A
anthony022071
Guest
.
If two different species can’t procreate together,there’s no common descent between them.
Relatedness of descent has to do with procreation,not just genetic commonalities.
- Status
If two different species can’t procreate together,there’s no common descent between them.
Relatedness of descent has to do with procreation,not just genetic commonalities.
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
Nonsense. The speciations we’ve observed directly refute that. What a strange idea.
P
Peter_Wilders
Guest
Having no wish to continue dialogue with Orogeny, his provocative remarks call for a minimum of comment :
Not having given data in his post that I have commented he turns to the past.
To my documented point:
Referring to my statement:
He then refers to my words:
Peter
Not having given data in his post that I have commented he turns to the past.
The only argument he used (actually it was taken from Kevin Henke) was the truism that in a vertical line the particle at the bottom is older that the one at the top. Everybody agrees including Guy Berthault, but it proves nothing about the age or formation of strata. Pierre Julien’s video explanation is crystal clear. Strata do not consist of a series of lateral layers as Henke’s argument requires, because the current transports the varigated sediments and deposits them when the fall velocity of each is reached. This is a feature of sedimentation which Orogeny and his colleagues should know.
To my documented point:
He responds:
If one provides empirical proof from a recognised source there is no argument from authority; “ipso facto” his charge has no foundation.
Referring to my statement:
He replies:
An examination of my words shows that I responded to his question. The reason for mentioning diatomite was to show that organic matter such as pollen and algae was taken into account in the experiments. Their fall velocity is a function of the seasonal factors, such as fast melting ice and snow. The purpose of the experiments was to determine the mechanism of laminae formation in general.
He then refers to my words:
His inexplicable comment:
The fact that he could make such a statement in the light of the published papers and videoed experiments which show exactly the opposite, is one of the many reasons for not being able to debate with him. Once again I can only conclude he hasn’t understood the data.
Peter
A
anthony022071
Guest
The word “descent” is stretched beyond meaning when it is applied to species that can’t reproduce together. “Descent” is vertical and purely a matter of reproduction.
Speciation is complete only when two populations can’t reproduce with each other. It’s the fact of reproduction that accounts for a common descent.
If there are any genetic barriers at all between two species,then there is no common descent,because the hybrids that may result don’t reproduce.
< There are three types of postzygotic isolating mechanisms. In the first type, mating occurs, a zygote is formed, but the hybrid has reduced viability (hybrid inviability). In other words, hybrids do not survive long enough to reproduce. The other type of postzygotic isolation occurs when hybrids are viable, but they have reduced fertility (hybrid sterility). A classic example is the mule, which is the result of a cross between a donkey and a horse. Mules are viable, healthy animals, but they are always sterile (i.e. they are unable to successfully reproduce). The third type of postzygotic isolation occurs when hybrids are viable and fertile, but the offspring of the hybrids are inviable or sterile (hybrid breakdown). In all of these postzygotic examples, individuals from the two populations will mate with each other, and the gametes fuse, but the genetic material in each of the gametes differs enough that the combinations of alleles are not compatible. >
216.109.125.130/search/cache?ei=UTF-8&p=speciation+overview&fr=att-portal&u=www.evoled.org/lessons/printable/Speciation.pdf&w=speciation+overview+overviews&d=ClhnXHDuQLsF&icp=1&.intl=us
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
Barbarian observes:
Nonsense. The speciations we’ve observed directly refute that. What a strange idea.
The evidence shows you’re wrong. We have examples of populations that have given rise to new species, (by definition reproductively isolated)
Nope. You see, populations evolve, organisms don’t. If you can’t figure this out, you’re stuck denying what has been directly observed.
There are three types of postzygotic isolating mechanisms. In the first type, mating occurs, a zygote is formed, but the hybrid has reduced viability (hybrid inviability). In other words, hybrids do not survive long enough to reproduce. The other type of postzygotic isolation occurs when hybrids are viable, but they have reduced fertility (hybrid sterility). A classic example is the mule, which is the result of a cross between a donkey and a horse. Mules are viable, healthy animals, but they are always sterile (i.e. they are unable to successfully reproduce). The third type of postzygotic isolation occurs when hybrids are viable and fertile, but the offspring of the hybrids are inviable or sterile (hybrid breakdown). In all of these postzygotic examples, individuals from the two populations will mate with each other, and the gametes fuse, but the genetic material in each of the gametes differs enough that the combinations of alleles are not compatible.
Ah, I see what’s getting you. Most speciations aren’t by hydridization (although a few do happen).
Doesn’t mean speciation isn’t common descent. By definition, it is.
H
hecd2
Guest
If, by that, you mean that there are more things in the world than we are able to access with our physical senses, with current and as yet unimagined instrumental extensions, well, I beg to differ, and I think you will find it difficult to demonstrate the truth of any such assertion.
On the contrary, my attitude is perfectly scientific – it is your appeal to philosophy and theology to settle scientific matters that is not scientific.
He was wrong about this, as was Adler in his self-satisfied arrogance, and in any case you are not my teacher in this or any other matter.
Since you haven’t told us what this mysterious and fundamental flaw is that you claim to have discovered in neo-Darwinian biology, I have no idea whether the gentlemen and ladies of PAS have said anything relevant. I will, however point out, that PAS in general and Cabbibo in particular have openly defended modern evolutionary biology from the muddled thinking of the likes of Schoenborn.
. Right? He might have been discussing these matters for decades, but that doesn’t make him right, and I will note that his thinking, if indeed it finds “flaws” in neo-Darwinian biology, doesn’t seem to have gained any traction amongst professional biologists.
Also*, *I can give you a long list of book titles and article titles in Catholic journals of philosophy, going back decades, but I am afraid you do not possess the requisite background to properly understand them. It’s not that you are not intelligent enough to understand them, but there is no easy road to understanding traditional metaphysics.
These assertions might or might not be true, but they are quite irrelevant to the question of whether there are flaws in Darwin’s scientific reasoning or in neo-Darwinian biology, both of which are scientific and not metaphysical or theological questions. I do not possess the requisite background to understand the law of tort, or advanced musical theory, or the kabbalah, but nor are these impediments to understanding the matter in question.
Unfortunately, what the Vatican has to say about evolution is quite irrelevant, because the Vatican possesses no scientific authority, and the effusions of those such as Schoenborn have little merit.
evolutionpages.com/Schoenborn_critique.htm
If you wish to believe in a deity as a first cause, that is your right, but that has nothing to say about the truth of neo-Darwinian biology as a theory for the efficient cause of species diversity which includes the evolution of humans.
to be continued
H
hecd2
Guest
Continuation
Furthermore, the problems with evolutionary theory I deal with are most often from a philosophical aspect, not a scientific one. This makes any point you were trying to make, rather moot.
Actually, it makes your point rather moot. Philosophy and theology do not have a very good track record when they collide with science in settling matters pertaining to the natural world.
Your point might be telling were it not for the fact that the philosophia perennis has no competence to settle scientific matters, engendering as it does, merely whimsy, obfuscation and pseudoscience, and this question of flaws in Darwinian or neo-Darwinian thinking is a scientific one.
Alec
evolutionpages.com
to have specialized background and training in invertebrate zoology, or publish learned articles on recently discovered varieties of Hymenoptera, or contribute new insights into Lagenidium giganteum as a mosquito larvae biological control agent, or any such specialized matter, in order to understand something of the problems with Darwinism from that broader perspective, which is the province of philosophical knowledge. But you aleady knew that. Right?
Furthermore, the problems with evolutionary theory I deal with are most often from a philosophical aspect, not a scientific one. This makes any point you were trying to make, rather moot.
Actually, it makes your point rather moot. Philosophy and theology do not have a very good track record when they collide with science in settling matters pertaining to the natural world.
or, more specifically from traditional Christian philosophy, you know, the kind many popes have counseled that Catholics need to learn, especially priests and those going into specialized fields.
Your point might be telling were it not for the fact that the philosophia perennis has no competence to settle scientific matters, engendering as it does, merely whimsy, obfuscation and pseudoscience, and this question of flaws in Darwinian or neo-Darwinian thinking is a scientific one.
These critical matters are what precisely? Why be so mysterious? You must remember that science is not a Catholic endeavour but one open to people of all religious persuasions and none, that the truth or otherwise of neo-Darwinian theory is a scientific question, and so is not to be settled by a conclave of Catholic scientists, trained or not in traditional philosophy.
I beg your pardon. It will be refreshing to debate with an educated natural scientist for a change. I look forward to discussing your perception of flaws in Darwin’s original thinking and in modern biology.
Alec
evolutionpages.com
W
wildleafblower
Guest
Barbarian, you should give a link (url) when you are quoting from a website. What you have printed in bold from your message 385may come across as though you have written it. This isn’t the case. It was on a website** Speciation**, Lessons About Speciation under subtitle What Causes Speciation? Paragraph 6 which is located on the following website:
evoled.org/lessons/speciation.htm
http://www.evoled.org/lessons/speciation.htm
This is the second time (Note topic: ID in Public Schools) (1) you’ve done this and you really should credit a quote(s) by providing us the website in the future. Thanks!
H
hecd2
Guest
I think that this statement, although less than nuanced as a consequence of its brevity (for example, the moral sense can be both evolved by natural processes AND inherent in human nature), is broadly correct in summarising the hypothesis that Darwin puts forward in the Descent of Man - that morality has evolved and is not miraculously imposed by the action of an external agent). Darwin puts forward copious evidence for this hypothesis, and has been shown in this, as in so many other subjects to have possessed extraordinary prescience. There is a recent large theoretical and empirical literature, beginning with Alexander and Axelrod which supports Darwin’s hypothesis, to which I can direct you.
Whether Paul has authority in any subject is debatable - he certainly has none in this matter.
Alec
evolutionpages.com
A
anthony022071
Guest
I posted that quote,and the link.Barbarian, you should give a link (url) when you are quoting from a website. What you have printed in bold from your message 385may come across as though you have written it. This isn’t the case. It was on a website** Speciation**, Lessons About Speciation under subtitle What Causes Speciation? Paragraph 6 which is located on the following website:
evoled.org/lessons/speciation.htm
http://www.evoled.org/lessons/speciation.htm
This is the second time (Note topic: ID in Public Schools) (1) you’ve done this and you really should credit a quote(s) by providing us the website in the future. Thanks!
H
hecd2
Guest
This rather bizarre post by Peter Wilders does nothing to advance his case.
I am still waiting for answers to these simple questions:
Pierre Julien has supervised 31 PhD students working in sedimentation and erosion, written two text books on sedimentology, contributed to seven other books, published 61 papers and 45 articles in peer reviewed journals, delivered 30 invited conference papers, published 87 papers in conference proceedings, is superbly well placed to assess the implications of the work - and rejects Berthault’s grandiose claims for the work. Why?
How many other papers cite Berthault’s so-called revolutionary papers?
How many papers amongst the hundreds on sedimentation and stratigraphy published annually in geology journals since Berthault published his ‘revolutionary’ papers in the 1990s suggest that the entire post-Cambrian column was deposited rapidly in a single event? Exactly how many, Peter? You won’t find it difficult to count them, I assure you.
Alec
evolutionpages.com/berthault_critique.htm
Of course you have discontinued exchanges with Tim (who is a professional geologist - what geological training have you got, Peter? Indeed do you have any scientific training at all?) as you have discontinued them with me. You don’t like to continue debating with those who challenge yours and Berthault’s fantasies successfully, do you?
Well here we go again: No experimental evidence other than the depth of sedimetary layers, the Grand Canyon Supergroup, the mineralogical discontinuity between Zorosater and Tonto, water ripples, trilobite trails and brachiopod fossils in the Tapeats Sandstone, coarse grained inclusions in Bright Angel, Temple Butte, Redwall, Supai Group, and the Hermit, Coconino, Toroweap and Kaibab formations, Surprise Canyon, varves, stromatolites, volcanic tuffs, pumice, lapilli and other tephra, igneous rock and breccias formed by volcanic ash and lavas, aeolian beds, evaporites, the absurdity of hydraulic sorting, and radiometric dating. Quite a lot of empirical evidence, as we see. Happy to debate any one of these points, but I know you’d rather die, Peter, than debate detailed science. We all see through your rhetoric.
The axe has already fallen.
I am still waiting for answers to these simple questions:
Pierre Julien has supervised 31 PhD students working in sedimentation and erosion, written two text books on sedimentology, contributed to seven other books, published 61 papers and 45 articles in peer reviewed journals, delivered 30 invited conference papers, published 87 papers in conference proceedings, is superbly well placed to assess the implications of the work - and rejects Berthault’s grandiose claims for the work. Why?
How many other papers cite Berthault’s so-called revolutionary papers?
How many papers amongst the hundreds on sedimentation and stratigraphy published annually in geology journals since Berthault published his ‘revolutionary’ papers in the 1990s suggest that the entire post-Cambrian column was deposited rapidly in a single event? Exactly how many, Peter? You won’t find it difficult to count them, I assure you.
Alec
evolutionpages.com/berthault_critique.htm
H
hecd2
Guest
So Coconino is older than Tonto which is older than the Supergroup and Tapeats is older than Bright Angel which is older than Muav. Right?
a) neither Henke nor any other professional geologist thinks that strata consist of *lateral *layers - you are extremely confused, Peter.
b) what current and what sediment?
c) talking of Julien, Pierre Julien has supervised 31 PhD students working in sedimentation and erosion, written two text books on sedimentology, contributed to seven other books, published 61 papers and 45 articles in peer reviewed journals, delivered 30 invited conference papers, published 87 papers in conference proceedings, is superbly well placed to assess the implications of the work - and rejects Berthault’s grandiose claims for the work. Why?
Why Peter?
Alec
evolutionpages.com
W
wildleafblower
Guest
I need links from the Vatican. I doubt seriously you will be able to find those that support your issues. First off, none of them are creationists nor fans of the Intelligent Design movement.
I’ll pass on Stanley L. Jaki’s book **Miracles & Physics **(1). God has nothing to do with physics! It’s insulting to me as a Catholic woman to have God used in such a manner as you and Jaki have itinerant1. The Vatican:Holy See has there own medical commission to check out claims such as miracles. They do phyical examinations on people.
[snip]
oH, NOW itinerant1, you are going to tell or give the Catholic Church the clue as to what priests and Catholic scientists need to learn.
Nah.
A
anthony022071
Guest
H
hecd2
Guest
Really?? Why’s that? Both sympatric and allopatric speciation are completely relevant to the theory of evolution and the concept of common descent. I think you fail to understand the theory of evolution.
Alec
evolutionpages.com/homo_pan_divergence.htm
W
wildleafblower
Guest
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
Barbarian observes:
The evidence shows you’re wrong. We have examples of populations that have given rise to new species, (by definition reproductively isolated)
Now with the sea ice melting, polar bears are ranging on land again. And recently, a hybrid was shot by a hunter. So you see that your “theory” is refuted by reality, again.
**Evidence for fusing of two ancestral chromosomes to create human chromosome 2 and where there has been no fusion in other Great Apes is:
evolutionpages.com/chromosome_2.htm
Barbarian observes:
Ah, I see what’s getting you. Most speciations aren’t by hydridization (although a few do happen).
Doesn’t mean speciation isn’t common descent. By definition, it is.
The evidence shows you’re wrong. We have examples of populations that have given rise to new species, (by definition reproductively isolated)
Mostly genetic, but other ways exist. The key is that once reproductive isolation occurs, the two populations will then diverge farther and farther from each other.
No, that’s wrong, too. For example, polar bears diverged from brown bears very recently, but their ways of life and geographical isolation kept them from reproducing. Two species that got along fine in zoos, well enough to produce a grolar bear or two. Or maybe a pozly bear… whatever…
Now with the sea ice melting, polar bears are ranging on land again. And recently, a hybrid was shot by a hunter. So you see that your “theory” is refuted by reality, again.
Chromosome fusion. We now have one less than chimps and bonobos, our closest relatives. Learn about it here:
**Evidence for fusing of two ancestral chromosomes to create human chromosome 2 and where there has been no fusion in other Great Apes is:
- The analogous chromosomes (2p and 2q) in the non-human great apes can be shown, when laid end to end, to create an identical banding structure to the human chromosome 2. (1)
- The remains of the sequence that the chromosome has on its ends (the telomere) is found in the middle of human chromosome 2 where the ancestral chromosomes fused. (2)
- the detail of this region (pre-telomeric sequence, telomeric sequence, reversed telomeric sequence, pre-telomeric sequence) is exactly what we would expect from a fusion. (3)
- this telomeric region is exactly where one would expect to find it if a fusion had occurred in the middle of human chromosome 2.
- the centromere of human chromosome 2 lines up with the chimp chromosome 2p chromosomal centromere.
- At the place where we would expect it on the human chromosome we find the remnants of the chimp 2q centromere (4).
evolutionpages.com/chromosome_2.htm
Surprise.
Barbarian observes:
Ah, I see what’s getting you. Most speciations aren’t by hydridization (although a few do happen).
Doesn’t mean speciation isn’t common descent. By definition, it is.
I
itinerant1
Guest
I need links from the Vatican. I doubt seriously you will be able to find those that support your issues. First off, none of them are creationists nor fans of the Intelligent Design movement.
internant1 responds:
There are multiple problems with your statement above, wildleafblower.
First, you have not read in this thread one of my recent posts that says I acknowledge evolution as a fact. Furthermore, I support certain views of both cosmic and biological evolution. How did you miss this?
Next, I have posted several times, in more than one thread, just what the key failure is of Intelligent Design, which I think makes the theory totally unacceptable.
Also, the majority of my posts in other related threads are arguments against creationism, understood to be Biblical literalism of the fundamentalist type that rejects sound scientific findings, such as the age of the earth, etc.
This leaves me wondering just what it is you are talking about, because I have no idea. I would not mind some clarification on your part as to what you think creationism and I.D. have to do with two views of Darwin that I previously criticized in reference to the *Descent. *These issues pertain to the evolution of the human moral sense and the conception of man as differing only in degree from higher animals. How we get from this to your comments about creationism and I.D. baffles me. It seems to me that you just can’t get there from here.
I’ll pass on Stanley L. Jaki’s book **Miracles & Physics **(1). God has nothing to do with physics! It’s insulting to me as a Catholic woman to have God used in such a manner as you and Jaki have itinerant1. The Vatican:Holy See has there own medical commission to check out claims such as miracles. They do phyical examinations on people.
internant1 responds:
I’m not sure what it is that you are trying to say here about Jaki. Your statement is unduly terse for what you are trying to say. Please elaborate on your meaning and perhaps then I can address what you are trying to say. I don’t have access today to a copy of the book in question, but perhaps you can provide the title of the chapter or lecture you may have in mind with some extended quotations of text you think are problematic.
Until then, I remain unsure what your meaning is other than you don’t like something.
oH, NOW itinerant1, you are going to tell or give the Catholic Church the clue as to what priests and Catholic scientists need to learn.
internant1 responds:
Ditto on the “Nah”. I am baffled once more as to why you say what you do. I made a previous reference to what several popes have said concerning what Catholics should learn in regard to philosophy. A statement about what the popes have said is a statement about what the popes have said. Pope Leo XIII, for instance, addressed this topic before I even existed. So, the subject has been around for awhile. And it will be here long after I am gone. I am neither a priest or a scientist, so I don’t tell either the priest or the scientist what to do. I am only, and literally, an itinerant wanderer. And if I ever met one just like myself, I would not even tell him what to. I would shoot him, instead.
The title of this thread, “Ignorance and evolution”, is a most curious one, because everybody is ignorant, just on different subjects.
So, if you want to know what various popes have said on matter of Catholic education, I can easily provide you with links to the relevant Vatican documents. (I don’t know anything about you, so I recommended these documents under the assumption that you are a Catholic.)
I have studied these documents and agree 100% with what they say. I merely pointed out the Vatican’s views on such matters. One can accept or reject what I am saying, but its not coming from me. If you are having some difficulty, go to the source. It is the popes you need to spar with. I can’t help you. And nothing is to be gained by shooting the messenger.
Let me know if your are interested in using the links to the Vatican documents in question, otherwise, your point is moot.
W
wildleafblower
Guest
ai don’t think so
Your views aren’t holding up under the pressure of other members.
I hadn’t noticed such. Are you sure?
Really?
I suppose it was when you dropped the name Stanley L. Jaki who supports Intelligent design and creationism. Stanley Jaki’s book Miracles & Physics. Like I said God has nothing to do with physics. I’ll pass on Stanley L. Jaki’s book Miracles & Physics (1). God has nothing to do with physics! It’s insulting to me as a Catholic woman to have God used in such a manner as you and Jaki have itinerant1. The Vatican:Holy See has there own medical commission to check out claims such as miracles. They do phyical examinations on people.
Don’t you remember you were the one who brought Jaki into the conversation. Do you recall what you originally said about him?
My response to you was appropriate. It seems you may be having a difficult time understanding English. Perhaps it’s not your mother tongue? Is that the case?
Shoot
?I haven’t read everything you have posted to this topic. You did seem to imply that you were telling Catholic priests and scientists how to think by referring them to a philosophy that you thought they should adhere to. I think you should know that Vatican II changed the direction of the Church. Calm down. Relax. Take a rest and smile.
I’m not ignorant. There is a lot of information available on the Internet that I haven’t read but that doesn’t make me ignorant.
Whenever someone uses the word moot I think of a scoop of sherbert that disappears into my tummy within 27 licks.
Oh, and guess what… I’ve just about read every document there exists in the Vatican:Holy See. I’ve posted to this board more than I can count. I’m a walking memory stick. I don’t mean to be unkind but don’t need to argue because one thing is 100 percent correct and that is evolution is a fact and the Scientific Advisory Committee and the Pope know it to be true. 
And this is old news. ah, Darwin was a brilliant man along with thousands of other scientists and priests and people.
H
hecd2
Guest
In response to this:
"anthony022071:
However there are several other chromosomal rearrangements between chimp and human and these might have had as much a part to play as the fusion of chromosome 2. There are some apparent genetic fitness problems with sympatric speciation driven by genetic isolation resulting from chromosomal rearrangements or other mutations which but these have been resolved as you can see from another of my articles summarising key research:
evolutionpages.com/homo_pan_divergence.htm
Finally, it is quite possible that the process for human/chimpanzee divergence was allopatric - geographic separation, niche adaptation and genetic drift - as appears to be the case in the more recent divergence of chimp from bonobo. Allopatric speciation is probably the most common speciation mechanism.
Alec
evolutionpages.com
"anthony022071:
Barbarian wrote this:
I am always pleased to see links to my website and direct quotes from it
However there are several other chromosomal rearrangements between chimp and human and these might have had as much a part to play as the fusion of chromosome 2. There are some apparent genetic fitness problems with sympatric speciation driven by genetic isolation resulting from chromosomal rearrangements or other mutations which but these have been resolved as you can see from another of my articles summarising key research:
evolutionpages.com/homo_pan_divergence.htm
Finally, it is quite possible that the process for human/chimpanzee divergence was allopatric - geographic separation, niche adaptation and genetic drift - as appears to be the case in the more recent divergence of chimp from bonobo. Allopatric speciation is probably the most common speciation mechanism.
Alec
evolutionpages.com
- Status