Directly Observed Speciation

[Perfect Circle]

Just wanted to know what everyone thought of this:
Birth of New Species Witnessed by Scientists | Wired Science | Wired.com

What does this mean for the creationist argument of no directly observed speciation? I understand that it's been observed in the past with micro-organisms, but never with a complex organism such as a bird.

 

[MSizer]

Gee, as if we don't know what they're going to say. I've got my money ready.

 

[Gunfingers]

It means nothing. They'll continue using the word "kind" as though it had meaning.

 

[Jose Fly]

Just wanted to know what everyone thought of this:
Birth of New Species Witnessed by Scientists | Wired Science | Wired.com

What does this mean for the creationist argument of no directly observed speciation? I understand that it's been observed in the past with micro-organisms, but never with a complex organism such as a bird.

You're expecting creationists to be rational? Why would they argue against speciation? The whole "Noah only took representatives of 'kinds' on the ark" argument relies on not just speciation, but speciation on a scale and at a rate that is beyond any evolutionary mechanism.

I would think creationists would embrace such a thing. But again, you can't expect them to be rational.

 

[Perfect Circle]

Well I guess we'll see as soon as one posts....

 

[freethinker44]

Just wanted to know what everyone thought of this:
Birth of New Species Witnessed by Scientists | Wired Science | Wired.com

What does this mean for the creationist argument of no directly observed speciation? I understand that it's been observed in the past with micro-organisms, but never with a complex organism such as a bird.

My guess is they will deny it and say the methods used to interpret the data were flawed and immediately turn around and say how that very same science that they just said was flawed backs up their claims.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

Big deal!

Its still a bird not a man! Or an ivy bush. Just like God says, "like produces like."

See how easy that was?!

 

[Man of Faith]

I'm glad to see that evolution is put where it needs to be, in the religious forums. Never mind, I'm in the wrong forum.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I'm glad to see that evolution is put where it needs to be, in the religious forums. Never mind, I'm in the wrong forum.

This is unintentionally genius.

 

[Man of Faith]

I don't see a new species, just a few black birds. This helps me to conclude that species is not the same as kind.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

I don't see a new species, just a few black birds. This helps me to conclude that species is not the same as kind.

See! WadaItellya?

OK MoF, define "kind."

 

[ragordon168]

I don't see a new species, just a few black birds. This helps me to conclude that species is not the same as kind.

true. species is a scientific term to describe animals capable of producing sexually viable offspring (keep the def simple people )

kind is a term creationist made up to explain their '2 of every kind' argument and holds no real value as a classification.

 

[Kerr]

I don't see a new species, just a few black birds. This helps me to conclude that species is not the same as kind.

No one ever said it was, fact is "kind" is to my knowledge not even a scientific term. But I have a question. If new species can come to be, what prevents new "kinds" from doing that?

 

[Perfect Circle]

I don't see a new species, just a few black birds. This helps me to conclude that species is not the same as kind.

And that, ladies and gentleman, is how creationist-pseudo-science works...

 

[Perfect Circle]

No one ever said it was, fact is "kind" is to my knowledge not even a scientific term. But I have a question. If new species can come to be, what prevents new "kinds" from doing that?

"Kind" is a term used by creationists to get around the fact that speciation has been observed within micro-organisms for some time now. That way, they can get away with admitting that micro-evolution occurs, without admitting macro-evolution. It's just a poor attempt at using semantics to their benefit...

And to answer your question.... Dogma. If they admit that a new "kind" can come to be, then that's tantamount to admitting that macro-evolution occurs.

 

[fantome profane]

I don't see a new species, just a few black birds. This helps me to conclude that species is not the same as kind.

Ok, so how do we know this? If a new “kind” did develop how would we identify that it was a new “kind”? What are the criteria? What criteria do you use to determine that this is not a new “kind”?

 

[Kerr]

"Kind" is a term used by creationists to get around the fact that speciation has been observed within micro-organisms for some time now. That way, they can get away with admitting that micro-evolution occurs, without admitting macro-evolution. It's just a poor attempt at using semantics to their benefit...

And to answer your question.... Dogma. If they admit that a new "kind" can come to be, then that's tantamount to admitting that macro-evolution occurs.

The thing I don´t get is what prevents the so called "micro-evolution" to become "macro-evolution", since "macro-evolution" is just a lot of "micro-evolution". Anyone can enlighten me about what prevents that, according to creationists?

 

[Autodidact]

Ok, so how do we know this? If a new “kind” did develop how would we identify that it was a new “kind”? What are the criteria? What criteria do you use to determine that this is not a new “kind”?

Excellent point. Or, to phrase it differently, if you don't know what a "kind" is, how do you know whether we get new ones or not?

 

[Riverwolf]

What are the other heigharchal terms for life-specification? (Kingdom, species... it's been too long since High School biology.) I think "kind" may barely fit one of those terms.

 

[Jose Fly]

Excellent point. Or, to phrase it differently, if you don't know what a "kind" is, how do you know whether we get new ones or not?

Because the Bible sez only Gawd can create new kinds, ergo evolution can't. Duh.