Human Genome change rate increasing?

[godslanguage]

What failed Darwinian logic?

DB

A sign of great confidence? Take note that you have not even shown a single example that demonstrated any new species spawning due to RM, NS, genetic drift etc... And you believe your logic is sound? It is built around that premise, my hardcore Darwinian friend.

[waynepii]

If the middle members of a ring species die out, the ends might very well be taken as different species. Of course, if the middle does die out, would the ends be recognized as the remaining members of a ring? Quite possibly not.

So the question is "is there a ring whose ends would satisfy the criteria for being considered different species were the transitory middle members of the ring to die out?" IMO if examples of such ring species exist, they would constitute "proof" of speciation (although I would be very surprised if you would be it consider it so).

[godslanguage]

If the middle members of a ring species die out, the ends might very well be taken as different species. Of course, if the middle does die out, would the ends be recognized as the remaining members of a ring? Quite possibly not.

If the end species cannot reproduce (this means not that they choose not too, but that they cannot) with the beginning species in the "circle" as you say, then they would be considered a distinct species. Animals and humans make that choice in fact, preferentially, not to reproduce but does that mean they are different species or will soon be because of the very fact? The Darwinian seem to think so, that is not sound logic by any standard.

That is one way of testing, by doing it through artificial insemination.

The other is the ID way, to show how the bacterial flagellum and other molecular machines are not irreducibly complex.
All attempts are failures.

ID at least is trying to see what chance processes are actually capable of doing but the Darwinians don't like that. The Darwinians don't like the idea of "design detection" either since the probabilities are highly in favor of ID occurring.

http://www.seraphmedia.org.uk/ID.xml

[waynepii]

If the middle members of a ring species die out, the ends might very well be taken as different species. Of course, if the middle does die out, would the ends be recognized as the remaining members of a ring? Quite possibly not.

If the end species cannot reproduce (this means not that they choose not too, but that they cannot) with the beginning species in the "circle" as you say, then they would be considered a distinct species. Animals and humans make that choice in fact, preferentially, not to reproduce but does that mean they are different species or will soon be because of the very fact? The Darwinian seem to think so, that is not sound logic by any standard.

That is one way of testing, by doing it through artificial insemination.

The other is the ID way, to show how the bacterial flagellum and other molecular machines are not irreducibly complex.
All attempts are failures.
http://www.seraphmedia.org.uk/ID.xml

Most of the "irreducibly complex" structures have been shown to be not so irreducible after all. True, no one has shown that a bacterial flagellum actually did actually develop from a simpler structure having a different purpose and lacking certain key parts required for a workable flagellum. But the fact that such a simpler structure does exist (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_three ... 5D_.5B3.5D) makes this "irreducibly complex" structure considerably less "irreducible".

(see also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_ ... _flagellum)

ID at least is trying to see what chance processes are actually capable of doing but the Darwinians don't like that. The Darwinians don't like the idea of "design detection" either since the probabilities are highly in favor of ID occurring.

But most attempts at "design detection" I know of have very plausible explanations. While some may not find the explanations compelling, they certainly call the specific method of "detection" of design into question.

Even if some "irreducibly complex" structures cannot be currently explained (ie if the similarity of the type three secretion system to the flagellum hadn't been recognized) does not mean that an explanation doesn't exist. The fact that many "irreduciibly complex" structures have been shown to be reducible after all significantly reduces the weight of the "irreducible complexity" as a problem for evolution.

[godslanguage]

Hi waynepi, please continue about IC on GMAN's new thread from this point on...thanks!

[jlay]

So the question is "is there a ring whose ends would satisfy the criteria for being considered different species were the transitory middle members of the ring to die out?" IMO if examples of such ring species exist, they would constitute "proof" of speciation (although I would be very surprised if you would be it consider it so).

Down har in Tennessee we call that, "moving the goal posts."

You can't reconstruct the definitions to make proof.

[waynepii]

So the question is "is there a ring whose ends would satisfy the criteria for being considered different species were the transitory middle members of the ring to die out?" IMO if examples of such ring species exist, they would constitute "proof" of speciation (although I would be very surprised if you would be it consider it so).

Down har in Tennessee we call that, "moving the goal posts."

You can't reconstruct the definitions to make proof.

So give me your definition of a species (ie how would you tell one species from another) and I'll see what I can do.

[jlay]

When science can accomplish that, perhaps I'll give it a shot. your question proves a point. No one has quite agreed on what exactly defines a species. can we really apply what we know about fruit flies, to humans, and vice versa. does mutation within viruses ellude to humans and apes descending from a common ancestor?

[waynepii]

When science can accomplish that, perhaps I'll give it a shot. your question proves a point. No one has quite agreed on what exactly defines a species. can we really apply what we know about fruit flies, to humans, and vice versa. does mutation within viruses ellude to humans and apes descending from a common ancestor?

May I suggest http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation?

[jlay]

You moved the goal posts again. You said define species.
the definition for speciation is undermined if we don't have clear concise agreement of what constitutes a species.

The example they give is the three-spined stickleback. But it doesn't account for the possibility that what they observe is simply a natural product of what is in a stickleback's DNA. Just as mutations in viruses always produce viruses. The stickleback is still a stickleback. But there is something hardwired in the genetics to produce this effect. It is not blind chance.

Speciation is the evolutionary process by which new biological species arise.

See this is an example of reading preconceived notions into the evidence to arrive at a definition that excludes other scientific observations.

Is there a desinged purpose for what we describe as speciation? It's odd that certain creatures can exhibit this "speciation" in a very short cycle, and others none. If two flies, descended from a common species can't breed, what are they? Well they are still flies of course. Man can assign fancy hard to pronounce names to them, and then proclaim, "evolution."

You observe this and see bobo the chimp as your distant cousin. I observe this and see the results of genetic design.