Scientists Watch Hot Spring Microbes Become Two Species

[Heathen Hammer]

A small tip from a Heathen:

Don't make a public boast, if you are not prepared to live up to it.

[Shermana]

Originally Posted by Heathen Hammer

Sorry, but you asked the question. It was answered. I realize you don't like that it came from the same article - or, really, that it was able to be answered at all - , but, your conditions were met. Don't be a sore loser about it. Don't attempt to redefine terms after the fact.

How am I a sore loser? What did I say that was wrong exactly? And what Public boast did I make exactly? It looks like you're now just trying to dodge what I said and repeat your initial assertion, which makes me wonder if you understand what the whole "moving together/moving apart" thing means even after I explained it. Perhaps you'd like to explain your take on it? I don't see how I'm redefining the terms either. Feel free to explain.

Once again: Moving together = Initial state, some genetic exchange. Moving apart = Observed later state, less genetic transfer/exchange. Where is the evidence that this means they are a diverging species? Where is the criteria of what constitutes a new species in this regard like the article title says?

I believe I asked that question, twice. How does this mean that when they stopped moving together that they are a diverging species? Do you even understand what's going on here?

[ImmortalFlame]

Originally Posted by Shermana

Right, and that has nothing to do with the article in question's organisms. The idea that they will EVENTUALLY reproduce sexually is such a longshot of a hypothesis without any real evidence that it's funny Macro-evolutionists would hold onto it. Please explain why they weren't just moving together.

Because, believe it or not, organisms just "moving together" don't suddenly start sharing genetic information with eachother. How can you call that "a longshot of a hypothesis"? This is excaclty what evolution has been predicting would happen and it is now observed to be happening.

Originally Posted by Shermana

Okay, so then like I said at the very beginning, you have no argument with what I said that this study is flawed because there's no actual way of determining when they are different species. You're right, I am NOT being deliberately and blatantly dishonest. I don't think you are either...yet. Just confused perhaps.

Perhaps. It's a complex subject - it even says so in the article, pretty much.

Originally Posted by Shermana

Please explain why you feel the parts in the red don't back what I'm saying. I think you're just trying to dodge out of it. I have re-read your claims, nothing counters what I said or disproves what I originally was saying.

All you have said is "they're not producing sexually, therefore we cannot say whether or not they are different species", which is completely missing the point of the article. The point of the article is not a clearn demonstration of asexual organisms becoming two separate species, but two individual populations of asexual organisms sharing genetic information and how this could very well be the start of sexual reproduction and speciation on a uni-cellular level.

Originally Posted by Shermana

Right, therefore, the idea that one can tell they are "becoming different species" is inherently flawed because no criteria of determining such exists.

But, again, that's not the point of the article. The point is that they are sharing genetic information which is what evolution predicted.

Originally Posted by Shermana

Which could "very well be" is the question here isn't it. How do we know they weren't just "moving together"? Did you even read the article? How do we know that they will eventually sexually produce? It's all theory. Nothing but. Without evidence. Transferring Genetic information doesn't prove that they will eventually develop sexual reproduction. If so, explain how.

Argument from ignorance. If two separate populations of organisms start sharing genetic information, do you - in any way - think that this indicates that there is a possibility that these organisms have started on a path towards developing sexual reproduction (since "sharing genetic information" is basically all sexual reproduction is about)? If not, you are wearing blinders. This isn't supposed to "prove" anything, but it's very strong evidence for the process by which asexual organisms can develop into sexually reproducing organisms. Seriously, your attitude is one of nothing but dismissal, without even the slightest hint of wanting to acknowledge the possibility that you might actually be wrong.

Originally Posted by Shermana

What I quoted said that they still reproduce. However, I challenge anyone else to prove that ring species mate with infertile offspring, that would be hilarious because then all Ring Species would have stopped inter-breeding thousands of generations ago. The evidence of their continued existence is all one needs.

Once again, you clearly don't understand what rings species are. Ring species do not just "stop reproducing altogether". Ring species are when two populations of the same species divide and evolve separately, to the extent that over time population A cannot successfully interbreed with population B, and has thus become a new species. This doesn't mean they just all "stop breeding", they just stop being able to breed with each other. These have been observed.

Originally Posted by Shermana

How does that imply I don't know what Ring Species are? I think YOU don't understand what Ring Species are.

If you think that ring species simply "stop being able to reproduce" then you don't understand what ring species are.

Originally Posted by Shermana

And? I believe I asked you to quote something from that article that shows an actual observed instance of speciation.

What's the point of asking me if you're just going to ignore any and all examples I give you?

Originally Posted by Shermana

If you can't, well then thank you for proving my point that the article doesn't actually show any real instances of completely different sets of new "species" that make infertile offspring.

Try reading it.

Originally Posted by Shermana

"Evidence for Creation" I shall make it tomorrow, for now it's well past my sleep-time and my addiction to arguing is costing me valuable hours.

I look forward to reading it.

Originally Posted by Shermana

What you seem incapable of understanding is that it's purely THEORY without ANY EVIDENCE that it will develop into sexual reproduction as opposed to merely "moving together" as I quoted. I asked you to quote anything from it that you feel proves your point, feel free to actually do so, I'll ask again if I need to.

I love the sound of goalposts moving.

[Shermana]

I'll have time for a full response later. Until then...

These have been observed.

Please list examples of proven ring species that eventually stop breeding with each other.

Try reading it.

So instead of bothering to quote anything from your article, you tell me to read it as if that somehow backs your point on the forum. Excellent.

What's the point of asking me if you're just going to ignore any and all examples I give you?

So you either don't realize that your points are for a public forum and that you are not just talking to me here, or this is a pretty basic attempt to dodge out of a request to quote something that backs your claims.

I love the sound of goalposts moving.

I love the sound of people dodging when asked to quote something to back their claim.

[shawn001]

genetic archaeology

Caught in the act: Team discovers microbes speciating

http://www.geneticarchaeology.com/research/Caught_in_the_act_
Team_discovers_microbes_speciating.asp

[shawn001]

Originally Posted by Shermana

There's 20 pages, not 25 on the current list. I think it would be more like in the several hundreds, not 25. And you'll find most of them are PH.D.s, which is important when it comes to arguments like this where credentials become a significant factor.

And yes, it IS an appeal to authority argument, however, appeal to authority is quite often invoked by all sides of the argument, and its important to note the relevance of why I brought it up. Do you understand why I brought it up and in relation to what comment? If you don't have a problem with the fact that these hundreds of scientists in many fields like Molecular Biophysics dissent from the Theory, then that's great. Otherwise, I think you have a misunderstanding of the difference between legitimate Appeal to Authority and the FALLACY of appeal to authority, because the relevance of the argument is important.

Let me break it down for you: A comment was made basically equating those who dissent from the THeory to those who don't know about it. I merely asked if these people who also dissent don't know. Does that make sense?

If appeal to authority was never applicable, can you imagine how difficult any argument from Scripture-Scholastics to Science would be?

You do know they were caught outright lying and will do anything and don't care about science or evolution and have even misrepresented the people on the list.



Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns

The Discovery Institute has created a number of petitions to give the impression that there are widespread doubts about the Theory of Evolution among scientists and scientifically-literate professionals. These petitions include A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism, Physicians and Surgeons for Scientific Integrity, Physicians and Surgeons who Dissent from Darwinism, and the now-defunct Stand Up For Science.

Physicians and Surgeons who Dissent from Darwinism
Physicians and Surgeons who Dissent from Darwinism is a petition promoting intelligent design. It consists of a list of people agreeing with a statement casting doubt on evolution. The petition was produced by the Physicians and Surgeons for Scientific Integrity (PSSI), a nonprofit organization formed by the Discovery Institute, and is intended to support the Discovery Institute's campaign to portray intelligent design as a scientifically valid theory by creating the impression that evolution lacks broad scientific support.[69] It is similar to the Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns to discredit evolution.
The document itself has been the subject of controversy and extensive criticism from a variety of sources. The statement in the document has been branded as poorly worded, misleading and vague.[70] This campaign, like the rest of the Discovery Institute anti-evolution campaigns, has come under criticism for being misleading and anti-science. The list of signatories represents an insignificant fraction of medical professionals (about 0.02%). The evidence of evolution is not determined by petitions or polls, but by scientific consensus. This is the reason that the theory of evolution is overwhelmingly accepted.[71]
[edit] Statement

The medical doctors and comparable professionals are signatories to a statement which disputes evolution, which they refer to as "Darwinian macroevolution" or "Darwinism", which are both misleading terms. The statement that the organization subscribes to is titled "Physicians and Surgeons who Dissent from Darwinism" and contains the following text:

"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the origination and complexity of life and we therefore dissent from Darwinian macroevolution as a viable theory. This does not imply the endorsement of any alternative theory."

Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The intelligent design (ID) movement has long labored to inculcate two mutually exclusive falsehoods in the minds of the public: A) that ID is a purely scientific theory that has nothing to do with religion; and B) that any objection to ID is evidence of bias and discrimination against religion.”

—Ed Brayton, The Richard Sternberg Affair

The intelligent design (ID) movement has long labored to inculcate two mutually exclusive falsehoods in the minds of the public: A) that ID is a purely scientific theory that has nothing to do with religion; and B) that any objection to ID is evidence of bias and discrimination against religion.”

—Ed Brayton, The Richard Sternberg Affair

People arguing against the TEO or evolution at this point in the game, are like people who think the earth is flat still.
The intelligent design (ID) movement has long labored to inculcate two mutually exclusive falsehoods in the minds of the public: A) that ID is a purely scientific theory that has nothing to do with religion; and B) that any objection to ID is evidence of bias and discrimination against religion.”

—Ed Brayton, The Richard Sternberg Affair

[Shermana]

Originally Posted by shawn001

genetic archaeology

Caught in the act: Team discovers microbes speciating

http://www.geneticarchaeology.com/research/Caught_in_the_act_
Team_discovers_microbes_speciating.asp

Feel free to quote directly from that article the conclusive criteria that they are becoming different "species" and what exactly would be the "End result" for such. Explain how having less and less genetic transfer in asexual organisms proves that they are becoming "different species", and explain at what point they will be different "species".

[Shermana]

Originally Posted by shawn001

You do know they were caught outright lying and will do anything and don't care about science or evolution and have even misrepresented the people on the list.



Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns

The Discovery Institute has created a number of petitions to give the impression that there are widespread doubts about the Theory of Evolution among scientists and scientifically-literate professionals. These petitions include A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism, Physicians and Surgeons for Scientific Integrity, Physicians and Surgeons who Dissent from Darwinism, and the now-defunct Stand Up For Science.

Physicians and Surgeons who Dissent from Darwinism
Physicians and Surgeons who Dissent from Darwinism is a petition promoting intelligent design. It consists of a list of people agreeing with a statement casting doubt on evolution. The petition was produced by the Physicians and Surgeons for Scientific Integrity (PSSI), a nonprofit organization formed by the Discovery Institute, and is intended to support the Discovery Institute's campaign to portray intelligent design as a scientifically valid theory by creating the impression that evolution lacks broad scientific support.[69] It is similar to the Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns to discredit evolution.
The document itself has been the subject of controversy and extensive criticism from a variety of sources. The statement in the document has been branded as poorly worded, misleading and vague.[70] This campaign, like the rest of the Discovery Institute anti-evolution campaigns, has come under criticism for being misleading and anti-science. The list of signatories represents an insignificant fraction of medical professionals (about 0.02%). The evidence of evolution is not determined by petitions or polls, but by scientific consensus. This is the reason that the theory of evolution is overwhelmingly accepted.[71]
[edit] Statement

The medical doctors and comparable professionals are signatories to a statement which disputes evolution, which they refer to as "Darwinian macroevolution" or "Darwinism", which are both misleading terms. The statement that the organization subscribes to is titled "Physicians and Surgeons who Dissent from Darwinism" and contains the following text:

"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the origination and complexity of life and we therefore dissent from Darwinian macroevolution as a viable theory. This does not imply the endorsement of any alternative theory."

Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The intelligent design (ID) movement has long labored to inculcate two mutually exclusive falsehoods in the minds of the public: A) that ID is a purely scientific theory that has nothing to do with religion; and B) that any objection to ID is evidence of bias and discrimination against religion.”

—Ed Brayton, The Richard Sternberg Affair

The intelligent design (ID) movement has long labored to inculcate two mutually exclusive falsehoods in the minds of the public: A) that ID is a purely scientific theory that has nothing to do with religion; and B) that any objection to ID is evidence of bias and discrimination against religion.”

—Ed Brayton, The Richard Sternberg Affair

People arguing against the TEO or evolution at this point in the game, are like people who think the earth is flat still.
The intelligent design (ID) movement has long labored to inculcate two mutually exclusive falsehoods in the minds of the public: A) that ID is a purely scientific theory that has nothing to do with religion; and B) that any objection to ID is evidence of bias and discrimination against religion.”

—Ed Brayton, The Richard Sternberg Affair

Talk about lying, did you see what I said about the Talk section? The ones lying here are the ones who try to smear the list without much more than an appeal to ad populum. Which ones did they misrepresent? Please prove that they misrepresented them. I challenge anyone else to prove how that isn't just one big attack on people who hold the view that states anything significant other than boiling down to "They're stupid for not believing in the TOE". Perhaps the only misrepresentation may be by some who try to act as if they represent more than they really do. As if their opinion doesn't matter if it's a small minority.

Basically, the criticism of the list is just one big "nuh uh", anyone else want to disagree? Show me anything in the accuations that amount to something besides appeal to numbers. The wording isn't that vague, attacks on the wording ignore the part about disputing the random mutation part which is very clear. Show me evidence of those who signed it who regret signing it.

[shawn001]

Originally Posted by Shermana

Feel free to quote directly from that article the conclusive criteria that they are becoming different "species" and what exactly would be the "End result" for such. Explain how having less and less genetic transfer in asexual organisms proves that they are becoming "different species", and explain at what point they will be different "species".

It is a first experiment and they are still working on it and it is very complex. You would have to await the end result.

I take it you don't believe in the emprical evidence for the earth being 4.57 billion years old and life evolving?

[Shermana]

Originally Posted by shawn001

It is a first experiment and they are still working on it and it is very complex. You would have to await the end result.

I take it you don't believe in the emprical evidence for the earth being 4.57 billion years old and life evolving?

No, I don't, but that's a completely different subject for another thread. Let's focus on the specific issue at hand. I didn't even intend for the Dissent from Darwinism post to be more than a few post's worth to defend the view that there are at least SOME professionals who discredit it.

So we can at least agree that this is not anywhere close to definitive proof of speciation among Asexual organisms until they've effectively proven (and defined the criteria of course) that they have become radically different "species."