research into speciation, I found this review paper to be extremely informative.

Comparative studies on speciation: 30 years since Coyne and Orr

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Jose Fly in post #151]

"Ecological speciation occurs when local adaptation generates reproductive isolation as a by-product of natural selection."

"Here, we show that experimental evolution of parasite body size over 4 y (approximately 60 generations) leads to reproductive isolation in natural populations of feather lice on birds."

Neither one of your statements says that a new species was formed. What did they name the new species if that was the case?

Your first statement is nothing more than the definition of reproductive isolation.

Your second statement does not say it produced reproductive isolation it just says that it leads to reproductive isolation. It must be read in that context because of the of the conclusion.

The paper concluded

• The partial reproductive isolation that evolved between lice on giant runts and feral pigeons likely represents the first, and arguably most critical, stage of speciation. If lice continue to increase in size over time, the difference in body size between populations on giant runts and feral pigeons may be large enough for complete prezygotic reproductive isolation, resulting in the formation of a new species.

The conclusion was not that it produced reproductive isolation.

Why don't you write the authors and argue with them about the conclusion they made?

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Jose Fly in post #151]

"Ecological speciation occurs when local adaptation generates reproductive isolation as a by-product of natural selection."

"Here, we show that experimental evolution of parasite body size over 4 y (approximately 60 generations) leads to reproductive isolation in natural populations of feather lice on birds."

Neither one of your statements says that a new species was formed. What did they name the new species if that was the case?

Your first statement is nothing more than the definition of reproductive isolation.

Your second statement does not say it produced reproductive isolation it just says that it leads to reproductive isolation. It must be read in that context because of the of the conclusion.

The paper concluded

• The partial reproductive isolation that evolved between lice on giant runts and feral pigeons likely represents the first, and arguably most critical, stage of speciation. If lice continue to increase in size over time, the difference in body size between populations on giant runts and feral pigeons may be large enough for complete prezygotic reproductive isolation, resulting in the formation of a new species.

The conclusion was not that it produced reproductive isolation.

Why don't you write the authors and argue with them about the conclusion they made?

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Jose Fly in post #153]

BTW, if anyone is truly interested in research into speciation, I found this review paper to be extremely informative.

If anyone is interested in research into why rapid evolution cannot happen in nature, it is called Haldane's Dilemma and here is a paper on it.
https://creation.com/haldanes-dilemma-h ... een-solved

For a deeper dive into "Cost theory and the cost of substitution" which is what Haldane's Dilemma is based on. Here is a paper on cost theory and how it relates to Haldane's Dilemma. https://dl0.creation.com/articles/p044/ ... 13-125.pdf

Thank you

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Jose Fly in post #152]

Yep, that pretty much sums it up. Maintaining their belief system is so important, they'll employ "any means necessary" to do so, including blatantly lying.

you might want to read a little more on cost theory. I put two help links above so that you can learn all about it. Hope it helps.

[Jose Fly]

Neither one of your statements says that a new species was formed.

Well, I suppose if you are unable to put the two statements together, then I can't help you. Typical creationist reading of a scientific paper....isolate every sentence from all others and ignore any and all context.

What did they name the new species if that was the case?

LOL....it was an experimentally-derived species that was likely destroyed when the experiment was over. It's not like they released it into the wild.

The paper concluded

• The partial reproductive isolation that evolved between lice on giant runts and feral pigeons likely represents the first, and arguably most critical, stage of speciation. If lice continue to increase in size over time, the difference in body size between populations on giant runts and feral pigeons may be large enough for complete prezygotic reproductive isolation, resulting in the formation of a new species.

The conclusion was not that it produced reproductive isolation.

Prezygotic reproductive isolation is just one type of reproductive isolation. Do you need me to walk you through the different types and why it matters?

Also, again I have to ask.....didn't you argue in favor of rapid speciation over at ToL as part of your belief in the flood?

[Jose Fly]

[Replying to Jose Fly in post #153]

BTW, if anyone is truly interested in research into speciation, I found this review paper to be extremely informative.

If anyone is interested in research into why rapid evolution cannot happen in nature, it is called Haldane's Dilemma and here is a paper on it.
https://creation.com/haldanes-dilemma-h ... een-solved

For a deeper dive into "Cost theory and the cost of substitution" which is what Haldane's Dilemma is based on. Here is a paper on cost theory and how it relates to Haldane's Dilemma. https://dl0.creation.com/articles/p044/ ... 13-125.pdf

Thank you

FYI, no one in science gives a crap what "creation.com" says about....well, anything.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Jose Fly in post #158]

LOL....it was an experimentally-derived species that was likely destroyed when the experiment was over. It's not like they released it into the wild.

More likely it was because there was not a new species created. Because they say in their paper that:

The difference in body size between populations on giant runts and feral pigeons may be large enough for complete prezygotic reproductive isolation, resulting in the formation of a new species.

Prezygotic reproductive isolation is just one type of reproductive isolation. Do you need me to walk you through the different types and why it matters?

Yes you do need another example because specialization did not happen in this example because they say in their conclusion.

The difference in body size between populations on giant runts and feral pigeons may be large enough for complete prezygotic reproductive isolation, resulting in the formation of a new species.