You should examine your assumptions, namely that two species can never mate.

I expected "The Colin Leslie Dean paradox" to mean that evolution was proven false by his birth. 🙁

The days of Adam after he fathered Seth were 800 years; and he had other sons and daughters. – Genesis 5:4

On a side note, gamila, has it ever occurred to you that evolution and creationism are not mutually exclusive? Why couldn’t God have used evolution to create His creatures?

I’ve said that sort of thing very often, but everytime I repeat it I am invariably ignored. Apparently, very few people are big fans of logic, as some of the recent threads around here would indicate. 🙄

Though, the words ‘logic’ and ‘god’ are mutually exclusive 🙂

Speciation is not instantaneous.

Now that that’s over with how about a joke to wrap up.

Three freshman-engineering students were sitting around talking between classes, when one brought up the question of who designed the human body.
One of the students insisted that the human body must have been designed by an electrical engineer because of the perfection of the nerves and synapses.
Another disagreed, and exclaimed that it had to have been a mechanical engineer who designed the human body. The system of levers and pulleys is ingenious.
"No," the third student said, "you’re both wrong. The human body was designed by an architect. Who else but an architect would have put a toxic waste line through a recreation area?"

Nice one, FZ! 😉

thx4tehpostcountkthxbai

Gamila, please read up on:
-The origin(s) of life
-The evolutionary theory(especially separation of gene pools, evolutionary agents)
-Asexual reproduction

Then i think we will be on our way to having a great discussion.

It seems that on this issue most people are quite settled in their position. Some are atheistic or agnostic and hold to evolution. Some are ID but hold to evolution. Some are creationist. It seems logical to me that all of them take an element of generic faith. Because it has to do with the past there is no definitive proof either way.

I believe in God personally, not because a book says it’s so, but because of what he’s done for me personally and others I know, personally, both inwardly and outwardly. If there would no inward effect from the scriptures, no wisdom, no love, no spirit then I would view it as a story book. If there were no signs to confirm it’s truth–and remember God is a sovereign Person and will give signs when and to whom he wants– then I would view it as a book of fables.

What if God appeared to you and told you to tell your best friend something? Would he believe you? Probably not. What if your church prayed for say healing of cancer or some other disease several times and saw people be healed, or what if you began to see a pattern of positive results because these certain people pray? What if you saw people who were once selfish and hard change into sincere compassionate people? Even if you saw just one and he gave the credit to Christ? Wouldn’t you at least give it a chance in your mind and heart?

AFJ, you have made this statement several times and each time it has been disprove, yet you continue to cling to it. Would you please explain, if this sentence is true, why police departments continue to waste their money on forensics?

Hi Colin. Remember me? We’ve met before. I see you have found another forum to pollute. I came across this forum quite by accident but quickly recognised you. Same old stuff, I see.

A note to the members of this forum: Colin (aka gamila) has been doing this sort of thing for years. He invariably gets banned, then moves on. You’re just the latest. The guy’s not stupid, just not quite all there, if you get my meaning. You’re certainly free to continue with these "discussions" if:

1) you’re stupid
2) not quite all there
3) have nothing better to do
4) am having fun

Back to you Colin: I’ll be posting this message in all the threads you have started just to make sure that everyone knows what they are dealing with.

Till we meet again.

Gavin

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index … 757AAmcOKV

Yip yip 🙂

Hah! That’s a fantastic quote. That person did a pretty good job of explaining the answer, too.

Just because we do not understand somthing, it does not make something true or untrue. Only, we do not understand. It is our nature to seek the truth, and if we were to stop seeking the truth based on a book or doctrine, we would be denying ourselves of a possible truth and enlightenment of why we are here.

I fail to understand the antagonist that would rather not hear the truth.

The problem is when you get people who think truth can only be defined by what is written in their book.

With a banana, you dork.

It’s not really possible to define what is the exact moment of speciation, since we’re talking gradual change here. It’s easy to say that the beginning and end products are separate species, but as for what’s in the middle, that gets more difficult. Should it be grouped with the original species, or with the resulting species, or as something else entirely?

Many species today exist right on this cusp of a speciation event, and are called ring species. To put it very briefly, population A can interbreed with population B, which can interbreed with population C, but A and C can’t interbreed. If B didn’t exist, A and C would thus be classified as different species. What they actually represent is a species that is beginning to diverge into two new species, but the intermediate form (in this case, population B) hasn’t died out yet. This is a very brief desciption but you can read here for more details:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species

In conclusion, you can’t really say what the first bird mated with because you can’t define with any degree of certainty what the first bird was. All you can do is point to a series of dinosaur-bird intermediates, each becoming progressively more avian than the one before, and say that by this process birds evolved.

With the bird, obviously. See, it all makes perfect sense.

then war 1 nana com froom/

Unless that "logic" must be really of God’s, otherwise it could be the false logic that unconsciously perverts the human mind.

Species mates with their same kind. That’s a very simple natural law.

That’s not quite true. Species mate with other species as well. Usually the offspring are are sterile, though (if there are any), but not always. Closely related species can mate and have offspring that are capable of having offspring of their own. In nature, few things are simple 😉

Okay gamila, if you have a beam of red light, and you change its wavelength by 1nm every minute, eventually you’re going to end up with a completely different color. But when, with such small changes that are individually imperceptible, do you stop having red light? At what exact wavelength does the light stop being red?

Yes, but what did the red light mate with?

Not with the banana. The bird’s got it :'(

Maybe with XXX-rays?

I know, bad joke! 😉

Here’s a question:

I know the iris is actually a genus, and there are many species of irises. I would assume you can cross different species of irises, that’s how we got all the variations. But can you cross an iris with a rose? If not, what is their theory on this.

The reason I ask is I grew up around farms in the midwest, and worked in a corn seed company for a while (quite interesting, we actually did the field work of self and cross-pollination). But the corn never pollinated the soy beans or the alfalfa just across the road, though the pollen would have traveled to them.

Well, if a banana can mate with a bird . . .

I’m not an expert on pollination but I believe that beyond their "pollination syndrome" plants have chemical signaling pathways that prevent intra-generic pollination (ie rose pollen lands on iris stigma – nothing happens).

On a side note: In my part of the world, the wild irises hybridize so commonly it can be infuriating (impossible) to try to key them to species.

I must admit I love to see AFJ’s posts here despite the fact that we disagree with most of the stuff. When compared to this gamila-spambot you can really see the difference between an intelligent person and a dimwit repeating himself over and over again without contributing anything into the ongoing debate. Luckily retardness is not contagious, else gamila might cause a real bad epidemic…

Gamila, Dean’s paradox has already been resolved in my post about changing the wavelength of a light ray, but you have refused to answer it.

That’s not the point and you know it.

You know what the first bird mated with or that first iris pollinated with?
Certainly we all do not know for we never existed during those times. All we can just do is to make assumptions that "it must happened" or things must happened in such a way. So why do we have to bother ourselves what the first "anything" mated/pollinated with? what’s the sense anyway? just focus on what we have at the present. If perhaps we could have a time machine to let us travel 4.5 billion years ago maybe we could fill in the gaps. Try having a "virgil-like" craft that traveled somewhat in the memories of this planet although in that case it won’t bring you to your desired destination as if you wanted to see what exactly happened to this planet way back to its formation; it would bring you to your own destruction or simply, madness.

Genesis says "He created them male and female…" in ch.2. The scriptures were around long before Darwin or Dean.

One thing I know, Colin Leslie Dean is asking a real question that challenges evolution to it’s core. How did asexual become sexual–so that at the same time one line was evolving useless sex cells for the male (to be) and the other line was developing useless sex cells for the female (to be), when natural selection would have been working against half evolved sex cells and organs.

Or did it happen suddenly? It all just happened at the same time and the same place so that a male and a female were developed and mated. Preposterous!

Or if God guided the process of evolution, then why have evolutionists been teaching unguided mutation? If God used evolution, something out of nothing–why is it so hard to believe that he created them spontaneously?

Gamila is right mcar, your position is not a good one. We cannot ignore the history if we want to understand our world. But that is the only thing that (s)he is right about.
As for the paradox it cannot be solved because as I tried to explain, the vision of species as a static object in the world is very wrong. Species genus and so on are just convenient ways to classify the world and to communicate about the living organisms. but the notion is so full of problems when we want to define it in our sequencing age, that some people want to get rid of the notion altogether. And I must that as a bacteriologist, I can understand that. But this will not change anything to the Theory of evolution by natural selection because species are not like drawers where organisms belong or not, but rather a snapshot in the dynamic ever branching and crossing branches of the tree of life.

Okay, I understand you Patrick. Although it seems that he/she just only wants to challenge us if we could really resolve the paradox and as what you have said, it can’t be for certain apparent reason. After all for the sake of debate and intellectual discussion I guess.

Now, upon reviewing this I used to have some conversations with one of my colleagues a year ago. Check the following at http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/genesis/genesis1.htm

Check Ch.1:4, Ch.2:2-3 and Ch. 4:4-5

After Cain left the Lord’s presence he went to a place where he met his wives. Of course these women are different from Eve, his mother. Now it would appear that in Ch.1:4, God really created humans, both male and female and He even told them to be fertile and multiply. What I am thinking here is that, in the Ch.2:2-3, Adam whom God created out of clay was separately formed from those humans as stated in the Ch.1:4. Now, since Cain went to a place farther from where his parents stayed, he met women which could be one of those humans created by God as stated in the Chapter 1:4. Now, if we could recall, God’s chosen people are from the descendants of Adam. What about those who are not, certainly they are not. As I believe, the Bible contains lot of mysteries that appear to be parable for the most of us.

I know there’s really nothing wrong in knowing where did living things originate from. It would give a clear picture of the past. But until now, it’s still the same argument among evolutionists regarding the formation of life and everything presented remains to be a theory after all. Upon posting my previous post before this one, my feelings perhaps concentrated on my tiredness upon hearing/reading redundant questions and ideas in regards to our origin. That’s the reason why I might have said those things there. My apologies if I have appeared to be rude there.

Going back to the story in Genesis, I know that the notion there might not be accepted by most of us since the forum is intended for scientific discussions with the exploration and application of facts or evidences and when we start presenting ideas from the Bible, most of us do really asks for evidences proving every notion identified there, just as most of the evolutionists may always start to argue with. It was clearly written there that God said to His living creations to be fertile and multiply in number. They were fertile so reproduction is possible, we just don’t know if the way they multiplied was through asexual or sexual means.

Sexual reproduction appeared as an extra way of recombination for asexual organisms. The first organisms didn’t simply abandon asexual reproduction but developed a parallel system. The "useless sex cells for the male/female (to be)" AFJ is so worried about quite likely served another purposes before they were used in sexual reproduction, just like it often happens during evolution (fins were first used for swimming, later for crawling in the mud and finally for walking etc). At the moment my best guess is that they were specialist cells used for binary fission, or some more advanced version of it. And there did not have to be a sudden emergence of both a male and female of the first sexually reproducting organism, because the first such organisms were initially able to produce "general purpose gametes" with no specific sex, then both male and female gametes. Only later emerged "male" and "female" when one lost the ability to produce the other gamete type.

You can see even in today’s world that there are many species that can reproduce both sexually and asexually, and there are also many organisms that can produce both male and female gametes.

And for gamila, the first bird mated with the last reptilebird because the species were so closely related. The bird gene turned out to be dominant, so all the chicks of the bird+reptilebird became birds and voilá!

Of course, I cannot say for certain if this was the case because it was quite a long time ago, but it probably happened in a similar manner. Just because I cannot explain something completely doesn’t mean it did not happen or is untrue. I am not an evolutionary biologist anyway, so maybe one of the specialists in the field actually could explain this in a more precise manner.

That’s because Canalon speaks about different thing than I do: he simply stated that if you view species as a strict category (which is how you stubbornly keep doing), it is by default a paradox (which is, by definition, something that cannot be solved). However, if you read further, Canalon says that if you view species as a dynamic system without clear-cut boundaries, it is not a paradox any more. And that is what I tried to explain with that bird/birdreptile example. And by calling for a specialist to explain it better I simply meant that some evolutionary biologist might give you a specific example of this, because the birdreptile was just something I used to describe the situation in general terms.

So, what is the problem? There are species, most of which can be easily classified. Some need more sophisticated means to place in their rightful species and then there is a small minority where it is difficult to determine the exact species of an organism. It is these difficult-to-define species (or groups of organisms if you like) that are maybe in the middle of speciation and thus difficult to tell apart.

If you consider the diversity of all living organisms, it is only to be expected that our methods to categorize all this aren’t perfect. It still doesn’t mean the term species is useless – quite to the contrary. For general purposes (and often even for advanced purposes) it works just well.

The bottom line is still, I think, that the nature doesn’t give a damn whether you or I have difficulties in determining every single group of organisms the is into their correct species. The animals, plants and others are there. They belong to different groups morphologically, genetically, phenotypically and so forth. New species evolve, others cease to exist. No matter how much you try to deny it, evolution and natural selection take place.

Well, I did try to stick to a bit more sophisticated and civilized register for a while, but I must admit that this self-repeating ape that calls himself gamila is just too fucking annoying for me. So I revert back to my vulgar style and just say this:

gamila, you surely are one of the most gifted trolls I’ve seen for a while, quite an accomplishment in this wondrous world of the Internet.

So, someone else please continue while I catch my breath. Trying to reason with gamila is like talking to a mushroom: it doesn’t respond very well. Hope you others have better luck!

Oh, as a side note, it’s not too bad either that by repeating the same seven lines over and over again the guy manages to make us others to extend this thread to 60 posts and counting. In the end, it’s difficult to say who looks more stupid he with his twenty word repertoire (of which colin leslie whowasit takes a considerable part) or us still taking part in this conversation…

Congratulations Gamila,

you won. with selective posting, refusal to discuss the points that have been made to you and your extensive stupidity you manage to piss everyone off. So you win the debate, because there is no point debating with someone putting their hands on their hears and repeating loudly and obnoxiously the same question without acknowledging answers. You seem to think that things are simple, but in science things are usually a bit more complicated than that.

That said I will leave you alone as long as you follow the forum rules, and I let you stay convinced of the superiority of the guy with plenty of letters after his name, a complete ignorance of what he is talking about convinced that you are right. At least once again the internet demonstrate that anyone with the ability to type on a keyboard and enough self righteousness can disseminate the wackiest stupidity to the world.
I am starting to regret the pre-Gutenberg time where publishing onebook would take a lifetime and at least develop your manual skills.

Depending on what theory of evolution you follow, different answers can be found for this "paradox." Richard Dawkin’s ideas appeal to me the most at the moment.

Evolution is driven, not by population of macro-organisms, but by the combined workings of genetic variation and cumulative selection. In other words, probability is key.

Every variation of DNA has a possibility of existing within one generation of any other variation. The possibility is so large that it is hardly even a factor. Imagine a giant building with many floors filled with every variation of DNA-based organisms lined up spatially according to difference in variation. A Golden Shepard is very close to a Golden Lab, but separated from a Siamese by hundreds of millions of organisms that might never exist at all. Thus the probability of a Golden Sheppard giving birth to a Siamese is inconceivably large, and has probably not happened in the known universe at any time. But the probability that "Organism X" might give birth to an organism some way between it and "Organism Y" is extremely likely. "Species" are simply illusions that occur when you look at a billion-year process at a single moment in time.

The bird mated with the other birds so like it that a modern zoologist would not even notice that they were different. There was no first bird because "bird" is a man-made label applied to things with characteristics similar to another. Before birds were 99.9999% birds and before them were 99.9998% birds.

I believe I’ve stated that correctly.

Edit: Perhaps the word "percentage" was a bad one to use, because it implies that once you have reached o%, you have switched to a new species. What I am trying to say is that species are irrelevant to evolution, organisms flow seamlessly into each other.

True. "Colin" is hung up on the concept of species – he’s being overly semantic. Species is just a classification which some organisms fit neatly into, while others do not.

To say that evolution/natural-selection doesn’t exist because we can’t put 100% certainty into our classifications is ridiculous.

"bird" is just a word we use to describe an organism that possesses a suite of traits – and ostensibly common lineage with other "birds."

Furthermore, what is a "first" organism? Is it the first because it was born with a new mutation? Or is it the first because it is the first time an organism in the population has possessed a particular suite of traits (traits which were present, but not in this specific configuration)? What about litter-mates, was it the first to hatch/be-born?
Clearly we’re speaking of an organism that is different from its parent population, but by how much?

Semantics aside – the "first" organism can typically still mate with its parent population. It’s offspring will be variable, but those that posess favorable traits will ultimately become more abundant.

So betaBird gives birth to Bird1.0. Bird1.0 mates with a betaBird and has a mixed clutch of betaBirds, Bird1.0s, and intergrades between. The offspring go on to reproduce – also mating with betaBirds – producing a mix of betas and 1.0s. Over generations it turns out that Bird1.0s have a selective advantage and after a while betaBirds are extirpated.

gamila I expect more of a response to this than another quotation or a one-liner.

1 – Biology is not destroyed by an unclear definition of the word "species". Your semantical paradox fails.
2 – I don’t use the word "bird" for this very reason. It calls to mind a nuthatch being born from a velociraptor egg or some such ridiculousness. Instead I examine a linear progression of genetic change in organisms that have some or all characteristics of what we would call a bird (Birds are not species btw, try Class (Aves))

I think you’re misunderstanding me. I’m saying betaBirds are the parent population (though they may already be in a state of evolutionary flux, thus "beta"). I’m also saying Bird1.0 is analogous to (but not the same as) your "first bird." So I am answering your question, but I’m not using your words because they create false assumptions.

In my example I’m making no attempt to declare anything as a species – only varying grades of organism in the evolution/selection process. Your "first BIRD" would be my bird1.0 WITH THE DISTINCTION that this "bird" is not necessarily a new species – it is just the first of its kind to posess all traits which can be used to identify it as a bird rather than something else. This difference could have been something as simple as a chromosomal mutation with little to no outward effect. The Bird1.0 would still be able to mate with other betaBirds (parent population) but the new genes would be spread over subsequent generations and natural selection would kick in.

Let me address "species" for a moment. Species, to me, are essentially ecologically stable gene cohorts. They exist as a "species" because their particular genes and physiology have enabled them to prosper and reproduce to a point at which there are many organisms that share very closely the same characteristics that enabled their ecological success. Think of them as existing in evolutionary plateaus – where there is the least resistance to their current genetic configuration. While populations rest in these stable states, they can typically be classified as species – but remove that stable state, introduce genetic variation, change selective pressures and the lines between species will likely become blurred.

Take for example; dogs. Selective pressure on Canis lupus, pre domestication, was probably fairly static and the species was clearly defineable. Introduce domestication and breeding by humans, and now we have many lineages of Canis whose specific identity are questionable/unknown. Canis familiaris? Canis lupus ssp. familiaris? It’s all jumbled.

So if you imagine a graph in which the change in organisms’ genes over time is mapped, you’ll see varying rates of change, interspersed by periods of relative stability. It is during those states of stability that we can, with some confidence, consider a group of organisms a species or perhaps subspecies. At other points on the graph, we can only speculate an identity of individual organisms based on what we percieve their lineage to be.

Getting back to my example: betaBird would represent a population of organisms in evolutionary flux due to changes in their environment or genes. It’s not what we would consider a stable "species." Bird1.0 would be theoretically the first organism in that population that possesses the traits that may one day become the standard in a "stable state." However, by no means is Bird1.0 a new species. It’s just a representative of an extreme variation within the parent population.

*edit below this line* ———————
PS: What the hell is with your wikipedia quote? Don’t you understand by now that that irritates the crap out of people? If they want to read the info you link to, they’ll click on your link… You REALLY need to control your impulse to spam quotes. (Your first two quotes were appropriate, I’m just talking about your last, very large wikipedia quote)

The problem is that is your opinion. Who is Dean to tell us what we understand? I know exactly what a species is, and so do scientists, no matter what you say Gamila.

The only point you have is that species is a taxonomic approximation. An owl defines an organism with a certain similar phenotype. They are unique and DEFINABLE.

Approximations are used in chemistry also. One example is in stoichiometry. Moles are approximations of the number of atoms or molecules for an element or compound. A chemist would never know if he is a hundred atoms off when he is mixing chemicals–but he still gets the right reaction, because it is close enough to produce what he wants. Because he used an approximation in his formula does not negate the product produced, NOR CHEMISTRY.

THE SAME EXAMPLE COULD BE USED WITH THE PYTHAGOREAN THEOREM AND THE BUILDING OF A HOUSE. I could cut a rafter using the the P.T. for a height from a center point of 131 and 1/3 cm and a distance from the center point (forming a right angle) of 146 and 1/3 cm. One third is a repeating decimal which is an approximation, but yet my rafter will fit in the real world Gamila.

P.S. Do you understand what semantics are, because that is what you’re using? Look it up.

Gamila, do you know what prokaryotes are–they are bacteria. Bacteria by nature change genetically very quickly. They are very different from Eukaryotes (us) genetically–that’s why they are in a seperate domain from protists, fungi, plants and animals. They ingest plasmids and are infected by viruses. Thus they have insertions, deletions and replacement of their DNA. Some of them revert back and are called revertants.

SO because they change in their genetic material and in their phenotype scientist aren’t sure what to call them when this happens. Because they don’t have a word for a creature that varies genetically does not negate the science of biology. I insist you are falling prey to lexical semantics. Please reconsider your argument. "Species Problem" is not "species negation."

gamila did you even read what I wrote? I honestly spent a lot of time writing it, and I’m offended that you so flippantly dismissed it without apparently giving it any thought. Furthermore, you went ahead and spammed another huge quote.

If you want any credibility (which you have pretty much none at this point) you need to demonstrate that you’re actually thinking about and interacting with what others say, rather than sticking to your lines.

I noticed that you avoided addressing my bird example, or anything I said about transitional organisms. I told you who the first "bird" mated with and you ignored it…

Birds are organisms that fall into the broad classification of Class Aves. Clearly there are species of birds. My point was that when you say "the first bird" you aren’t even talking about a species, just an organism that meets the classification criteria for what we now call Class Aves.

So gamila, if species are meaningless nonsense, how do you propose that we protect threatened and endangered species if they’re just threatened and endangered nonsense? How do we continue agriculture if we’re just raising a bunch of crops of nonsense? How do we keep invasive nonsense from ruining our natural resources? How do we prevent diseases that are caused by nonsense?

Gamila,

Your stubbornness amazes me. I am a creationist–creationist used to believe in species fixity, but we realize there is variation within the genome and phenotypes, and there is common ancestry. Robins all had a common ancestor–it is theorized that they varied into a modern animal from an ancestor off the the ark. ( I know that sounds stupid to evolutionists, but it sounds stupid to me when evolutionists say that collagen, blood cells, and heme in a t.rex bone is 68 m years.)http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur.html

I said all that to say that species is part of a family of organisms that interbreed–that is hard fact. Bacteria are an exception, not the rule for taxonomy.

Gamila,
You are asking me–a creationist? What do you think I believe the answer to be to that question? I believe Genesis. Genesis says "God created THEM male and female"….and "let there be fowl" (KJV) which is plural.

I’ve said this before–are you ignoring me, or is that too simple an answer for you? If it is too simple then it clearly shows the complexity of the creation around us?

If you did not have a spiritual nature, why would you even care about such a question?

If you were just a product of mutation and natural selection you would only be worried about having your resources so you could pass on your genes to the next generation!

I knew you would key in on that single statement and ignore any/all other valid points. I regret saying it, not because it’s not true, but because it encouraged you to simply spam your "paradox" again.

I’ve also addressed the issue of definition of species – and you’ve ignored that. No one here has attempted to argue that we know exactly what species are. We realize the problems inherent in our classification system. It is NOT, however, invalidated by those problems. Like I said before, your logic is faulty. The only person that is refusing to open their eyes is you.

This is the first time you’ve asked what the first species of bird mated with. Up until now it has clearly been the "first bird."
The answer to this is simple. The first species of birds reproduced within their own population.

Your next question will be – "How did this population form from a single individual which must have reproduced with something?" Which I’ve already answered in my Bird1.0 example.

Any more questions?

I appreciate you answering rather than spamming quoted misinformed logic. Unfortunately, that was your best armor (It calls to mind an ostrich with its head in the sand).

How will we know what organisms to protect if we have no clear idea of which organisms belong to which genetic lineages? For example, Fritillaria gentneri is a federally threatened species, but it has a VERY strong resemblance to Fritillaria recurva. Now if we had no way of distinguishing between the two species, we would assume that all the organisms that look like that are just fine because there’s lots of them. Furthermore, if we had no name for all the organisms that looked like them, we wouldn’t even be able to address them scientifically at all. They would just be nameless organisms that have no relevance.

We name things so that we can communicate ideas about them and learn more about them. We are not always correct in our grouping and naming, but that does not make the process wrong.

An apple is an apple, but there are many varieties. If I wanted a cortland but I just asked my friend to buy me an apple, chances are I’d get a red-delicious or a fuji. Furthermore, if there was no name for "apple" I’d have to ask my friend to get me one of those round, red fruits that grows on trees. I’d probably end up with a nectarine.

I told you what my perception of "species" is. It may not be ironclad, or even the most commonly accepted definition – but I challenge you to show me in what way it is meaningless nonsense.

FURTHERMORE: It is indeed difficult(impossible?) to develop a definition of "species" that applies to ALL LIFE; however, within discreet lineages (which you were kind enough to spamquote wikipedias list of) a species is MUCH more defineable. So, just because the same definition of species does not apply to both archaebacteria and mammals DOES NOT mean that there is no such thing as species in either lineage.

Locating objects of investigation (rare, threatened, and endangered species and subspecies of plants) is what I do for a living. Interesting that you seem to think it’s impossible.

Did they?

This is an important distinction gamila:
-If you’re talking about the first species, then you’re talking about a population; multiple organisms.
-If you’re talking about the first bird, then you’re talking about an individual organism.

Bird1.0 of my example will go on to be the predecessor of a new lineage of organisms – ie Class Aves. At what point a new species emerges is not necessarily clear. In my example there may not be a clearly defineable species for many generations to come, until the environment and gene pool have "settled down" and become more stable and homogenous.

So I have told you what the "first bird" mated with, and I have told you what the first species of birds mated with.

Finally we have this:

I’m not sure who you’re quoting here, but it’s not me. I don’t think that anyone believes this. There is the possible scenario where an individual of species A gives birth to a lot of species B – so much so that they’re capable of interbreeding and forming a new population.

the first bird mated with the last lizardbird

I’m trying to tell you, gamila, that by the time a "species" is distinguishable, there are many organisms that possess the traits of that species – and they are existing in a relatively stable state, environmentally and genetically. They reproduce amongst themselves.

There will be many descendants of Bird1.0 that possess the traits of a "bird" (lets call them Bird1.1). Founder-effect will have been mitigated by cross-breeding with the parent population at first. Eventually the new traits introduced by the first Bird1.0 will become dominant in a new population of Bird1.1. At this point either the parent population will be extirpated, or further environmental or genetic changes will occur which will separate the populations.

————

I’ve answered your question(s):
What did the "first bird" mate with?
–It’s parent population.
What did the "first bird species" mate with?
–They mated within their population.

And I add this note: We have no way of knowing what the first bird species was. I can only speak of a "first species" of bird in a retrospective sense, assuming that IF scientists had been around at the time to assign classficatory designations, they would have felt confident enough to declare this population a new species. This is all hypothetical. HOWEVER these sorts of scenarios can be reasonably extrapolated from what we know today about evolutionary processes.

—————

Finally: Your assertion that there is no such thing as species is wrong. Definitions across all phyla may be unclear, but at the Family-Genus-Species level it is VITAL to biological work that we be able to classify organisms in order to study them. It is a classification system, one which only aids us in conceptualizing what we observe empirically. You are wrong wrong wrong, but you will never admit it because your (Colin’s) entire logic hinges on that one stubborn assertion that "species" is meaningless nonsense.

So you are either so dense that you can’t comprehend my bird explanation, or you just refuse to consider it.

Either way, I feel like I’ve said my piece, and am content in the argument I’ve put forth. If you feel like it, reread my posts a couple of times and maybe it’ll all sink in. Unlike you, I’ll refrain from spamquoting myself.

As far as species are concerned, there is near-unanimous agreement on the most important issues concerning species. To expect 100% unanimity would be making the assumption that "species" is a universal truth – which it’s not.

You can continue to think that this invalidates biology, and we biologists will continue to do what we do because it’s the best system we have, and it works.

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

Besides, Colin Leslie Dean(CLD) is a philosopher and has no grasp of biology, let alone evolution. Biologist have defined what a species is. Though I have to admit, the definition starts to break down when describing asexual organisms.

The definition of a species is a group of organisms that can interbreed. Not that hard.

Well then according to the definition the Bactrian Camel and the Dromadry Camel can be considered different breeds rather than species. Like a Chihuahua to a Doberman (Dogs)or an Arabian to a Quarter(Horses).
Example of species would be a Puffin to a Penguin.

the first bird mated with the last lizardbird
thus
colin lesile dean is talking nonsense

How do you conclude that biologists don’t know what a species is because there is a "species problem?"
That’s two different things.

Do you know the nature of the problem and why it is a problem?

Species don’t just roll out like a new sedan. It takes a while for them to split from the original population.

Like I said a speciation doesn’t happen instantly. There was not a first "bird". Because of environmental changes and mutation, nature favored dinosaurs that were more bird-like until they looked much like birds do today. This is after many many generations of reproduction.

the first bird mated with the last birdlizard
thus
colin lesile dean paradox is falsified

gamila, here’s ur answer: the "first bird’ mated with other "first birds"

OTHER SIMILAR ARGUMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE TIME AND TIME AGAIN

see:
EVOLUTION IS WRONG BECAUSE OF WOODPECKERS
–WOODPECKERS DEFY EVOLUTION BECAUSE THE FIRST BIRD WOULD HAVE BROKE HIS BEAK TRYING TO PECK THROUGH THE HARD WOOD

etc etc
im not versed in this disinformation, but i’ve been alive long enough to hear the same tune sung in a different chord

you don’t get it bro, all this evolution stuff happens over a continuum

Wait…. So a Utah Raptor didn’t give birth to a flamingo? That just doesn’t make sense.

Gamila,

So you are saying that a Donkey with gene A can’t mate with a Donkey with mutated gene A(mA)? What if gene mA made a Donkey more fit than Donkeys with gene A. You should end up with a lot of Donkeys with gene mA, no?

The first species of bird reproduced with other members of its species.

And you can’t regurgitate that species A and species B garbage. I already explained how you can get a lot of a new species.

Just replace "Donkey" with "Bird" and then multiply by many generations, you get speciation. The mA population become so different that they can no longer have viable offspring with the A population.

the first bird mated with the last lizardbird
thus
colin leslie dean paradox is meaningless nonsense

Gamila,

What I’m trying to say is there really isn’t a "first" of a species. You see, when you look at the Tree of Life and you see a species fork off from it’s parents species, that fork isn’t a very defined fork. It is more of a blurry fork, because there is still some interbreeding between the different populations. This interbreeding goes on until the populations become so different they can no longer have viable offspring. Then you can consider them to be separate species.

You can’t just look at a newborn animal and say" Hey that thing looks different from its mom, it must be a new species."

Gamila, I don’t know if you’ve notice this, and biohazard has been imitating this for his own amusement, but you are regurgitating the same mindless automaton garbage despite anything anyone has said.

It is difficult to have an intelligent conversation with you. So I’m going to attempt to turn this discussion around. Can you describe your theory so that we can examine your ideas on how life on this planet has come about?

So than we can’t trust ourselves? Do you really agree that "all" products of human thinking end in nonesense? Ex. Airplanes started as a human thought. Ex. Prayers are products of human thought. All art is a product of human thought. Who must we depend on to do the thinking for us?

This still doesn’t explain life on earth, and you debase your own ability to think for yourself. What makes you think Colins own thoughts and ideas aren’t corrupt as well?

Hell no, I’m not going to read his book, aspecially if it is going to be meaningless. I can’t believe any respectable human being would listen to such a person. Completely rediculous.

You have to be an imposter, playing around with our emotions. I have to come to the conclusion you are just having some fun on our forums. Well have you had a good laugh? 😛

this discussion is *bleep* terrible.
and i can barely decide where to begin.
if you can’t understand speciation, its probably because you can’t get your head around the fact that it takes

A LOT OF TIME

this conlin leslie dean fellow only convinces the ignorant

if you take a camel from one region and mate it with another camel, why the *bleep* are you surprised when you get a *bleeping* camel?
its obvious that an offspring may be produced and may be viable. speaking entirely as a lay-man if you are surprised, thats just dumb
HAVE YOU EVER HEARD OF A MULE?????
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mule

apparently the definition of species is LOOSE at that juncture.
what about a pig and a cat? what about a bird and a mouse? what about a bacterium and a fungi? what about a bacterium and a human??????? those are two different species, can they mate successfully?? there’s probably a very good reason why we don’t have these hybrids.

LOL funny way to say it

If this thread is going nowhere, why not just lock it? I think all the points refuting the paradox have been stated by now. Or just ban gamila, that would work too. 🙄

Tell me how you define exactly what the first bird was, how you distinguish it from the bird-like organisms it evolved from. There is no exact point at which the first bird existed. From a common ancestor, the species gradually became more bird-like until we have the birds we know today. But that took millions years to go through, so no one can see exactly where one ancetor starts and another begins.

If you insist though, the first "bird" we know today probably mated with an extremely bird-like species that was not exactly like todays but very similar. Similar enough for the bird to mate with.

Okay, rephrasing: Bird-like animals gradually gained different traits until today’s birds. At any specific time, though, all bird-like animals would be the same species.

A better response is that there was no "first bird." Populations evolve not individuals. I have told gamila this over and over, but he ignores me like everyone else. P.S. Don’t waste anymore time on him.

Mono-regional theory leads to a paradox, and muli-regional – not leads. Here’s an example:

Our ancestors were flying?
http://translate.google.ru/translate?pr … ry_state0=
( http://spacenoology.agro.name/?page_id=24 )

Could it be you are almost there? Yes, the population could be made up of millions of individuals, or more often, thousands or hundreds of individuals. Individuals reproduce, but populations evolve. Evolution is a change in gene frequency over time… individuals do not change in gene frequency, that is why they do not evolve. The size of the population does not preclude evolution. If a gene confers a benefit to fitness, it will increase in the population… this is simple statistics. Studies have shown even a small benefit is sufficient. Thus, there does not need to be multiple mutations all at the same time. One is enough, assuming a mutation is part of the preocess, which is not even necessary. This is where you may have been misinformed… mutations are not required for a given speciation event, though they may be invovled. I told you before that polygenic traits can vary widely without any new mutations, but you continue to ignore me. Do some research on population genetics.

Once again, I spoke too soon. You keep playing stupid word games, responding to only parts of my post (not even full sentences), and repeating yourself, Colin. And no, you are not an authority, so stop quoting yourself in the third person. /thread.

Cain paradox in the Bible? There is no such thing, the Bible does not say that Adam and Eve had no other children, and even though they were related, the bloodlines would have been purer than now.

Jon

I have no love for you. But avoid gamila. This is not a creationist, nor an evolutionist, just a post-modernist of the worst kind for whom reality is just an artifact of our perception. His/her only goal was to promote his/her silly book published by a vanity press in australia. S/he is not interested in listening waht other have to say, and do not care. S/he is of such abysmal selfcenterd and egotistical stupidity that I would rather all of the landoverbaptist forums than one more post of Gamila so I will lock this thread to keep that monster out. Not for you, you are free to spew your ignorance in the rest of the forum, but not here.
"Here be dragons" and I do not want to wake them up.