Let us now hear from the Creationists

[NickelScalper]

Quote from kjkent1:

Mutation is a well-estabilished and recognized part of the evolutionary process. So is reproductive isolation.

You defined a species as separated by its inability to interbreed with its predecessor. My example fits your criteria.

You now state that mutually infertile populations is not speciation.

What I see is two populations that were once capable of interbreeding, and which had the same genetic code, which are now unable to breed with each other, and have different genetic codes.

If both of these creatures had been collected from a natural environment, a taxonomic study would have concluded that they were closely related but different species of worm.

And, you would have stated that there is no evidence that the one of the worms evolved into the other. Here, the experiment confirms the phylogenic tree between the two worms, and now you state that this is merely mutation.

All I am reading from you, is that you are conveniently renaming what has occured in the experiment as mutation, so as to avoid having to call it evolution.

So, perhaps you will now give us your precise definition of speciation, and then show how the experiment does not meet your criteria. And, perhaps you would also give us a proposed experiment that "will" meet your criteria, so that, if I run across such an experiment, I can provide it.

Definitions and logic.

Species: a taxonomic group whose members can interbreed.

Speciation: the evolutionary formation of new biological species

The inability to interbreed is a necessary, but not a sufficient, condition of a difference of species.

Mutation is a necessary, but not a sufficient, condition of evolution.

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

Non responsive.

You perpetually apply ad hominem fallacies, yet claim to be strong with logical argumentation?

ROTFLAMO.

It doesn't require a law degree to call someone on their shit.

You can't win arguments here in Chit Chat and resort to name calling and personal attacks, and you tell us what a great attorney you are.

Laugh My Freaking Ass off.

Quote from kjkent1:

Not at all. When you get your license to practice law, let me know, and I'll be happy to work with you to create a legal cause of action for declaratory relief that we can place before a real court, and we'll see whom gets whose ass handed to them.

 

[kjkent1]

Quote from NickelScalper:

Definitions and logic.

Species: a taxonomic group whose members can interbreed.

Speciation: the evolutionary formation of new biological species

The inability to interbreed is a necessary, but not a sufficient, condition of a difference of species.

Mutation is a necessary, but not a sufficient, condition of evolution.

Your statements following your definitions are merely your opinion. Furthermore, neither statement tells us what, by your definition "is" a "sufficient condition" of evolution.

You have simply moved the target to a different location so as to avoid having to admit that the "worm has turned" on you.

 

[kjkent1]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

Non responsive.

You perpetually apply ad hominem fallacies, yet claim to be strong with logical argumentation?

ROTFLAMO.

It doesn't require a law degree to call someone on their shit.

You can't win arguments here in Chit Chat and resort to name calling and personal attacks, and you tell us what a great attorney you are.

Laugh My Freaking Ass off.

I have yet to see anyone on either side of the issue here, change their position in response to any of either of our posts. Your conclusion therefore has no merit, and, once again, is supported by nothing other than your own opinion.

 

[Doubter]

Quote from kjkent1:

All of this conversation about Jefferson is irrelevant and immaterial. I have given you a published scientific example of speciation above. There are only three possible conclusions to be drawn from it:

1. The published experiment is a fraud.
2. The published experiment proves evolution.
3. The published experiment proves intelligent design.

The scientists who conducted the experiment, and the publisher of the Evolution periodical, believe that their experiment proves #2 above. If you believe #1 is the correct answer, and that the experiment is a fraud, then you must prove it. If you believe that #3 is the correct answer, and that the worms were modified by the invisible hand of God, rather than by the natural evolutionary process, then your conclusion is the product of religion, not science, because there is no evidence, within the confines of the experiment, to support your conclusion.

If you argue that it is merely the scientists' guess that the change occured because of evolution, because it could be God, then you are making the same argument that has been made by every thiest since the beginning of time, i.e., that God is responsible for everything that happens in the universe.

Essentially, that argument is the act of attributing intelligence to nature. But that is not science -- that is faith. You may say that the scientist is simply exhibiting his/her faith that he/she has reached the correct conclusion. But, that argument completely destroys your entire argument about what is or what is not a scientific fact, because you are thereby arguing that there are "no" scientific facts and that everything is an article of faith.

So, what, in your opinion, does my cited experiment prove?

____________________________________________

At this point I would go with number 1. After many years experience scientists are human, subject to peer pressures, and need to get funded and published by peer boards.

I am heading out the door to a committee meeting whose job it is to help raise funding for a fairly large scientific organization. Interestingly enough our greatest advances have been the refuting of prior "junk science". It takes a great deal of money to go against the grain and prove widely held fallacies to be absurd.
It is even harder to get the honest results published and accepted in the current mindset.

 

[kjkent1]

Quote from Doubter:

____________________________________________

At this point I would go with number 1. After many years experience scientists are human, subject to peer pressures, and need to get funded and published by peer boards.

I am heading out the door to a committee meeting whose job it is to help raise funding for a fairly large scientific organization. Interestingly enough our greatest advances have been the refuting of prior "junk science". It takes a great deal of money to go against the grain and prove widely held fallacies to be absurd.
It is even harder to get the honest results published and accepted in the current mindset.

Well, if you're gonna take the position that every example of speciation is a fraud, then I may as well stop now, because, you're basically saying, that no matter what evidence I produce, you will not accept it as valid, unless it supports your predetermined conclusion.

 

[NickelScalper]

Quote from kjkent1:

Your statements following your definitions are merely your opinion. Furthermore, neither statement tells us what, by your definition "is" a "sufficient condition" of evolution.

You have simply moved the target to a different location so as to avoid having to admit that the "worm has turned" on you.

Wrong.

"The inability to interbreed is a necessary, but not a sufficient, condition of a difference of species."

and

"Mutation is a necessary, but not a sufficient, condition of evolution."

follow logically and inevitably from the terms they contain.

 

[kjkent1]

Quote from NickelScalper:

Wrong.

"The inability to interbreed is a necessary, but not a sufficient, condition of a difference of species."

and

"Mutation is a necessary, but not a sufficient, condition of evolution."

follow logically and inevitably from the terms they contain.

One more time, what are the "sufficient conditions", by your definition, necessary to proving evolution?

 

[NickelScalper]

Quote from kjkent1:

One more time, what are the "sufficient conditions", by your definition, necessary to proving evolution?

Definitions and logic.

Evolution: [partial definition] change in the genetic composition of a population resulting in a new species.

Species: a taxonomic group whose members can interbreed.

Speciation: the evolutionary formation of new species.

Mutation is a necessary, but not a sufficient, condition of evolution.

The inability to interbreed is a necessary, but not a sufficient, condition of a difference of species.

 

[Doubter]

Quote from kjkent1:

Well, if you're gonna take the position that every example of speciation is a fraud, then I may as well stop now, because, you're basically saying, that no matter what evidence I produce, you will not accept it as valid, unless it supports your predetermined conclusion.

_________________________________________

Many examples of speciation have been shown to be frauds and until there are multiple studies of the examples in question by dissenting scientists then no I cannot accept it at this point and neither should you from either perspective.

The results aren't all in by any means yet so we should both question the other side until all is known.