Evolution and Religion

[Anonymouse]

Ahh finally that's the excuse I was waiting for:

You're looking for a change in genus at least, which rather obviously would take much longer than the amount of time we have had to observe these things.

[loseyourname]

The fact that you don't agree with the biological species concept doesn't make it invalid. All of the events I've posted fit the concept. They cannot produce viable offspring. Again, different species can interbreed; it is called hybridization. You're looking for a change in genus at least, which rather obviously would take much longer than the amount of time we have had to observe these things. Just admit that. Speciation has occured. No sane person will dispute that. You just want more than speciation. That's fine. Again, just be honest. Don't try to say that speciation has not occured when it has.

[Anonymouse]

Alice in Wonderland all over again. We are back to square one in which there is no evidence of evolution other than adaptational changes and "species" not "breeding", or so they would have you believe, unless one looks closer at the definition. The "evidences" of speciation are nothing but manipulation of definition. Since there is an uncertainty of what a "species" constitutes ( contrary to what Dusken claims ), many changes can be "speciation". Thus a change in the walking stick, is no different than the 13 species of Darwin's "new finches". Despite all the hoopla, a walking stick changes into nothing other than a walking stick, the finches change into nothing other than a finch, and the fruit fly changes into nothing other than a fruit fly. I don't see this as anything but marginal adaptational change, and they can still breed mind you.

[loseyourname]

You haven't addressed any of the speciation events I posted about two or three pages back. I can post more as well. Or you can just go to the talk.origins archive yourself, where I'm copying all of this from.

[Anonymouse]

Oh yes I do, what "evidences" do you have, that I have not already discussed in THIS evolution thread, and the previous one started by me? Oh do enlighten me.

[loseyourname]

So can a donkey and a horse. So can corn and wheat. This doesn't make them the same species. You have no point.

[Anonymouse]

The point is all the "evidence" for speciation falls short, in other words they can breed.

[loseyourname]

The speciation events I've posted were mostly of the first, stronger definition. The two species may be capable of interbreeding - obviously, hybridization is found in nature all the time - but they are not capable of producing viable offspring. If this can happen over a relatively short span of time, it isn't hard to see how, given much more time, the two forms would eventually diverge to the point where they don't even resemble each other anymore. This shouldn't be so difficult to accept.

[dusken]

I am sorry, but I have never heard an evolutionist feel a species is anything other than a classification of organisms that can interbreed.

species: A fundamental category of taxonomic classification, ranking below a genus or subgenus and consisting of related organisms capable of interbreeding.

[Anonymouse]

Dusken, I wish everything were black and white in a world of unambiguity, but it is not. The examples given by evolutionists for "speciation" are flimsy, and cannot be accepted unless one accepts the semantic pliability espoused by the second weak definition.