Definitions and species (hmmm...)

[We Never Know]

Not a single Creationist has ever shown the Theory of Evolution to be wrong.

I agree.

On the flip side not a single atheist has ever shown a god does not exist.

Is that a stalemate? Or simply just contributed to different beliefs?

 

[McBell]

I agree.

On the flip side not a single atheist has ever shown a god does not exist.

I agree.

On the flip side, not a single theist has ever shown a god does exist.

Is that a stalemate?

Care to explain how gods existence is relevant to the fact that Creationists can not show the Theory of Evolution to be wrong?

Until you can show it, it appears this is nothing more than a sad attempt at distraction.

Or simply just contributed to different beliefs?

That gods existence has nothing to do with the fact that Creationists can not show the Theory of Evolution to be wrong, I would say it is nothing more than a diversion.

Unless of course you are going to make a claim along the lines that god is preventing Creationists from showing the Theory of Evolution is wrong....?

 

[McBell]

... or any alternative hypothesis to have any explanatory power what-so-ever.

Baby Steps....

I have noticed that to many facts at one time further confuses Creationists.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

So your knowledge isn't infinite.

And where, pray tell, have I ever suggested that it was?

However, on the subject at hand, my knowledge is orders of magnitude greater than yours.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I know this is a "debate" forum and some people like to debate even if they don't believe in or know what they're saying. In the meantime, scientists can't even agree as to what is a species, much less consider how they came about. (So much for the "On the Origin of Species")
"As if this quest isn't hard enough, biologists cannot agree on what a species is. A 2021 survey found that practicing biologists used 16 different approaches to categorizing species. Any two of the scientists picked at random were overwhelmingly likely to use different ones."

What Is a Species, Anyway?

Some of the best known species on Earth may not be what they seem.

www.nytimes.com

Life is a continuum, as predicted and established by evolutionary theory. How this continuum is sliced up for human categorization is going to be arbitrary to a certain extent.

Are you surprised by this? Do you see it as a problem?

 

[We Never Know]

I agree.

On the flip side, not a single theist has ever shown a god does exist.


Care to explain how gods existence is relevant to the fact that Creationists can not show the Theory of Evolution to be wrong?

Until you can show it, it appears this is nothing more than a sad attempt at distraction.


That gods existence has nothing to do with the fact that Creationists can not show the Theory of Evolution to be wrong, I would say it is nothing more than a diversion.

Unless of course you are going to make a claim along the lines that god is preventing Creationists from showing the Theory of Evolution is wrong....?

"Care to explain how gods existence is relevant to the fact that Creationists can not show the Theory of Evolution to be wrong"


That's not my claim or arguement. You're barking up the wrong tree.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So let's see -- is the following true as far as you are concerned?
"Why Are Species So Confusing?
The central difficulty when studying species is that, even though all species are kinds of organisms, all kinds of organisms are not species. For example, birds are a kind of organism, but birds are not a species --there are many thousands of species of birds."

Why Should We Care about Species?

I'm not sure what your actual question is.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The fact is that the definition of species is not agreed upon by scientists

That's not exactly true.
Scientists do agree on what a species is. The thing is that it depends on the topic or perspective one is using to approach the subject.
Generally speaking, a species would be defined as a group / population that interbreeds.
But there are also populations that could interbreed but don't.
There are also populations that could interbreed but do it only rarely.
These are typically populations that are diverging for one reason or another.

You could consider them the same species from a genetic point of view, but you might not from a more sociological point of view.

The fact that as populations are more closely related, the line that seperates them both sociologically as well as genetically gets more and more blurry.

Exactly, btw, what we would expect if evolution happened and continues to happen...

Furthermore, the origin of all the maybe species cannot be found or determined except by guesswork (postulation). Have a good one.

This is blatantly false as it can be determined through genetics.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Obviously some think the theory of evolution per Darwinian style is true beyond compare, but it is not. While there are fossils and time tables, this does not prove the theory. Period. It's simple. Now of course there are those that will automatically agree that the theory is true, but it is conjecture in the long run.

How many time must be explained to you that theories are never "proven" in science, only supported by evidence...?

To say that the only alternative to "proving" is "conjecture" / "guessing" is blatantly false and incredibly ignorant.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

And -- Since scientists cannot agree what constitutes a species, the Origin of Species makes no sense. Because scientists don't even know what constitutes a species.

So you are just going to ignore all the explanations you are getting about that?
You're simply going to go on with this "argument" as if it hasn't been addressed and explained?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What is the "Origin" of species? Anyone know?

Evolution.

Let's have more Einstein and Hawking type responses, ok?

Neither were evolutionary biologists, but I'm sure they would give you the same answer.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Thank you. You, too. The reason I discuss the unreasonableness of the theory of evolution (as in natural selection and survival of the fittest) is two-fold. It doesn't make sense. And it doesn't add up with evidence. As I have said before, I used to believe in the viability of the theory, I used to believe what scientists said in their conjectures about it. I no longer do because -- I realize it is not only a theory, but in the long run (and by that I mean detailed analysis as well as logic) doesn't make sense (doesn't add up from theory to logic and evidence).

Your strawman of evolution indeed doesn't add up.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

1. No scientist understands it.
2. They may believe the theory, but (1) they can't prove it, and (2) they can't really explain it except by conjecture.
3. That's it.

Why don't you "prove" to us all germ theory of deseases, atomic theory, theory of relativity, etc.


Alternatively, you may read this short article, which I have given you dozens of times already, and actually try to learn something:
www.notjustatheory.com

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The fact is, the scientific theory of evolution is unconfirmed.

You mean, aside from it accounting for all the relevant facts and the evidence matching all its predictions to a T?

Yes, I agree.... if we literally ignore all the evidence and then misrepresent it with some kind of silly ignorant strawman, then yes, then it is "unconfirmed".

Gratz, you win at pigeon chess.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What rigorous tests did evolution go through?

Every fossil ever found, every long term experiment ever conducted, every agricultural program, every breeding program, every genome ever sequenced.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

How many time must be explained to you that theories are never "proven" in science, only supported by evidence...?

And, if you don't mind my adding -- if any evidence turns up which contradicts the theory, the theory itself must change to accommodate the new evidence. The new evidence is not thrown out for the sake of "saving" the theory. And the thing about it is, Evolution could be falsified by many conceivable lines of evidence, such as: the fossil record showing no change over time; confirmation that mutations are prevented from accumulating in a population, or; observations of organisms being created supernaturally or spontaneously. And there is simply no such evidence.

 

[Alien826]

Here's hoping that poor hummingbird didn't have to lay an ostrich egg

It's a big egg. That's why the bird is called an "***-stretch".

Not even close. Very nearly all scientists (certainly all in the life sciences) understand the theory, understand the evidence, and understand how the evidence explains (and predicts) the observations. There are some very few tiny (in the context of the overall theory) ambiguities, and while they may be quibbled over, no scientist in the relevant disciplines supposes for an instant that they in any way refute the theory.

I'll add that if the ToE were to be shown to be false, scientists would not say "Goddidit!"

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I'll add that if the ToE were to be shown to be false, scientists would not say "Goddidit!"

Well, they might if it were shown to be false by the sudden appearance of an entire herd of six-legged, blue heffalumps on the Pampas of Argentina.

 

[LuisDantas]

The fact is that the definition of species is not agreed upon by scientists. Furthermore, the origin of all the maybe species cannot be found or determined except by guesswork (postulation). Have a good one.

Sorry, but you are abusing the definitions in a rather obvious way. This is just failure to understand the basics.

 

[YoursTrue]

Sorry, but you are abusing the definitions in a rather obvious way. This is just failure to understand the basics.

There is no proof that a fish or couple of fishes evolved eventually to become humans. By proof I mean evidence showing the actual gradual changes from whatever fish supposedly moved on by natural selection or survival of the fittest to eventually morph to be humans.