|
Post by deliciousdemon on May 13, 2009 5:52:37 GMT -5
Aye, that it would. And don't even get me started on species concepts and population dynamics. No, please do get started. Basically, "species" is a man made construct, a concept we use to understand a difficult reality. Life as we know it is a gradation, a continuum of genetic similarities. This is especially important when considering fossils. What we consider H. heidelbergensis and H. neanderthalensis is completely arbitrary. There are a set of criteria developed by scientists to classify them based on morphology/molecular data but these are subject to change at any time. Fossils are especially difficult because they cannot, but definition give direct information regarding behaviour which is often critical to any of the oh... 19+ species concepts. For example, were the aforementioned "species" actual species by the biological definition? Probably, but we can never know with any sort of certainty I would find acceptable because we cannot know if they interacted and considered each other (biologically, instinctively) separate species. The continuum of life presents difficulties all the time in modern molecular research as well. For example the Anopheles gambiae species complex. They are morphologically identical and for all intensive genetic purposes nearly indistinguishable (some would argue they are "strains" rather than species or subspecies, it's semantics as far as I am concerned). But THEY can tell the difference between each other (their behaviour also differs--something molecular data cannot tell a scientists directly). Sometimes the case a bit more clear cut. Recent research suggests African Elephants are actually two species. They look absolutely identical, but THEY can tell the difference between each other and rarely interbreed. This has resulted in divergent "populations" that scientists have recently discovered have accumulated enough genetic change to be considered separate species by convention. This could easily turn into a treatise, but I cannot be arsed at the moment. Here are some other sources of information. The latter two links might be slightly impenetrable to those without any biological training. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anopheles_gambiaenews.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1505573.stmen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_problemen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_concept#Definitions_of_species
|
|
|
Post by atheistcrusader on May 20, 2009 14:56:39 GMT -5
It has to be said Ida is one hell of a find as it completes the linkage between mammals and primates!! the one thing im wondering is how our dear fundies (esp those at RR) will react. im sure its only a matter of time before they come out with such spurious claims as
"its a fake" satan has put it on earth to confuse atheists and make them homosexual devil worshippingchild molesters"
or even
"its a conspiracy by the media to erode religion because they all hate us and want us dead"
come quickly lord jesus I WANT TO DIE!!!!!!!!!
so how long before the shit hits the preverbial fan on the FSTDT boards do you reckon???
|
|
|
Post by mice34 on May 20, 2009 22:30:53 GMT -5
^^I'm looking forward to it. Cripes, those people are in severe need of anti-depressants.
|
|
|
Post by atheistcrusader on May 21, 2009 1:17:32 GMT -5
^^I'm looking forward to it. Cripes, those people are in severe need of anti-depressants. either that or a full frontal lobotomy!!! ;D
|
|
J-Hay
New Member
fuck it
Posts: 17
|
Post by J-Hay on May 21, 2009 1:33:38 GMT -5
No, please do get started. Basically, "species" is a man made construct, a concept we use to understand a difficult reality. Life as we know it is a gradation, a continuum of genetic similarities. This is especially important when considering fossils. What we consider H. heidelbergensis and H. neanderthalensis is completely arbitrary. There are a set of criteria developed by scientists to classify them based on morphology/molecular data but these are subject to change at any time. Fossils are especially difficult because they cannot, but definition give direct information regarding behaviour which is often critical to any of the oh... 19+ species concepts. For example, were the aforementioned "species" actual species by the biological definition? Probably, but we can never know with any sort of certainty I would find acceptable because we cannot know if they interacted and considered each other (biologically, instinctively) separate species. The continuum of life presents difficulties all the time in modern molecular research as well. For example the Anopheles gambiae species complex. They are morphologically identical and for all intensive genetic purposes nearly indistinguishable (some would argue they are "strains" rather than species or subspecies, it's semantics as far as I am concerned). But THEY can tell the difference between each other (their behaviour also differs--something molecular data cannot tell a scientists directly). Sometimes the case a bit more clear cut. Recent research suggests African Elephants are actually two species. They look absolutely identical, but THEY can tell the difference between each other and rarely interbreed. This has resulted in divergent "populations" that scientists have recently discovered have accumulated enough genetic change to be considered separate species by convention. This could easily turn into a treatise, but I cannot be arsed at the moment. Here are some other sources of information. The latter two links might be slightly impenetrable to those without any biological training. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anopheles_gambiaenews.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1505573.stmen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_problemen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_concept#Definitions_of_speciesExactly. If creationism was true and every species or "kind" of organism were created separately and distinct from each other, we should be able to put them all into neat little categories with little difficulty or confusion. The fact that scientists are always having reclassifying organisms(e.g.these two species are actually the same, this species should really be two distinct species,etc.) is because there are no clear and cut lines between groups of organisms. The lines just kind of bleed into each other. If that isn't proof of common descent then I don't know what is. Scientific classifications are just man trying to put nature in a box. I'm sure if creationism was the real thing we wouldn't have this bullshit about whether the giant panda is really a bear or is it a member of the raccoon family, or if the tomato is a fruit or a vegetable. Okay, that last one was a lame joke, but you get the picture.
|
|
|
Post by clockworkgirl21 on May 22, 2009 22:26:32 GMT -5
I always tell my fundie relatives evolution doesn't have a goal, or a beginning or ending. If something needs changing, it either changes or dies out. If something doesn't need to change, it'll stay the same forever.
Everyone seems to think all animals are working their way to become humans or something.
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on May 22, 2009 23:54:44 GMT -5
Zeno's paradox: Suppose you want to get from point A to point B. To do so, first you have to walk half that distance. But to do so, you need to walk half that, or one quarter the original distance. And to do so, you must also walk half that distance, and so on and so forth. And since this can be continued forever, to traverse any distance you must make an infinite amount of steps in a finite time. Therefore movement is impossible. Lulz. Every time I use this, someone tells me it isn't a paradox, because it's just a division, rather than an infinite amount of distance. It really is a difficult thing to wrap your brain around. Also, now I feel like a Fundie, because all this time, I'd been using it without knowing what it was, just like they do with Pascal's Wager. Meh. At least I didn't have the delusion that I was the first one to come up with it.
|
|
starbrewer
Full Member
God can go to hell
Posts: 226
|
Post by starbrewer on May 28, 2009 14:47:07 GMT -5
I can't wait to see how many Raptards will shit their pants!
Godless scientists forged that fossil because they hate God
|
|