All aboard the atheist bus?

"Species" is an artificial conception of something that is quite a bit more convoluted than it might appear. One has to think of a "gene space" for it to really make sense. Speciation takes time and geographical or sexual separation of sub groups that can initially interbreed so that they are kept apart in breeding terms until it is no longer viable to produce cross breeds. Thus the creation of a new species is a somewhat fuzzy and indefinite process.

Evolution is not directed rationally. Human induced selection is so its slightly different. Humans have never succeeded at creating two separate species from one.

It is worth noting that there may be no single common ancestor cell - particularly in realms where horizontal gene transfer occurs such as viruses, bacteria and archea.

 

I get the impression that terms are defined in various ways, depending on what the person is trying to prove.
The word 'species' in itself appears to have no single definition, and 'speciation' appears to have different explanations to suit different points of view.
One source I looked at, in trying to explain this in a simple way said that it:

It seems strange to me to say 'We don't have much evidence' and also 'the evidence is strong'.

If intelligent humans directing the selective breeding have never succeeded in creating two separate species from one, then I do not find it credible that a process 'not directed rationally' succeeded not only once, but supposedly myriads of times.

 

Vast amounts of time are required - even for directed evolution though it undoubtedly requires less.

The evidence is strong - it is almost incontrovertibly well supported by the facts. Even though the "process of evolution" cannot be observed during a human lifetime. This is by no means a problem for theory and does not undermine it - any more than it fails to undermine stellar theory or the theory of gravity - the effects of gravity and not gravity itself are observed.

Variation in terms is true of all science - see Kuhn for a fuller explanation.

 

Of course it can, you *u*kwit. MRSA.

 

No, it depends on how little the person (biobijonfrise) knows about it.

 

No that is not the creation of a new species buboe - it is an example of adaptation. Same as creating all the different dog breeds from the wolf.

Medical doctors make poor scientists.

 

Wrong! Yet again. The creation of "a new species" has zero to do with evolution. Correcting you is becoming tiresome.

http://www.nih.gov/news/health/jan2008/niaid-21.htm

http://jcm.asm.org/cgi/content/full/36/2/552

http://www1.indstate.edu/thcme/micro/staph/sld013.htm

I think you need to do some reading, mr dog.

 

But adaption is one mechanism to facilitate evolution and evolution is not just about the creation of new species.

The adaptation of bacteria to resist antibiotic action *is* evolution and it happens quickly so MRSA is definitely a case of it happening in short timescales (ie in a lifetime).

 

Imagine a dog catching device that catches only big dogs so that all that is left is small sausage dogs. Sorry but it isnt necessarily evolution. I will also point out the title of a book called "The Origin of Species" in which evolution was first proposed as the mechanism behind species creation. I think you need to do some reading too buboe.

 

Sorry, I am guilty of overstatement in the face of your increasingly nonsensical posts. What I should have said was: Evolution does not necessarily lead to new species.

You are amazingly ignorant about Evolution, though. I used to be quite surprised by your ignorance about various matters, but I am now accustomed to it. Your views about hi-fi seem to have become fossilised, in that they are based upon a single shop demo which allegedly took place in the Cretaceous period.

 

Other books on evolution are available.....

 

Darwin's Black Box by Michael Behe is a very interesting one.

 

Not at all bub. Its just the one you focus on due to the inclusion of your items of faith in it. You are just blathering as you were caught with your pants down again - you only recourse is insults and no factual arguments.

 

For anyone interested in this topic outside of local Zergain turfwars please read 'the blind watchmaker' It is by Dawkins but doesnt include too much god bashing - I do admit though, I am someone that read the god delusion and agreed with most of the content. I think I will try some Sam Harris next.

 

A reply seems redundant.

Anyway, back on track, there is the very amusing news that the good ol' Vatican has "bitten":

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/4287979/Catholic-Church-blocks-plans-for-atheist-bus-adverts.html

...marvellous! Anyone might think that they were worried......but clearly if you had true faith in god, a message on the side of a bus wouldn't worry you in the slightest, now, would it?

 

this is part of of the church`s reply to the ad

http://www.thereprobablyis.com/

 

I believe in the tooth fairy because he came and took away all my teeth. He did this to test my faith in him, and the experience has enriched my life in so many different(cont p94)

 

If only he took away your keyboard too!

 

do you have to have a mental age of 10 to post on that site or does it just help.

 

Now come on, Bob, these are actually:

It's both sad & funny at the same time.