PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     New Species??
       Scientists observe new species.

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
godyag

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Interesting article that is relevant to this discussion.  They are not really separate species, but time may show them to separate.

Species


-------
love,
godyag
 


Posts: 33 | Posted: 3:06 PM on June 9, 2004 | IP
OccamsRazor

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Good old Drosophila

Research into a population such as this could provide that all important example of speciation in action today, the current lacking of which is commonly cited as a flaw in the idea of evolution.

No doubt the chaps over at AiG and ICR would be able to create some problems with the science used and pour scorn on any conclusions that support evolution


-------
Broaden your perspective: http://www.talkorigins.org/
 


Posts: 92 | Posted: 4:37 PM on June 9, 2004 | IP
Kronus

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

That last I checked, and I admit my knowledge may be outdated here, the exact definition of species was still in flux, largely for political reasons.  A lot of scientists don't like the definition that the article uses, that two things are different species if they tend not to mate.  The reason they don't like it is that it could apply to different races of humans, like Samoans and Indians for example.  And once you say humans can be different species you're opening the door for race supremancy, genocide, prejudice, etc.   It's much easier to discriminate against people if "science says" they aren't really human, which is of course how some people would interpret it.
 


Posts: 92 | Posted: 4:45 PM on June 9, 2004 | IP
godyag

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

WHOA! Samoans  and Indians can't procreate?
Are these "Native Americans" or "Indians from India"?

Either way, didn't know that.



-------
love,
godyag
 


Posts: 33 | Posted: 5:51 PM on June 9, 2004 | IP
Kronus

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I'm talking about Indians from India.

It's not that they can't procreate, it's that they don't tend to.  Both due to geographic separation and physical appeal.  Samoans and Indians just aren't each others "type".  If they were birds, many biologists would say that's sufficient to call them different species.  Others, recognizing the political fallout, don't.  
 


Posts: 92 | Posted: 6:15 PM on June 9, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

While a very interesting and relevent article, a new species does not prove or disprove evolution or creation.  In fact, evolution and creation have stated mechanisms for speciation.  

It is a common misconception that creationists do not believe in new species.  It is also a common misconception that we don't believe that a mutation can be beneficial.  

The only critera we assert is that there are no information gaining processes (as is assumed in evolution).... only information re-arranging or information loosing processes.  

Interestngly enough, the article does describe how in some cases of cross breeding between these two groups, the offspring are sterile.  This would certainly indicate a loss of information is occuring.  

Another interesting tidbit is the origin of our biological classification system.  Carolus Linneaus is considered the father of that system, and he was a YEC.  He based species on the biblical definition of Kinds - theorizing that if animals only produce after their kind... then animals who couldn't interbreed would be different species.  While this tends to work for the most part today, it didn't take into account the speciation that had taken place up to that point.  
 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 7:22 PM on June 9, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The only critera we assert is that there are no information gaining processes (as is assumed in evolution).... only information re-arranging or information loosing processes.

Which you can't support.

Interestngly enough, the article does describe how in some cases of cross breeding between these two groups, the offspring are sterile.  This would certainly indicate a loss of information is occuring.  

???


Carolus Linneaus is considered the father of that system, and he was a YEC.

How does the fact that Linnaeus died almost a hundred years before Darwin published his theory mean he rejected it?
Linneaus a YEC?
Carolus Linneaus (1707-1778), father of modern taxonomy, is one of the early scientists considered by the ICR to be firmly in the creationist camp. Of him it is said that "He attempted, in fact, to equate his 'species' category with the 'kind', believing that variation could occur within the kind, but not from one kind to another kind." Other biographers disagree. An investigation of Linneaus' prolific writings shows that his views of fossil formation did not come directly out of Genesis, and his views on the fixity of species changed with time.

Linneaus believed that fossils were not products of a supernatural flood, but formed naturally in the open ocean. He proposed a unique process to construct the sedimentary limestone and shale layers: large mats of sargasso in the ocean prevented wave formation and thus allowed limestone to precipitate. Later on, the sargasso decomposed and was converted to shale, in which fossils were trapped. This was but one of the gradual mechanical processes that Linneaus thought were responsible for shaping the earth which he called a "temporis filia, child of time" (quoted in Frangsmyr 1983:143).

Early in his career Linneaus insisted that each species was a separate creation, stating "We count as many species as there were different forms created." (quoted in Frangsmyr 1983:86). Doubts began to arise in 1744 as Linneaus described a type of toadflax which he called Peloria (malformation). It had been produced from Linaria, but was so extremely different from the parent plant that he assigned it not to just a new species or genus, but to a new class (Frangsmeyer 1983:94-5). He was forced to consider the concept of evolution, and by 1751, produced a list of plants, Plantae Hybridae, which were assumed to have two different species as parents, stating , "It is impossible to doubt, that there are new species produced by hybrid generation" (quoted in Glass 1959:149). In Fundamenta Fructificationis (1762) Linneaus proposed that at creation there were only a small number of species, but that they had the ability to fertilize each other -- and did (Frangsmeyer 1983:97). By 1766 the words "no new species" were removed from the 12th edition of Systemae Naturae. In a comment published posthumously Linneaus asserted that "Species are the work of time" (quoted in Glass 1959:150). After his death, Linneaus was accused of atheism by the German theologian Zimmerman, to which his son replied "He believed, no doubt, that species animalium et plantarum and that genera were the works of time: but that the ordines naturales were the works of the Creator; if the latter had not existed the former could not have arisen" (quoted in Hagberg 1953:200).




-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 7:48 PM on June 9, 2004 | IP
OccamsRazor

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

A more modern approach to classification of the relationships between different creatures, Cladistics, was largely developed by Willi Hennig. He wasn't a YEC. You can try show he was if you want, but its going to be somewhat harder than the spin piece on Linneaus.

Gup20 wrote: Interestngly enough, the article does describe how in some cases of cross breeding between these two groups, the offspring are sterile.  This would certainly indicate a loss of information is occuring.


Not information loss again... I think the sterile offspring are due to a degree of genetic incompatability between the parents.


-------
Broaden your perspective: http://www.talkorigins.org/
 


Posts: 92 | Posted: 8:39 PM on June 9, 2004 | IP
Kronus

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The only critera we assert is that there are no information gaining processes (as is assumed in evolution)


The bit about "as is asumed in evolution" is 100% false.  That is not found anywhere in evolutionary theory.  Show me any paper written by an evolutionary scientist that makes this claim.

(Edited by Kronus 6/10/2004 at 11:40 AM).
 


Posts: 92 | Posted: 10:31 AM on June 10, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

ah... evolution claims molecules to man building process.  This isn't remotely possible without matter spontaneously giving rise to information.

Clearly, a single cell organism has less information than a person.  Yet evolution claims a single cell organism 'evolved' into a person.  
 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 10:42 AM on June 12, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

this argument might mean something if you actually had a definition for "information".  You don't.

Nice strawman, BTW


-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 5:41 PM on June 12, 2004 | IP
Kronus

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I didn't ask for your vauge defintion Gup.  I asked for any scientific source for your claim.  You say that evolution assumes this.  Than show us the paper where that assumption has been made.
 


Posts: 92 | Posted: 10:01 PM on June 12, 2004 | IP
apathy

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

look up the difference between lab rabbits and wild rabbits

over the time that lab rabbits have been bred separate from wild ones, they have developed an inability to interbreed
 


Posts: 5 | Posted: 6:07 PM on June 13, 2004 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.