Subject:
|
Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 5 Feb 2001 19:55:00 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
451 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Steve Chapple writes:
> Yet again, I remind you that what I'm asking for evidence of is the
> theory regarding evolution OF species from one to another - part of
> what I've "defined" as Darwinism - NOT evolution WITHIN a species.
For anyone to give you that, you also need to "define" what a species is --
specifically, what criteria there are to decide where one species stops and
the other starts. So much of your point depends on establishing a discrete
categorization of groups of organisms. This unfortunately is very fuzzy
even within the scientific circles.
For example, a common definition of a species is a group of related
organisms capable of interbreeding. However, breeding issues -- genetic
compatability, physical compatability, parasitic compatability, etc. --
abound. Consequently, a common complaint with the current definition of
species is the fact that many different dog (and even wolf) species can
breed with each other. A similar point involves a breed of arctic waterfowl
(arg, arctic tern?), which members' sizes increase gradually as one
traverses the globe longitudally, with neighboring groups cabable of
interbreeding, until there is an area where small and large breeds meet and
*can't* breed due to the size difference. Where is the division of species
then?
Or is the division merely arbitrary, a virtual cubbyhole system to simplify
accurate note-taking. It's easy to see that while our though processes are
often dichotomic, the world rarely is. If so, then how can the division of
species be taken seriously?
I find your argument provoking, but I feel that this is one area where you
*really* need to clarify your stance.
Cheers,
- jsproat
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
| (...) I was going to post a reply to an argument last week concerning species concepts in the macro-evolution/creation debate, unfortunately other responsibilities got in the way. Thanks for bringing it up. As Sproaticus said, there are many, many (...) (23 years ago, 5-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
| (...) Good point - Lack of common definitions is often a problem with these types of discussions. I'll admit right away that I'm not the one to do the defining - I chose Physics over Biology. Archeology isn't my area either, which is part of why I'm (...) (23 years ago, 7-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
| (...) All I said was that it was a good example of how AFAIK there are no "transitional" fossils that aren't faked, even though there should theoretically be more transitional than normal. (...) Yet again, I remind you that what I'm asking for (...) (23 years ago, 5-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
95 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
