Definitions and species (hmmm...)

[Dan From Smithville]

Utility maybe at some levels, but either the definition will become about as useful as sick as a medical diagnosis or you are back to multiple definitions because of the reality of evolution.

Are 17 year cicadas one species or several?

I think we are going to have to continue using multiple concepts for some time to come. As long as the concepts are stated and described in how they are applied in the context of the research, it will have to suffice.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Utility maybe at some levels, but either the definition will become about as useful as sick as a medical diagnosis or you are back to multiple definitions because of the reality of evolution.

Are 17 year cicadas one species or several?

I had to look it up, since I always flip flop it. There are three species of 17-year cicadas and four species of the 13-year cicadas.

 

[Heyo]

Three I believe. My focus on this complex is periodical.

Every seventeen years?

 

[Pogo]

Three I believe. My focus on this complex is periodical. But I've recently been taking the time, yet again, to learn and re-learn more.

There is recent research, for instance, to indicate that the old idea that the adults were largely non-feeding was wrong. They are not just bags of gametes looking only to hook up.

Thanks, I found an interesting paper from 1962 ( Alexander and Moore ) that would would give Yours True conniptions. And I even learned that it was brood VII that made all the noise at my house a few years ago.

 

[Pogo]

I had to look it up, since I always flip flop it. There are three species of 17-year cicadas and four species of the 13-year cicadas.

Ooh, more things that changed. It was 3 and 3 in 1962. /s

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Thanks, I found an interesting paper from 1962 ( Alexander and Moore ) that would would give Yours True conniptions. And I even learned that it was brood VII that made all the noise at my house a few years ago.

I recall reading this paper in the past, but oddly, I didn't have a copy. Glad you posted the link.

The University of Michigan has a lot of publicly available references on insects.

I have experienced at least 5 emergences personally. The first when I was 6. It is another of those childhood memories that acted to direct my interest in science, insects and entomology.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Ooh, more things that changed. It was 3 and 3 in 1962. /s

Clearly evidence to logically conclude that the theory of evolution is all nonsense. LOL!

A lot of the change in taxonomy has to do with the number of people studying a group of plants or animals, the specimens available and the development of ever better techniques and tools to study them.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Thanks, I found an interesting paper from 1962 ( Alexander and Moore ) that would would give Yours True conniptions. And I even learned that it was brood VII that made all the noise at my house a few years ago.

I find that most creationists don't understand the science and refuse to admit that fact. Some creationists, and those attempting to curry favor with them, assert knowledge to the point of claiming they understand everything very well and have a stable genius that allows them to know without study.

In my opinion, if a person is confounded by concepts as basic as "gene pool", then they don't really have a voice in the discussion.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Every seventeen years?

13 or 17. Whatever does the job. To paraphrase Michael Keaton.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

not a single atheist has ever shown a god does not exist.

Nor need he to reject the claims of theists that a god does exist. We also don't need to show that vampires and leprechauns don't exist to reject claims that they do. Many people need a good reason to believe something, without which, they don't. Others need nothing more than the will to believe, and so they do. No theist has ever shown that a god DOES exist, but that doesn't matter to them, does it?

Surely there are people who believe that vampires exist. They would make the same arguments that theists make mutatis mutandis: "Not a single avampirist has ever shown that vampires don't exist." Assuming that you don't believe in vampires, how would you address that argument?

I don't know what ideas you assert about creationist websites.

They're dishonest. They exist to make specious arguments against evolutionary theory (and any other science that contradicts their faith-based beliefs), which can only serve one of two purposes - to deceive the gullible into becoming creationists and to make creationists feel like they and their beliefs are on an equal footing with scientists and science. The mistake creationists make is bringing those apologetics to venues like this one, which contains the scientifically literate. That's counterproductive to the purpose for which they were created. As you know very well by now, they can't change the minds of critical thinkers, who point out the errors and fallacies.

Are you unaware that your posting makes your position less sound and only serves to reaffirm to the scientifically literate that they are correct and that you are not? That's why I have asked a few times why you do this. Do you think that it helps your case for other posters to see that the people who agree that evolution occurred are well-read on the subject while those that reject it can't get the basics right?

Remember, the purpose of the apologetics is to make your position seem to be based in reason applied to evidence. For that to work, you need an audience that might or will believe you, one incapable of seeing the flaws in the apologetics. You need people that think that if something wasn't observed, it didn't happen. You need people who think that if there is still work to be done delineating pathways, that the theory is false. You need people who are willing to apply double standards to the science that they don't apply to their own beliefs.

But you don't have that here. What you have is a panel people telling why the apologetics is wrong. I shake my head in wonderment as to why you would do that. Are you unaware of the effect your posting has? Or maybe unconcerned?

There is no ... 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.

But there is. There's just none for YOU and others that refuse to learn or are incapable of learning from it, but that's by choice. You choose to see no evidence, so you don't see any. There's no mystery there including why you would do that. The mystery to me is why you come to this site to make these arguments.

There has been no evidence of seeing any fish develop legs and plodding on to ground them developing lungs by mutation etc.

We don't need to see it to know that it happened. Nobody saw you evolve from a zygote to a fetus, but we both know it happened. Ask yourself how we know that even if nobody witnessed it.

 

[We Never Know]

Nor need he to reject the claims of theists that a god does exist. We also don't need to show that vampires and leprechauns don't exist to reject claims that they do. Many people need a good reason to believe something, without which, they don't. Others need nothing more than the will to believe, and so they do. No theist has ever shown that a god DOES exist, but that doesn't matter to them, does it?

Surely there are people who believe that vampires exist. They would make the same arguments that theists make mutatis mutandis: "Not a single avampirist has ever shown that vampires don't exist." Assuming that you don't believe in vampires, how would you address that argument?

They're dishonest. They exist to make specious arguments against evolutionary theory (and any other science that contradicts their faith-based beliefs), which can only serve one of two purposes - to deceive the gullible into becoming creationists and to make creationists feel like they and their beliefs are on an equal footing with scientists and science. The mistake creationists make is bringing those apologetics to venues like this one, which contains the scientifically literate. That's counterproductive to the purpose for which they were created. As you know very well by now, they can't change the minds of critical thinkers, who point out the errors and fallacies.

Are you unaware that your posting makes your position less sound and only serves to reaffirm to the scientifically literate that they are correct and that you are not? That's why I have asked a few times why you do this. Do you think that it helps your case for other posters to see that the people who agree that evolution occurred are well-read on the subject while those that reject it can't get the basics right?

Remember, the purpose of the apologetics is to make your position seem to be based in reason applied to evidence. For that to work, you need an audience that might or will believe you, one incapable of seeing the flaws in the apologetics. You need people that think that if something wasn't observed, it didn't happen. You need people who think that if there is still work to be done delineating pathways, that the theory is false. You need people who are willing to apply double standards to the science that they don't apply to their own beliefs.

But you don't have that here. What you have is a panel people telling why the apologetics is wrong. I shake my head in wonderment as to why you would do that. Are you unaware of the effect your posting has? Or maybe unconcerned?

But there is. There's just none for YOU and others that refuse to learn or are incapable of learning from it, but that's by choice. You choose to see no evidence, so you don't see any. There's no mystery there including why you would do that. The mystery to me is why you come to this site to make these arguments.

We don't need to see it to know that it happened. Nobody saw you evolve from a zygote to a fetus, but we both know it happened. Ask yourself how we know that even if nobody witnessed it.

"No theist has ever shown that a god DOES exist"

I don't know if a god does exist or not. I don't claim yay or nay.

How about you? Do you know or claim a god does or doesn't exist?

If I can't show or know it does or doesn't exist, I can't claim it does or doesn't

 

[Subduction Zone]

"No theist has ever shown that a god DOES exist"

I don't know if a god does exist or not. I don't claim yay or nay.

How about you? Do you know or claim a god does or doesn't exist?

If I can't show or know it does or doesn't exist, I can't claim it does or doesn't

I do believe that most atheists would agree with you there. Atheism is not a claim that there is no god. It is a claim of a lack of belief in a god. And that is due to the inability of theist to properly support their beliefs. The fact that theists cannot support their beliefs properly does NOT mean that they are automatically wrong. Though it usually does mean that their beliefs are irrational.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I don't know if a god does exist or not

Nobody does.

If I can't show or know it does or doesn't exist, I can't claim it does or doesn't

Agreed. For me, that's also a good enough reason to reject the claims of others talking about gods.

 

[John53]

I have always found the species problem to be one of the most fascinating discussions in biology. There are about 27 different species concepts that have various application in different groups of organisms to which they are applied. Reconciling them all into a single concept isn't just an exercise in academics, but has great value in utility as well. Having a single universal concept would facilitate research and understanding in conservation, taxonomy, ecology and other disciplines in biology. But not having that one and the current state being a discussion and controversy has no impact on the validity of the theory of evolution.

In entomology, the morphospecies concept dominates taxonomy where differentiation of species is based on similarities and differences in morphology between specimens in collections that obviously cannot be used in interbreeding experiments. And still it does not call into question the fact of evolution.

No more than arguments over the history of different places would have an impact on travel.

To me, this is all just another example of how a drowning person will grasp frantically at even straws to save them.

I'm struggling with species ID right now. There is a species of bird called variegated fairywren but it was recently divided into two species , the variegated which are on the east of the great dividing range (where ì live) and purple-backed fairywren which live to the west of the great dividing range (where I currently am). They look exactly the same to me but some bird nerd has studied them and found them to be genetically different and that when they do come into contact with each other they rarely cross breed. Some people claim they can tell the difference in colour between adult males in breeding colours. I saw some today and I'm stuffed if I can see any difference. The head is supposedly a slightly paler blue on the purple-backed.

This quandary has not hurt my opinion of evolution. It's hard to argue with DNA.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I'm struggling with species ID right now. There is a species of bird called variegated fairywren but it was recently divided into two species , the variegated which are on the east of the great dividing range (where ì live) and purple-backed fairywren which live to the west of the great dividing range (where I currently am). They look exactly the same to me but some bird nerd has studied them and found them to be genetically different and that when they do come into contact with each other they rarely cross breed. Some people claim they can tell the difference in colour between adult males in breeding colours. I saw some today and I'm stuffed if I can see any difference. The head is supposedly a slightly paler blue on the purple-backed.

This quandary has not hurt my opinion of evolution. It's hard to argue with DNA.

That is becoming a common problem more and more with the continued applications of genetic and molecular analysis to wide ranging species with very subtle morphological differences. Often there are no stable morphological characters that readily differentiate different members of these complexes in the field.

Obviously, range differences have been established. Any differences in song? Behavior? Timing?

It is very difficult when one is left with only practically identical packaging to determine which brand is being observed.

Again, nothing to call the theory of evolution into question.