Biology Forum Evolution Inter species breeding with fertile offspring

9 voices
34 replies
  • Author
    Posts
    • #11596
      gamila
      Participant

      Many on here seem to think biologists know what species are
      some argue that
      species can interbreed with each other
      yet this definition is shown to end in meaningless nonsense
      take the Bactrian and dromardary camales

      quote :

      Wild camels have three more genes than domestic camels and so they have concluded that they are a completely different species.

      yet these two different species can interbreed and have fertile off spring
      http://www.geocities.com/plin9k/limiting-species.htm

      this demonstrates colin leslie deans point that biologiy is not a science as its classifatory system ie species ends in meaningless nonsense
      http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/bo … ection.pdf

    • #92096
      telanerv
      Participant

      why don’t you make a point other than: look what questions aren’t completely understood!!!

      in fact, i don’t understand the points of your posts, most biologists know about the species problem from their sophomore year in college.

      what you are trying to point out, i believe, is that their is a philosophical discrepancy to the definition of species. some believe that its an invented term and some believe that it is a natural term…. roughly.
      the species definition is only blurred in some cases though, like different but related species (related cats, related dogs, related horses, etc) being able to interbreed despite being different species, and bacteria, which don’t multiply sexually, but rather through binary fission and transduction and specialized transduction

      so we all know about this stuff, lets move on to something productive

    • #92104
      papa1983
      Participant

      Perhaps taxonomically they are considered different species, but evolution-wise they have not completely speciated.

    • #92105
      gamila
      Participant
      quote :

      what you are trying to point out

      this demonstrates colin leslie deans point that biology is not a science as its classificatory system ie species ends in meaningless nonsense

    • #92106
      biohazard
      Participant
      quote gamila:

      Many on here seem to think biologists know what species are

      the first bird mated with the last reptilebird
      so colin leslie dean paradox is rendered to meaningless nonsense

    • #92125
      papa1983
      Participant

      Biology is not a science? So then Astrophysicists came up with vaccines and antibiotics. Or did we all just stumble upon those by accident.

    • #92127
      Jasper903
      Participant

      Actually, that would be an example of technology. But biology is a science because the concepts that make it up are formed by the scientific method. You can’t declare biology a non-science just because you don’t like the major theories on specieation. Well you can, but you’ll just look ridiculous

    • #92130
      papa1983
      Participant

      Biological research led to those technologies.

    • #92132
      gamila
      Participant
      quote :

      But biology is a science because the concepts that make it up are formed by the scientific method

      That there is no scientific method is shown by the early reception of darwins theory of evolution-this shows the fact that science has no method

      some say the scientific method is falsification

      but at the time of its presentation darwins theory was falsified by the cambrian explosion

      even darwin saw the cambrian explosion falsified his theory

      if falsification is the scientific method
      darwins theory was shown to be false

      colin leslie dean points out dawrin admitts the cambrian explosion destroyed his theory
      http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/bo … ection.pdf

      quote :

      “Nevertheless, the difficulty of assigning any good reason for the absence of vast piles of strata rich in fossils beneath the Cambrian system is very great. …The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained.” (Darwin, C., The Origin of Species, 1872, pp. 316-317.)

      it has been shown in another thread

      about15913.html

      that Wilberforce showed that darwins theory was falsified
      even darwin admiits the logic of Wiberforces points

      quote :

      Darwin himself thought Wilberforce’s criticisms fair or at least faceable. `I have just read the “Quarterly” ‘ he wrote to Hooker in July, 1860. `It is uncommonly clever; it picks out with skill all the most conjectural parts, and brings forward well all the difficulties. It quizzes me quite splendidly by quoting the “Anti-Jacobin” against my Grandfather … ’33. A letter to Lyell on 11 August is significant:’… This morning I recommenced work and am at dogs; … By the way, the Bishop makes a very telling case against me, by accumulating several instances where I speak doubtfully; but this is very unfair, as in such cases as this of the dog, the evidence is and must be very doubtful

      this is a good example of the fact that science has no method
      some say the scientific method is falsification
      but even darwin saw the cambrian explosion falsified his theory

      if falsification is the scientific method
      darwins theory was shown to be false
      thus
      that should have been the end of darwins theory

    • #92134
      papa1983
      Participant

      Woooow! What other of your posts are you going to recycle?

      The Scientific Method
      -Observation
      -Create a hypothesis based on the observation
      -Use said hypothesis to make predictions
      -Test the predictions made by said hypothesis by experimentation or further observations.
      -Based on results modify hypothesis. If hypothesis stands to tests and observations it may be promoted to a theory.

      Of course tests and observations can prove a hypothesis or theory wrong so than you modify the hypothesis or theory.

    • #92136
      biohazard
      Participant
      quote gamila:

      if falsification is the scientific method
      darwins theory was shown to be false

      biologists know what species is
      thus
      colin leslie dean speaks meaningless nonsense

    • #92138
      gamila
      Participant
      quote :

      Of course tests and observations can prove a hypothesis or theory wrong so than you modify the hypothesis or theory.

      fact is natural selection was falsified

      if falsification is the scientific method
      darwins theory was shown to be false
      thus
      that should have been the end of darwins theory

    • #92141
      telanerv
      Participant

      Gamila you can’t just say "Blank’s theory was shown to be false, therefore…."
      when you talk about fundamental science

      why don’t you spread your born-again /psychobabbble-disinformation to a crowd that is vulnerable like middle schoolers, you guys used to be great at that.

    • #92152
      gamila
      Participant
      quote :

      Gamila you can’t just say “Blank’s theory was shown to be false, therefore….”
      when you talk about fundamental science

      fact is natural selection was falsified
      but that was not the end of natural selection
      thus there is no scientific method

    • #92156
      papa1983
      Participant

      He don’t even think science is real. Jets use faith to fly.

    • #92165
      gamila
      Participant
      quote :

      He don’t even think science is real. Jets use faith to fly.

      you cant prove that the laws of physics will be the same tommorow
      your belief that they will be is based solely on faith

    • #92170
      papa1983
      Participant

      Negative, the belief that the laws of physics will be the same tomorrow is base on knowledge from observations and verification thru experimentation.

    • #92171
      gamila
      Participant
      quote :

      Negative, the belief that the laws of physics will be the same tomorrow is base on knowledge from observations and verification thru experimentation.

      sorry
      it is just based on faith

      these observations experimentation and knowledge
      are all of past or current but not fuiure events
      all they prove is at the time of the observation or experiment the laws of physic where the same as prior to the observation etc
      sorry
      physics cant look into the future as yet
      you me and even physicists cant see into the future
      we can postulate but that is not a fact till it happens

      as such
      you cant prove that the laws of physics will be the same tommorow
      your belief that they will be is based solely on faith

      your belief that with out proof that the laws of physics will be the same tommorrow
      is
      just like a religious persons belief with out proof that there is a god
      ie both are based on faith

    • #92189
      biohazard
      Participant
      quote gamila:

      sorry
      it is just based on faith

      biologists know what species is
      so
      coline leslie dean talks meaningless nonsense

    • #92202
      papa1983
      Participant

      Gamila,

      People like you bask in the glory of ignorance. How ignorance has become a virtue in your community is beyond me.

      If the laws of physics were to change tomorrow, which has been sufficiently proven they will not, I assure you we would not be around tomorrow to observe them.

    • #92203
      AFJ
      Participant
      quote :

      this demonstrates colin leslie deans point that biology is not a science as its classificatory system ie species ends in meaningless nonsense

      Then perhaps Dean can tell us what biology is. It is definitely a field of study that has researchers which have discovered many things, like DNA, and mapped out the human genome using state of the art technology. So if it isn’t science, then a field of study which uses technology and has discovered real facts–helpful facts for medicine and other fields of study is not science.

      quote :

      fact is natural selection was falsified

      All you have to do is watch two male whales sparring for breeding rights and you see NS. If you see extinction you in some cases see NS. If you death because of deleterious mutations, or disappearance of a harmful or useless trait then you see NS. But NS as a sole mechanism for evolution is wrong as it can add no new information to the genome–you are correct

      I am creationist, but acknowledge Darwin’s accomplishment in the theory of NS (albeit exaggerated conclusions in my opinion). He was not alone, but he was the propagator of the theory. It is speculated that Darwin read some of Edward Blythe’s material, who was creationist in a time of Lamarckian evolution. He was not alone in his observations–the interpretations were different.

    • #92206
      papa1983
      Participant

      I agree. Natural selection is not the only thing that drives evolution. You, also, have mutation for natural selection act upon.

    • #92211
      gamila
      Participant
      quote :

      which has been sufficiently proven they will not,

      sorry there is no proof that the laws of physic will be the same tommorrow as they are today
      just like there is no proof that you will be alive tomorrow
      both are based on fairh
      no one can look into the furture

    • #92212
      gamila
      Participant
      quote :

      which has been sufficiently proven they will not,

      sorry there is no proof that the laws of physic will be the same tommorrow as they are today
      just like there is no proof that you will be alive tomorrow
      both are based on fairh
      no one can look into the furture

    • #92213
      gamila
      Participant
      quote :

      which has been sufficiently proven they will not,

      sorry there is no proof that the laws of physic will be the same tommorrow as they are today
      just like there is no proof that you will be alive tomorrow
      both are based on faith
      no one can look into the future

    • #92215
      papa1983
      Participant

      So tomorrow gravity could no function?

      Wow. Tomorrow all the planets in the solar system could be flung out of their orbits.

      Gamila, are you serious? Or is this a joke.

    • #92217
      gamila
      Participant
      quote :

      So tomorrow gravity could no function?

      Wow. Tomorrow all the planets in the solar system could be flung out of their orbits.

      Gamila, are you serious? Or is this a joke.

      there is no proof that any of that will happen tommrow
      if there is please give us that proof and tell us who proved it

    • #92220
      gamila
      Participant
      quote :

      If you death because of deleterious mutations, or disappearance of a harmful or useless trait then you see NS

      it has been shown in another thread that harmful genes are being transmitted when NS says they should be become rare
      but
      in fact they are common
      thus showing NS is wrong
      go read the threads

      about15939.html
      about15762.html
      better still go read colin leslie dean refutation of NS

      http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/bo … ection.pdf
      THE REFUTATION
      EVOLUTIONARY THEORY:
      NATURAL SELECTION
      SHOWN TO BE WRONG

    • #92228
      papa1983
      Participant
      quote :

      quote :

      So tomorrow gravity could no function?

      Wow. Tomorrow all the planets in the solar system could be flung out of their orbits.

      Gamila, are you serious? Or is this a joke.

      there is no proof that any of that will happen tommrow
      if there is please give us that proof and tell us who proved it

      And now your going to ask for sources into my obvious sarcasm. OMG

    • #92238
      telanerv
      Participant

      gamila is a forum-troller, he just posts stupid shit and contradicts people in every way.
      but if you are asking for a theory and who proved it, i believe it was newton originally
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitation
      and then later evidenced in apollo 15 by David Scott, with the hammer and the feather, although you are certainly too young to remember that
      go do something with ur life gamila

    • #92252
      gamila
      Participant
      quote :

      gamila is a forum-troller, he just posts stupid **** and contradicts people in every way.
      but if you are asking for a theory and who proved it, i believe it was newton originally
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitation
      and then later evidenced in apollo 15 by David Scott, with the hammer and the feather, although you are certainly too young to remember that
      go do something with ur life gamila

      all that showed was that at the time of the experiments the laws of physics where the same
      but they dont prove that the laws of physics will be the same tommorow

      no one can look into the future

    • #93418
      gamila
      Participant

      looks like your definitions of species end in meaninglessness as colin leslie dean says

    • #102628
      pielover1234
      Participant

      ok im allready scared about 2012 you dont need to scare me more

      quote papa1983:

      So tomorrow gravity could no function?

      Wow. Tomorrow all the planets in the solar system could be flung out of their orbits.

      Gamila, are you serious? Or is this a joke.

    • #102665
      canalon
      Participant

      Postmodernism and its follower like C.L Dean and the fawning airhead admirer (or alias for self-agrandization and massive stupidity evidenced by 3rd person self-reference) are way scarier that hypothetical end of of the world build by poorly educated conspiration theorist that cannot grasp the complicated working of positional counting.

    • #102884
      dayrom
      Participant

      I think you are putting away something important for the speciation definition, even more important from the evolutionary point of view than from taxonomical one. non-fertile offspring is not the only barrier for interspecifical breeding. Ecological habitat, phisical barriers, sexual behavior, and a lot of other things are also important. Bactrian and common camel are barely if any inhabitating the same ecological region, I think, so interbreeding is naturally avoided. So they can have fertile offspring, so what? They are still segregated populations in a specie-commited evolutionary pathway. The same with the two horse species. In categories Iike specie I likely to be Abelardian, they not exist by itself, but reflects real differences, agrupped by the mind in logical boxes, not arbitrary ones.

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Members