Differing Models on the Origin of Higher Taxa

Are any evos here willing to address ANY of the points in the OP?

Some said they considered the OP to be wrong. I asked to show where and what they thought was wrong in the OP. None seem capable of doing that.
 
Dancing David said:
Except sometimes as pointed out you can have breeding between populations that are classed as seperate taxa.

And as i will try to point out in the other thread you have made a blanket statement about a complex subject and so it does not apply due to overgeneralization.

You can have radiation within a species which can lead to deivergent lines with intermediate sequential speciation.
Click to expand...
So what. None of that changes that evolution is based on envisioning a process of sequential speciation. Use any definition of species and any taxonomic classifications you want, and my statement is true. Evolution is considered to be a process of sequential speciation that evolves into all of life.
 
Darwinism is just a special case of the theory of creation. It is creation by mutation. As I understand it, God directs specific cosmic radiation to promote DNA changes and also to induce copying errors which are then passed along. In addition, when it pleases Him, He destroys large numbers of animals as well.

And what is an "evo"? It sounds slightly disparaging, but I'm not sure why.
 
Last edited:
randman said:
Well, considering they are not "my" theories, the question is moot.
Click to expand...
Okay, which of the theories you presented are better than Door Ding Gnomes, regardless of who came up with them?

randman said:
But I'd say Darwinism is at the bottom of the list. It's the one we can definitely say is false.
Click to expand...
Perhaps the way you presented it, it sounds like rubbish.

But, if real Darwinism, (as understood by scientists, and not derrived from the distorted view of its detractors) is definitely false, then how come it IS reliably applicable to problems in the field of biology?

Want to predict where we would find a new fossil, and what features it might have before we even unearth it? The concept of branching trees of life, that Evolution predicts, can be applied to that... and it works well enough that we found the Tiktaalik. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik
How can any of the Creationist ideas be applied to the quest to find new fossils?

What if a species of bird is threatened, and conventional means of saving it don't work? Evolution, even with all its foibles, can help us assess the challenge, and help us generate innovative ideas to apply to the situation. It works well for the Kakapo: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/060401_kakapo
How can any of the Creationist ideas be applied to the conservation of endangered life forms?

What happens when we find bits of DNA entangled in our own, that closely match those of viral entities, and are copied several times over, in our ancestry? What precise data can Creationist ideas help us yield from such a discovery? Evolution gives us a useful framework in the form of "retrovirus": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endogenous_retrovirus

Something tells me that Darwinism is a LOT better than "definately false".

Creationism and Intelligent Design are not any more realistic than Door Ding Gnomes: They assert that some intelligent or godly entity had to intervene somewhere in the origins of life, without any real positive evidence of its existence.

If you disagree, show me how the ideas you favor improve over the Gnomes.
 
Last edited:
Sceptic Tank said:
Not that you're ignoring evidence that is contrary to your beliefs, of course. You're far too honest a debater to do that kind of thing, aren't you?
Click to expand...
What beliefs? This thread is about obtaining some common understanding and agreement on terms and differing models say. It's not about which model is correct.

So I ask you again, do you admit ND posits sequential speciation resulting in the higher taxa?

Pretty simple question. Why are you so scared to answer?
 
randman said:
What beliefs? This thread is about obtaining some common understanding and agreement on terms and differing models say. It's not about which model is correct.

So I ask you again, do you admit ND posits sequential speciation resulting in the higher taxa?

Pretty simple question. Why are you so scared to answer?
Click to expand...

You've already had this answered very comprehensively. Now, are you going to answer Wowbagger's post, or continue to ignore is because it shows you to be mistaken?
 
randman said:
So are you admitting ND advocates sequential speciation or not?
Click to expand...
"Sequential" doesn't seem like a good word, to me, for some reason.

"Branching trees" of speciation sounds more accurate.



I know this has been said to you, before, but it seems like you really don't understand what the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is. Your views of it are extremely distorted by Creationist sources.

It's almost like you're trying to study human anatomy from a Mr. Potatohead toy, or something.

Might I suggest starting from scratch an learning what the science Evolution is really like? May I challenge you to know thy enemy a little more accurately?

If so, you can start here:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_02

Read through at least a dozen or so of these slideshow-like web pages, and perhaps you'll understand better where our arguments are coming from.

See if you can refute anything you would like from that resource.
 
marplots said:
Darwinism is just a special case of the theory of creation.
Click to expand...
What does Creation add, that is missing from Evolution?

Why not say the opposite? That Creation will be a special case of Evolution.

Humans will probably develop the ability to create life. But, interestingly enough, they are so-far learning about more of the details necesessary to that from the study of evolutionary biology.
This early step was done by "Darwinists": http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/articles/07_02/polio_create.shtml

Ironically, the study of Creationism and I.D. don't seem to offer any help in this area.

From the point at which a form of life is created, and as long as it reproduces, we can predict that it could evolve into other species -even on its own, without any guidence from humans or other intelligent agents, ever again.
 
Last edited:
randman said:
So what. None of that changes that evolution is based on envisioning a process of sequential speciation. Use any definition of species and any taxonomic classifications you want, and my statement is true. Evolution is considered to be a process of sequential speciation that evolves into all of life.
Click to expand...

Except you keep cramming evolution into one particular area and keep insisting that is only is about that one area.

Evoltion is much more as you keep ignoring.
 
Last edited:
randman said:
There seems to be a lot of confusion about what different models to explain the origin of higher taxa actually posit. This thread is not so much to argue which one is correct but to understand what the theories themselves actually are. Taxa refers to the different classifications with species (or subspecies and breeds) being the lowest taxa and genera, families, orders, kingdom, etc,....being higher taxa.

1. The dominant theory of evolution is the Modern Synthesis also commonly referred to as NeoDarwinism. I have typically abbreviated this to Darwinism and explained why, but most here seem to insist on just calling it "evolution" despite evolution being defined as a microevolutionary process involving the change in the frequency of alleles. Of course then, a mere change in the frequency of alleles is not necessarily the origin of higher taxa, and so working with that label does not address the topic at hand.

Whatever one wants to call it (I shall use ND for brevity's sake), .
Click to expand...

Kindly support your statement, this a point you have asserted but not demonstrated so here isa google link 'origins higher taxa':
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?h...axa+&btnG=Search&as_sdt=0,14&as_ylo=&as_vis=1

So why don't you actaully read some of these and support your statement?

"ND posits sequential speciation however one wants to define species as the process that occurs evolving the higher taxa"
You can do it randman, I have asked you to support your assertion and it is in your OP, so put your words into effect, shows us where this is what modern evolutionary theory says.



You can do it!

If you think you can do it, or you think you can't do it, You are right.
-Henry Ford

You've done it before and you can do it now.
-Ralph Marston

You can do it... you can do it all night loong!
-Townie , The Waterboy

If you can dream it, you can do it.
Walt Disney

We can do it!
Dora the expolorer
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom