Evolution and Creationism

[o_mlly]

By definition a new species is macroevolution.

What precisely is a “new species”? How do we test to know if we are experiencing a “new species”? Are the present classifications of species artificial or natural? If not natural then are such taxonomies subjective and therefore dismissable just as all other opinions are dismissable?

 

[buffalo]

Surprised? Why? In Buddhism everything is dependent on conditions.

I have asked in the past - is there a Buddhist deity that is more powerful than the others?

 

[rossum]

We can agree that your description of macro-evolution is actually devolution.

Why is that a problem? By definition macroevolution requires a gain in function – the ability to breed within the new species – and a loss of function – it is no longer able to breed with the parent species.

Your emphasis purely on the loss of function is irrelevant. Functions are both lost and gained; focusing on one side only means that you are missing half of the picture.

 

[buffalo]

Why is that a problem? By definition macroevolution requires a gain in function – the ability to breed within the new species – and a loss of function – it is no longer able to breed with the parent species.

Your emphasis purely on the loss of function is irrelevant. Functions are both lost and gained; focusing on one side only means that you are missing half of the picture.

Because the arrow is pointing in the direction of degradation not gradation.

 

[rossum]

What precisely is a “new species”? How do we test to know if we are experiencing a “new species”?

The ability to interbreed with a reasonable degree of success. For example horses and donkeys can interbreed, but mules are infertile so there is no long term ongoing mule self-propagating mule species.

Lions and tigers can interbreed with a bit more success – female ligers and tigons are usually fertile though the males are not. That is a 50% reduction in interfertility. Those two species separated more recently than horses and donkeys so interbreeding is still somewhat possible.

Human chromosome 2 fusion probably indicates that just after the fusion happened interfertility with the unfused population was immediately down to 50%, with further reductions later as the original and new genomes evolved along different paths.

Basically biology defines a species as members of a population that actually or potentially interbreeds in nature, not according to similarity of appearance. Although appearance is helpful in identifying species, it does not define species.

 

[buffalo]

Human chromosome 2 fusion probably indicates that just after the fusion happened interfertility

Not this again. Have you not read why the fusion idea is wrong?

 

[rossum]

Because the arrow is pointing in the direction of degradation not gradation.

So, the large human brain has “degraded” from our ancestors? Really?

Yes, the human ability to climb trees has degraded since our ancestors, but other human abilities have upgraded. Again you are only emphasising one side of a two sided process. Some abilities degrade while other abilities upgrade.

 

[rossum]

How can I read if you do not supply a reference?

 

[buffalo]

How can I read if you do not supply a reference?

I should not need to provide a reference for each and every thing. You don’t. And most posters here never do either.

 

[buffalo]

So, the large human brain has “degraded” from our ancestors? Really?

Really. Adam and Eve had perhaps even larger brains as they were archetype humans.

 

[FiveLinden]

Your argument lacks a precise general or universal premise upon which your particular observation (“all living beings have DNA”) leads to your conclusion (“all living beings have a common ancestor”). Please provide your universal premise.

Perhaps incorrectly I presumed your general premise is: “If beings share a common essential property then those beings have a common ancestor.” The essential property of the carbon molecule in oil and me refutes that general principle. So, what is your general principle?

That genetic material is shared primarily by descent.

 

[rossum]

Really. Adam and Eve had perhaps even larger brains as they were archetype humans.

We do know that Neanderthals had larger brains than modern humans. Is that what you mean?

 

[rossum]

No, you do not. However, if you are asked for a reference then you are expected to provide it, otherwise you lose the point. Just have a look at any scientific paper, specifically the list of references. Yes, references are important.

 

[Kei]

Looks like the Intelligent Designer made a mistake… Whoops!

This would only make sense if we believed we could directly perceive all reality.
However, we do not believe this at all. We believe there is much that is “beyond” our senses to normally perceive.
Surely Buddhists would agree, no? Can you normally see pretas or devas?

 

[o_mlly]

That genetic material is shared primarily by descent.

We need a universal, necessary and certain premise. What you have provided is another particular, contingent and uncertain premise. One cannot deduce a logical conclusion from two particular premises.

 

[o_mlly]

The ability to interbreed with a reasonable degree of success. For example horses and donkeys can interbreed, but mules are infertile so there is no long term ongoing mule self-propagating mule species.

For clarification, does interbreeding successfully require that the pair produce an offspring that is fertile with one or the other species of its parents?

Is a fertile mule, therefore, not a new species? (See https://academic.oup.com/biolreprod/article/52/monograph_series1/273/5050322.)

Lions and tigers can interbreed with a bit more success – female ligers and tigons are usually fertile though the males are not. That is a 50% reduction in interfertility. Those two species separated more recently than horses and donkeys so interbreeding is still somewhat possible.

Does it follow then that fertile female ligers and tigons are not a new species but all males are new species? Are some interbred animals capable of successful intrabreeding with its opposite sex parent but not interbreeding with other animals? If so, are such fertile animals classified as a new species?

Does the accident of time since lineage separation have a scale by which a prediction can be made that “successful interbreeding” will no longer be possible? Is there data to support that a specific microevolution will result also in a macroevolution, aka speciaiton?

Are chromosome matchups unimportant in determining different species?

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

The upshot of which is that there is no requirement for a begining to the universe yet it is not infinitely old. Two birds with one stone I’d say.

BGV Theorem says an expanding universe has a beginning.

This version of the universe did. You need to read up on what Penrose proposes. See the link upstream.

 

[Freddy]

How can I read if you do not supply a reference?

Because if he posts a link, it will include information that denies his basic premises.

 

[Freddy]

rossum:

Why is that a problem? By definition macroevolution requires a gain in function – the ability to breed within the new species – and a loss of function – it is no longer able to breed with the parent species.

Your emphasis purely on the loss of function is irrelevant. Functions are both lost and gained; focusing on one side only means that you are missing half of the picture.

Because the arrow is pointing in the direction of degradation not gradation.

And you have agreed that it’s a negative outcome in that we can’t reproduce with chimps. This is one of the main points you make. You bring it up constantly. So why is it a bad thing?

 

[buffalo]

This version of the universe did. You need to read up on what Penrose proposes. See the link upstream.

Yeah, yeah. The problem with the other version is the instability makes them unlikely.