Intelligent Design speciation

Why some biologists are beginning to question the “biological species concept”

Spread the love

Because it hasn’t made sense for quite some time and some are beginning to notice the problem.

The problem that Hejnol sees with the whole system is that the ranks don’t mean anything specific or uniform across all groups of life. Even though species is arguably the most important rank across multiple fields of biology, there are dozens of species concepts in use — and biologists working with different groups of organisms can’t seem to agree on just one. You might think that the other end of the hierarchy would be more settled, but it wasn’t so long ago that domains simply didn’t exist — the three domains we use today (Archaea, Bacteria and Eucarya) were only proposed in 1990. At that time, the top rank was kingdom, and there were five of those; now there are at least six, though some say there should be as many as 32. Similar ambiguities plague all the taxonomic ranks in between — even those often considered to be major, distinct and unambiguous, like phyla.

Perhaps this could all be resolved if the scientific community simply agreed upon a definition for each rank, but there’s no consensus for that.


Christie Wilcox, “What’s in a Name? Taxonomy Problems Vex Biologists” at Quanta

If modern biology began with “On the Origin of Species,” many may be willing to live with chaos to protect the sacred history.

See also: A physicist looks at biology’s problem of “speciation” in humans

Follow UD News at Twitter!

49 Replies to “Why some biologists are beginning to question the “biological species concept”

  1. 1
    Mimus says:

    … some are beginning to notice the problem.

    Here’s Dobzhansky referring to the fact no one can agree on a species concept in 1935.

    Biologists have always accepted that no single species concept describes all of biology. Why you can’t learn this simple fact I do not know.

  2. 2
    Brother Brian says:

    Minus

    Biologists have always accepted that no single species concept describes all of biology. Why you can’t learn this simple fact I do not know.

    It’s because of a little book written over a century ago. I think it was called “ Origin of Species”.
    Or something like that.

  3. 3
    Belfast says:

    BB
    I think you have missed the point. Species concept was there long before Darwin; he fossilised the species concept, trying to be another Linnaeus. Over decades biologists have tried to define species, still are.

  4. 4
    bornagain77 says:

    Darwin, because of the reductive materialistic foundation that his theory rested upon, denied that there were any true ‘species’. He held the the term species “as one arbitrarily given, for the sake of convenience” and that it “does not essentially differ from the term variety, which is given to less distinct and more fluctuating forms.”

    “I look at the term species as one arbitrarily given, for the sake of convenience, to a set of individuals closely resembling each other, and that it does not essentially differ from the term variety, which is given to less distinct and more fluctuating forms. The term variety, again, in comparison with mere individual differences, is also applied arbitrarily, for convenience’s sake.”
    – Origin of Species: second British edition (1860), page 52

    For the Darwinian materialist there can be no real permanence of species assigned in any real classification scheme that one may try to devise since there simply is no permanence of form within reductive materialism itself to build any real classification scheme upon. The failure of the reductive materialistic explanations of Darwinian evolution to even be able to explain the basic defining form of any given organism and/or species was touched upon yesterday, in some detail, in my reply to Bob O’Hara,

    Thus in conclusion, the ‘bottom up’ reductive materialistic framework of Darwinian evolution is found, from several lines of empirical evidence, to be grossly inadequate for explaining how any particular organism might achieve its basic form. Moreover, to state what should be glaringly obvious, since neo-Darwinian explanations are grossly inadequate for explaining how any particular organism might achieve its basic form, then neo-Darwinian speculations for how one type of organism might transform into another type of organism are based on pure fantasy and have no discernible experimental basis in reality.
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/darwinism-must-have-bypassed-chernobyl/#comment-679348

    Darwin himself expected that “innumerable transitional forms must have existed” and was befuddled as to “why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?”

    “But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?”
    Darwin – chapter 6

    These missing innumerable transitional forms that, according to Darwin himself, ‘must have existed’, are still missing

    “Darwin’s prediction of rampant, albeit gradual, change affecting all lineages through time is refuted. The record is there, and the record speaks for tremendous anatomical conservatism. Change in the manner Darwin expected is just not found in the fossil record.”
    Niles Eldredge and Ian Tattersall, The Myth of Human Evolution (New York: Columbia University Press, 1982), 45-46.

    “Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them.”
    David Kitts – Paleontologist – D.B. Kitts, Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory (1974), p. 467.

    “What is missing are the many intermediate forms hypothesized by Darwin, and the continual divergence of major lineages into the morphospace between distinct adaptive types.”
    Robert L Carroll (born 1938) – vertebrate paleontologist who specialises in Paleozoic and Mesozoic amphibians

    “Every paleontologist knows that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of family appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences.”
    George Gaylord Simpson (evolutionist), The Major Features of Evolution, New York, Columbia University Press, 1953 p. 360.

    “The record certainly did not reveal gradual transformations of structure in the course of time. On the contrary, it showed that species generally remained constant throughout their history and were replaced quite suddenly by significantly different forms. New types or classes seemed to appear fully formed, with no sign of an evolutionary trend by which they could have emerged from an earlier type.”
    Peter Bowler, Evolution: The History of an Idea (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1984), 187.

    Scientific study turns understanding about evolution on its head – July 30, 2013
    Excerpt: evolutionary biologists,,, looked at nearly one hundred fossil groups to test the notion that it takes groups of animals many millions of years to reach their maximum diversity of form.
    Contrary to popular belief, not all animal groups continued to evolve fundamentally new morphologies through time. The majority actually achieved their greatest diversity of form (disparity) relatively early in their histories.
    ,,,Dr Matthew Wills said: “This pattern, known as ‘early high disparity’, turns the traditional V-shaped cone model of evolution on its head. What is equally surprising in our findings is that groups of animals are likely to show early-high disparity regardless of when they originated over the last half a billion years. This isn’t a phenomenon particularly associated with the first radiation of animals (in the Cambrian Explosion), or periods in the immediate wake of mass extinctions.”,,,
    Author Martin Hughes, continued: “Our work implies that there must be constraints on the range of forms within animal groups, and that these limits are often hit relatively early on.
    Co-author Dr Sylvain Gerber, added: “A key question now is what prevents groups from generating fundamentally new forms later on in their evolution.,,,
    http://phys.org/news/2013-07-s.....ution.html

    And again, for the Darwinian materialist, there are merely “fluctuating forms” and “individuals closely resembling each other”. To a reductive materialist, everything is, ultimately, reducible to particles in motion and therefore everything must be constantly in flux. There simply is no real permanence to appeal to within the Darwinian scheme. As Pastor Joe Boot explains, “As the ancient Greeks held, like Democritus and others, the universe is flux. It’s just matter in motion. Now on that basis all you are confronted with is innumerable brute facts that are unrelated pieces of data. They have no meaningful connection to each other because there is no overall structure. There’s no design plan. It’s like my kids do ‘join the dots’ puzzles. It’s just dots, but when you join the dots there is a structure, and a picture emerges. Well, the atheists is without that (final picture). There is no pre-established pattern (to connect the facts given atheism).”

    “As the ancient Greeks held, like Democritus and others, the universe is flux. It’s just matter in motion. Now on that basis all you are confronted with is innumerable brute facts that are unrelated pieces of data. They have no meaningful connection to each other because there is no overall structure. There’s no design plan. It’s like my kids do ‘join the dots’ puzzles. It’s just dots, but when you join the dots there is a structure, and a picture emerges. Well, the atheists is without that (final picture). There is no pre-established pattern (to connect the facts given atheism).”
    Pastor Joe Boot – 13:20 minute mark of the following video
    Defending the Christian Faith – Pastor Joe Boot – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqE5_ZOAnKo

    This denial of the permanence of form by Darwinists, as Dr. Michael Egnor points out in the following video, is the denial of what is truly real about a species. As he stated, “Form is what makes things real. And what I believe materialism does in modern science is it denies that the form of things is the most important aspect of them.”

    “Materialism, in my viewpoint, is not even really a philosophical perspective. It’s just a mistake. It’s like,, claiming 2+2=5 is mathematics. It’s not really mathematics. It’s just an error. And materialism isn’t even sufficiently coherent, in my view, to qualify as a philosophical perspective. The best philosophy originated with the ancient Greeks. Particularly with Aristotle. And what Aristotle proposed, and what really became mainstream metaphysics for such philosophers as Saint Thomas Aquinas, and the scholastic philosophers, is that things that exist in the world are composites of form and matter. And the form is the intelligible aspect of things. And matter is what makes something an individual thing not just sort of a theoretical thing. But the actuallity, the intelligibility, of something is in the form. It’s not in the matter. Form is what makes things real. And what I believe materialism does in modern science is it denies that the form of things is the most important aspect of them.”
    Michael Egnor: The (neuro-scientific) Evidence against Materialism – 27:17 minute mark
    https://youtu.be/BqHrpBPdtSI?t=1637

    That is to say, when Darwinian materialists deny ‘form’, they end up denying that species truly exists. The following article more clearly elucidates what Dr. Egnor is talking about:

    Darwin, Design & Thomas Aquinas
    The Mythical Conflict Between Thomism & Intelligent Design by Logan Paul Gage
    Excerpt: First, the problem of essences. G. K. Chesterton once quipped that “evolution . . . does not especially deny the existence of God; what it does deny is the existence of man.” It might appear shocking, but in this one remark the ever-perspicacious Chesterton summarized a serious conflict between classical Christian philosophy and Darwinism.
    In Aristotelian and Thomistic thought, each particular organism belongs to a certain universal class of things. Each individual shares a particular nature—or essence—and acts according to its nature. Squirrels act squirrelly and cats catty. We know with certainty that a squirrel is a squirrel because a crucial feature of human reason is its ability to abstract the universal nature from our sense experience of particular organisms.
    Think about it: How is it that we are able to recognize different organisms as belonging to the same group? The Aristotelian provides a good answer: It is because species really exist—not as an abstraction in the sky, but they exist nonetheless. We recognize the squirrel’s form, which it shares with other members of its species, even though the particular matter of each squirrel differs. So each organism, each unified whole, consists of a material and immaterial part (form).,,,
    One way to see this form-matter dichotomy is as Aristotle’s solution to the ancient tension between change and permanence debated so vigorously in the pre-Socratic era. Heraclitus argued that reality is change. Everything constantly changes—like fire, which never stays the same from moment to moment. Philosophers like Parmenides (and Zeno of “Zeno’s paradoxes” fame) argued exactly the opposite; there is no change. Despite appearances, reality is permanent. How else could we have knowledge? If reality constantly changes, how can we know it? What is to be known?
    Aristotle solved this dilemma by postulating that while matter is constantly in flux—even now some somatic cells are leaving my body while others arrive—an organism’s form is stable. It is a fixed reality, and for this reason is a steady object of our knowledge. Organisms have an essence that can be grasped intellectually.
    Denial of True Species
    Enter Darwinism. Recall that Darwin sought to explain the origin of “species.” Yet as he pondered his theory, he realized that it destroyed species as a reality altogether. For Darwinism suggests that any matter can potentially morph into any other arrangement of matter without the aid of an organizing principle. He thought cells were like simple blobs of Jell-O, easily re-arrangeable. For Darwin, there is no immaterial, immutable form. In The Origin of Species he writes:
    “I look at the term species as one arbitrarily given, for the sake of convenience, to a set of individuals closely resembling each other, and that it does not essentially differ from the term variety, which is given to less distinct and more fluctuating forms. The term variety, again, in comparison with mere individual differences, is also applied arbitrarily, for convenience’s sake.”
    Statements like this should make card-carrying Thomists shudder.,,,
    The first conflict between Darwinism and Thomism, then, is the denial of true species or essences. For the Thomist, this denial is a grave error, because the essence of the individual (the species in the Aristotelian sense) is the true object of our knowledge. As philosopher Benjamin Wiker observes in Moral Darwinism, Darwin reduced species to “mere epiphenomena of matter in motion.” What we call a “dog,” in other words, is really just an arbitrary snapshot of the way things look at present. If we take the Darwinian view, Wiker suggests, there is no species “dog” but only a collection of individuals, connected in a long chain of changing shapes, which happen to resemble each other today but will not tomorrow.
    What About Man?
    Now we see Chesterton’s point. Man, the universal, does not really exist. According to the late Stanley Jaki, Chesterton detested Darwinism because “it abolishes forms and all that goes with them, including that deepest kind of ontological form which is the immortal human soul.” And if one does not believe in universals, there can be, by extension, no human nature—only a collection of somewhat similar individuals.,,,
    Implications for Bioethics
    This is not a mere abstract point. This dilemma is playing itself out in contemporary debates in bioethics. With whom are bioethicists like Leon Kass (neo-Aristotelian and former chairman of the President’s Council on Bioethics) sparring today if not with thoroughgoing Darwinians like Princeton’s Peter Singer, who denies that humans, qua humans, have intrinsic dignity? Singer even calls those who prefer humans to other animals “speciesist,” which in his warped vocabulary is akin to racism.,,,
    If one must choose between saving an intelligent, fully developed pig or a Down syndrome baby, Singer thinks we should opt for the pig.,,,
    https://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=23-06-037-f

    There is much more that could be said on this topic, but for now I will conclude with the fact that for a Darwinist to pretend that he can build any realistic classification scheme of species upon his reductive materialistic framework is a futile exercise in self delusion.

    There simply is no permanence of form within his Darwinian classification scheme that he can appeal to so as to give his proposed classification scheme a coherent and solid foundation.

    Matthew 7
    26 And everyone who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. 27 And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell, and great was the fall of it.”

  5. 5
    Seversky says:

    The difficulties with constructing a universal species concept is hardly a new issue in biology. The Australian philosopher of science John S Wilkins has written about it extensively, including highly-regarded books such as Species: A History of the Idea (2009) and Defining Species: A Sourcebook from Antiquity to Today. (2009)

  6. 6
    ET says:

    Brother Brian:

    It’s because of a little book written over a century ago. I think it was called “ Origin of Species”.

    The book that never discussed the origin of species.

  7. 7
    Bob O'H says:

    The weird thing is that if you read the actual article the OP is linking to, it’s not about species, it’s about higher taxonomic levels. And yeah, they are rather arbitrary.

  8. 8
    ET says:

    Most of us are accustomed to the Linnaean system of classification that assigns every organism a kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, and species, which, among other possibilities, has the handy mnemonic King Philip Came Over For Good Soup. This system was created long before scientists understood that organisms evolved. Because the Linnaean system is not based on evolution, most biologists are switching to a classification system that reflects the organisms’ evolutionary history.

    On that Linnaean system of classification:

    The standard system of classification in which every organism is assigned a kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, and species. This system groups organisms into ever smaller and smaller groups (like a series of boxes within boxes, called a nested hierarchy).

    And yet we are told by talk origins (Doug Theobald) that only branching evolutionary processes can produce a nested hierarchy- well only because evolutionists don’t seem to understand what a nested hierarchy entails. http://www.talkorigins.org/faq....._hierarchy

    And his figure 1 isn’t a nested hierarchy.

  9. 9
    Seqenenre says:

    How do we classify humans with Down syndrom? If having an extra chromosome still classifies as Homo sapiens then it is obvious that our species concept is rather fluffy.
    Or are they an intermediate?

  10. 10
    ET says:

    @ Seqenenre-

    Trisomy- I would guess on how meiosis handles it or if it causes reproductive isolation.

  11. 11
    goodusername says:

    Brother Brian,

    It’s because of a little book written over a century ago. I think it was called “ Origin of Species”

    If one actually opens the book, however, it will quickly be apparent that Darwin didn’t believe that “species” have an objective reality, which is why, as he mentions, there are countless definitions of “species”. Darwin believed that “species” originated via natural selection, however one defines the term, but, as he argues throughout Origin of Species, there’s an arbitrariness as where to draw lines in nature.

    In fact, as far back as his observations of the Galapagos finches, it’s one of the things that convinced him that “species” originated in a gradual way:

    Many years ago, when comparing, and seeing others compare, the birds from the closely neighbouring islands of the Galapagos archipelago, one with another, and with those from the American mainland, I was much struck how entirely vague and arbitrary is the distinction between species and varieties.

    A common debate between non-evolutionists and evolutionists in the 19th century (and even 18th century) was whether “species” were a real, objective “thing”, or were they a subjective, arbitrary, human construct. Non-evolutionists generally leaned towards the former, and evolutionists towards the latter.

  12. 12
    Brother Brian says:

    GUN@11, I agree. The only mystery is why ID proponents think that the fuzziness of “species” is somehow antithetical to evolution. If anything, this fuzziness is something that would be expected if evolution proceeded as the theory proposes. Any snapshot in time should show “species” that are clearly distinct from their closest relative and can’t interbreed, others that still maintain the ability to interbreed and produce viable offspring, and others that can interbreed but produce non-fertile offspring. And this is what we see.

  13. 13
    Silver Asiatic says:

    If species is a group that can breed together but not with other groups, and we see that these species exist – I always saw that as an argument against evolution since evolution should show a fluid continuum of organisms making it impossible to determine species. The inability to breed with other organisms would not be a fitness advantage.

  14. 14
    AaronS1978 says:

    I’ve said this before as pointed out by bb and sa
    Arguing the same points from different perspectives

    This is why we need nonaggressive calm dialogues and start trying to look at each other’s perspectives with more respect, this goes for everyone (excluding Jerry Coyne just him he is to meat roboty to have an opinion)

    I’m going to venture a guess about the species stuff and Darwin, I’m pretty sure it stems from the ridiculousness in classification when it comes to Neanderthal and us and whether they really were a separate species

  15. 15
    Mimus says:

    If species is a group that can breed together but not with other groups, and we see that these species exist – I always saw that as an argument against evolution since evolution should show a fluid continuum of organisms making it impossible to determine species.

    You might want to talk to News here, who thinks that fact species cannot be defined in this way is a problem from evolution (although why this should be the case is less clear). BTW, this is not alwasys true

    The inability to breed with other organisms would not be a fitness advantage.

    If the hybrids of such an corssing are unfit then any mechanism that prevents the production of such offspreing is itself a fitness advantage.

  16. 16
    AaronS1978 says:

    “If the hybrids of such an corssing are unfit then any mechanism that prevents the production of such offspreing is itself a fitness advantage.”

    This assumes that this would be the case, which is where people start to disagree, you have stated a possible but hypothetical reason, it is a point but not Necessarily true nor does it invalidate the original claim, (many would respond to that with this being evolutionary story telling and hand waving) its simple that it might have happened that way, but we could not know if that really is the case, and a species developing a genetic block to stop such Hybridizations shows a high level of foresight, as most species have developed this for all others species, except for those closely related to its own kind, and given how many duck reproductive systems evolve to prevent reproduction with its own species, I’m less inclined to support that.

    This also falls into the category of infinite explanatory power of the theory, where it loses validity and prompts “who has their hand on the bat last syndrome” arguments.

    Now if there was an experiment that could validate it, no problem then and all is well, but it would not prove evolution or ID one way or the other, this could be seen as an attribute of both.

    I hope the tone of my message was not bad

  17. 17
    Mimus says:

    You are responding to an argument I didn’t make.

    SA made a comment to the effect that inability to breed with given organisms would never have a fitness benefit. As it turns out, this is simply not true.

    Now, if you want to know when and under which circumstances it is beneficial to precent outcrossing, or just to learn the many ways species can become reproductive isolated without natural selection at all, then you should consult the very rich literature on “isolating mechanisms” in speciation. You’ll find a lot more than “just so” stories if you do.

  18. 18
    bornagain77 says:

    Gun at 11 states,

    A common debate between non-evolutionists and evolutionists in the 19th century (and even 18th century) was whether “species” were a real, objective “thing”, or were they a subjective, arbitrary, human construct. Non-evolutionists generally leaned towards the former, and evolutionists towards the latter.

    In that statement Gun basically concedes the point I made at post 4. Again Gun stated that Darwinists tend to lean towards the belief that the concept of “species” is not real but is “a subjective, arbitrary, human construct.”

    Where oh where have have I heard Darwinian materialists claim that something is not real but is only imaginary? Oh I remember, that would be everything, (including our own sense of self), that is not material.

    As I have pointed out several times now, assuming Naturalism instead of Theism as the worldview on which all of science is based leads to the catastrophic epistemological failure of science itself.

    Basically, because of reductive materialism (and/or methodological naturalism), the atheistic materialist is forced to claim that he is merely a ‘neuronal illusion’ (Coyne, Dennett, etc..), who has the illusion of free will (Harris), who has unreliable beliefs about reality (Plantinga), who has illusory perceptions of reality (Hoffman), who, since he has no real time empirical evidence substantiating his grandiose claims, must make up illusory “just so stories” with the illusory, and impotent, ‘designer substitute’ of natural selection (Behe, Gould, Sternberg), so as to ‘explain away’ the appearance (i.e. illusion) of design (Crick, Dawkins), and who must make up illusory meanings and purposes for his life since the reality of the nihilism inherent in his atheistic worldview is too much for him to bear (Weikart), and who must also hold morality to be subjective and illusory since he has rejected God (Craig, Kreeft).
    Bottom line, nothing is real in the atheist’s worldview, least of all, morality, meaning and purposes for life.,,,
    – Darwin’s Theory vs Falsification – video – 39:45 minute mark
    https://youtu.be/8rzw0JkuKuQ?t=2387

    Thus, although the Darwinist may firmly believes he is on the terra firma of science (in his appeal, even demand, for methodological naturalism), the fact of the matter is that, when examining the details of his materialistic/naturalistic worldview, it is found that Darwinists/Atheists are adrift in an ocean of fantasy and imagination with no discernible anchor for reality to grab on to.

    It would be hard to fathom a worldview more antagonistic to modern science than Atheistic materialism and/or methodological naturalism have turned out to be.

    2 Corinthians 10:5
    Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;

    Besides Darwinists denying that we really exist as real people but are merely illusions, the Darwinist, if he were consistent, would also claim that mathematics itself is not real but is only an imaginary construct of the human mind,,,

    What Does It Mean to Say That Science & Religion Conflict? – M. Anthony Mills – April 16, 2018
    Excerpt: Barr rightly observes that scientific atheists often unwittingly assume not just metaphysical naturalism but an even more controversial philosophical position: reductive materialism, which says all that exists is or is reducible to the material constituents postulated by our most fundamental physical theories.
    As Barr points out, this implies not only that God does not exist — because God is not material — but that you do not exist. For you are not a material constituent postulated by any of our most fundamental physical theories; at best, you are an aggregate of those constituents, arranged in a particular way. Not just you, but tables, chairs, countries, countrymen, symphonies, jokes, legal contracts, moral judgments, and acts of courage or cowardice — all of these must be fully explicable in terms of those more fundamental, material constituents.
    In fact, more problematic for the materialist than the non-existence of persons is the existence of mathematics. Why? Although a committed materialist might be perfectly willing to accept that you do not really exist, he will have a harder time accepting that numbers do not exist. The trouble is that numbers — along with other mathematical entities such as classes, sets, and functions — are indispensable for modern science. And yet — here’s the rub — these “abstract objects” are not material. Thus, one cannot take science as the only sure guide to reality and at the same time discount disbelief in all immaterial realities.
    https://www.realclearreligion.org/articles/2018/04/16/what_does_it_mean_to_say_that_science_and_religion_conflict.html

    As alluded to above there are an endless litany of things that everyone, including Darwinists, insist that are real but that fall into the catagory of being abstract, and thus, (on a Darwinian materialistic view of reality), necessarily illusory,

    If something is not composed of particles or does not have physical properties (e.g., mass, energy, orientation, position, etc), it is abstract, i.e., spiritual. Numbers, mathematics, logic, truth, distance, time, beauty, ugliness, species, person, information, etc.. etc.. fall in that category. It is amazing how many things fall in that category even though most of us, including scientists (which is also an abstract term), swear they exist physically.

    Moreover, to make this dilemma even more devastating to the Darwinian materialists, it turns out that atoms themselves are not the solid indivisible concrete particles, as they were originally envisioned to be by materialists, but it turns out that the descriptions we now use to describe atoms themselves, the further down we go, dissolve into “abstract conceptual tools for describing nature, which themselves seem to lack any real, concrete essence.,,,”

    Physics Is Pointing Inexorably to Mind
    So-called “information realism” has some surprising implications
    By Bernardo Kastrup – March 25, 2019
    Excerpt: according to the Greek atomists, if we kept on dividing things into ever-smaller bits, at the end there would remain solid, indivisible particles called atoms, imagined to be so concrete as to have even particular shapes. Yet, as our understanding of physics progressed, we’ve realized that atoms themselves can be further divided into smaller bits, and those into yet smaller ones, and so on, until what is left lacks shape and solidity altogether. At the bottom of the chain of physical reduction there are only elusive, phantasmal entities we label as “energy” and “fields”—abstract conceptual tools for describing nature, which themselves seem to lack any real, concrete essence.,,,
    https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/physics-is-pointing-inexorably-to-mind/

    In fact, according to quantum theory, the most fundamental ‘stuff’ of the world is not even matter or energy at all but is immaterial information itself

    “The most fundamental definition of reality is not matter or energy, but information–and it is the processing of information that lies at the root of all physical, biological, economic, and social phenomena.”
    Vlatko Vedral – Professor of Physics at the University of Oxford, and CQT (Centre for Quantum Technologies) at the National University of Singapore, and a Fellow of Wolfson College – a recognized leader in the field of quantum mechanics.

    “It is operationally impossible to separate Reality and Information”
    (48:35 minute mark)
    “In the beginning was the Word”
    John 1:1 (49:54 minute mark)
    Prof Anton Zeilinger speaks on quantum physics. at UCT
    https://youtu.be/s3ZPWW5NOrw?t=2984

    Thus, in irony of ironies, not even the material particles themselves turn to be are ‘real’, (on a materialistic definition of what is ‘real’), but turn out to be immaterial information.

    This puts the die-hard materialist in quite the conundrum because as Bernardo Kastrup further explains in the preceding article, to make sense of this conundrum of a non-material world of pure abstractions we must ultimately appeal to an immaterial mind.

    Physics Is Pointing Inexorably to Mind
    So-called “information realism” has some surprising implications
    By Bernardo Kastrup – March 25, 2019
    Excerpt: “To make sense of this conundrum,,, we must stick to what is most immediately present to us: solidity and concreteness are qualities of our experience. The world measured, modeled and ultimately predicted by physics is the world of perceptions, a category of mentation. The phantasms and abstractions reside merely in our descriptions of the behavior of that world, not in the world itself.,,,
    Where we get lost and confused is in imagining that what we are describing is a non-mental reality underlying our perceptions, as opposed to the perceptions themselves. We then try to find the solidity and concreteness of the perceived world in that postulated underlying reality. However, a non-mental world is inevitably abstract. And since solidity and concreteness are felt qualities of experience—what else?—we cannot find them there. The problem we face is thus merely an artifact of thought, something we conjure up out of thin air because of our theoretical habits and prejudices.,,,
    As I elaborate extensively in my new book, The Idea of the World, none of this implies solipsism. The mental universe exists in mind but not in your personal mind alone. Instead, it is a transpersonal field of mentation that presents itself to us as physicality—with its concreteness, solidity and definiteness—once our personal mental processes interact with it through observation. This mental universe is what physics is leading us to, not the hand-waving word games of information realism.
    https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/physics-is-pointing-inexorably-to-mind/

    Or to put it much more simply, as Physics professor Richard Conn Henry put it at the end of the following article, “The Universe is immaterial — mental and spiritual. Live, and enjoy.”

    The mental Universe – Richard Conn Henry
    The only reality is mind and observations, but observations are not of things. To see the Universe as it really is, we must abandon our tendency to conceptualize observations as things.
    Excerpt: “The Universe is immaterial — mental and spiritual. Live, and enjoy.”
    – Richard Conn Henry is a Professor in the Henry A. Rowland Department of Physics and Astronomy, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland
    http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/The.mental.universe.pdf

  19. 19
    Brother Brian says:

    BS77

    In that statement Gun basically concedes the point I made at post 4. Again Gun stated that Darwinists tend to lean towards the belief that the concept of “species” is not real but is “a subjective, arbitrary, human construct.”

    Of course the concept of species is a subjective human construct. Who has suggested otherwise? The same applies to genus, order, family, phylum, kingdom, etc. They are all the result of a subjective human classification system.

  20. 20
    AaronS1978 says:

    Mimus

    “The inability to breed with other organisms would not be a fitness advantage.

    If the hybrids of such an corssing are unfit then any mechanism that prevents the production of such offspreing is itself a fitness advantage.”

    This is what I quoted and this is what I dissected in my last post I don’t see how I miss read this and my response I believe is quite appropriate to it

    Nor was I even stating that you were making an argument but a statement that can lead to arguments

    I simply pointed out the possible outcomes and how people might respond to it

    Secondly you assume that I am not aware of these rich texts that you speak of for isolating mechanisms in speciation, and other topics like genetic drift, and the so-called just so stories that I pointed out above

    Do you assume that everybody on UD is completely uneducated, and has no understanding of evolution but yourself?

    I’m just wondering because I’m questioning a lot of your previous comments, Particularly about PaV As they have quite the sarcastic undertone or am I just miss reading your commentary

    Now I feel treated what I quoted with respect, If I didn’t please let me know in a cordial and polite manner if not we need not discuss any further and I will know it’s not worth engaging you

  21. 21
    Mimus says:

    I’m not sure what the point of this is. For what it’s worth. I genuinely think you are ignorant of the literature on isolating mechanisms. I’m not sure why else you could write the post that you did.

    Certainly most people posting at UD don’t know much evolutionary biology. There is not shame in that, of course. It’s only holding very strong opinions on topics that you are ignorant about that I object to.

  22. 22
    AaronS1978 says:

    Lol that’s what I thought

    I wrote the post that I wrote because of how you responded to sa you didn’t explain anything you just made a statement and you expect everybody to understand and know what you were talking about I explained how they would respond to you, that shows nothing to whether or not I am ignorant to the literature that you speak of

    You strike me as arrogant, and arrogant and ignorant do go hand-in-hand I don’t need to engage you anymore and you’re not really worth talking to, much like what you stated about KF, and BA 77, that’s all I needed to hear from you

  23. 23
    bornagain77 says:

    BB claims that,

    Of course the concept of species is a subjective human construct. Who has suggested otherwise? The same applies to genus, order, family, phylum, kingdom, etc. They are all the result of a subjective human classification system.

    Aside from the fact that you entirely missed the main point of my post, which was that EVERYTHING, including material particles themselves, turn out to be a ‘subjective human construct’ (aside from that minor overlooked detail on your part), I want to thank you for bringing up the classification system of “genus, order, family, phylum, kingdom”.

    It turns out that the fossil record itself reveals an ‘upside down’ pattern for the appearance of the various classifications than what Darwin’s theory predicted should be the order of appearance for the various classifications. The following video touches upon that ‘upside down’ pattern

    Cambrian Explosion Ruins Darwin’s Tree of Life (2 minutes in 24 hour day) – video (2:55 minute mark)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vA2LDiWeWb4

    As Dr. Wells pointed out in the preceding video, Darwin predicted that minor differences (diversity) between species would gradually appear first and then the differences would grow larger (disparity) between species as time went on. (i.e. universal common descent as depicted in Darwin’s tree of life). What Darwin predicted should be familiar to everyone and is easily represented in the following graph.,,,

    The Theory – Diversity precedes Disparity – graph
    http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/JOURNEY/IMAGES/F.gif

    But that ‘tree pattern’ that Darwin predicted is not what is found in the fossil record. The fossil record reveals that disparity (the greatest differences) precedes diversity (the smaller differences), which is the exact opposite pattern for what Darwin’s theory predicted.

    The Actual Fossil Evidence- Disparity precedes Diversity – graph
    http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/JOURNEY/IMAGES/G.gif

    As Erwin stated, “The fossil record suggests that the major pulse of diversification of phyla occurs before that of classes, classes before that of orders, orders before that of families. The higher taxa do not seem to have diverged through an accumulation of lower taxa.”

    Jerry Coyne’s Chapter on the Fossil Record Fails to Show “Why Evolution is True” – Jonathan M. – December 4, 2012
    Excerpt: Taxonomists classify organisms into categories: species are the very lowest taxonomic category. Species are classified into different genera. Genera are classified into different families. Families are classified into different orders. Orders are classified into different classes. And classes are classified into different phyla. Phyla are among the very highest taxonomic categories (only kingdom and domain are higher), and correspond to the high level of morphological disparity that exists between different animal body plans. Phyla include such groupings as chordates, arthropods, mollusks, and echinoderms.
    Darwin’s theory would predict a cone of diversity whereby the major body-plan differences (morphological disparity) would only appear in the fossil record following numerous lower-level speciation events. What is interesting about the fossil record is that it shows the appearance of the higher taxonomic categories first (virtually all of the major skeletonized phyla appear in the Cambrian, with no obvious fossil transitional precursors, within a relatively small span of geological time). As Roger Lewin (1988) explains in Science,
    “Several possible patterns exist for the establishment of higher taxa, the two most obvious of which are the bottom-up and the top-down approaches. In the first, evolutionary novelties emerge, bit by bit. The Cambrian explosion appears to conform to the second pattern, the top-down effect.”
    Erwin et al. (1987), in their study of marine invertebrates, similarly conclude that,
    “The fossil record suggests that the major pulse of diversification of phyla occurs before that of classes, classes before that of orders, orders before that of families. The higher taxa do not seem to have diverged through an accumulation of lower taxa.”
    Indeed, the existence of numerous small and soft-bodied animals in the Precambrian strata undermines one of the most popular responses that these missing transitions can be accounted for by them being too small and too-soft bodied to be preserved.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....67021.html

    Erwin and Valentine’s The Cambrian Explosion Affirms Major Points in Darwin’s Doubt: The Cambrian Enigma Is “Unresolved” – June 26, 2013
    Excerpt: “In other words, the morphological distances — gaps — between body plans of crown phyla were present when body fossils first appeared during the explosion and have been with us ever since. The morphological disparity is so great between most phyla that the homologous reference points or landmarks required for quantitative studies of morphology are absent.”
    Erwin and Valentine (p. 340)
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....73671.html

    And as Valentine stated,

    “Darwin had a lot of trouble with the fossil record because if you look at the record of phyla in the rocks as fossils why when they first appear we already see them all. The phyla are fully formed. It’s as if the phyla were created first and they were modified into classes and we see that the number of classes peak later than the number of phyla and the number of orders peak later than that. So it’s kind of a top down succession, you start with this basic body plans, the phyla, and you diversify them into classes, the major sub-divisions of the phyla, and these into orders and so on. So the fossil record is kind of backwards from what you would expect from in that sense from what you would expect from Darwin’s ideas.”
    James W. Valentine – as quoted from “On the Origin of Phyla: Interviews with James W. Valentine” – (as stated at 1:16:36 mark of video)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtdFJXfvlm8

    And as Goldschmidt and Lewin remarked

    “The facts of greatest general importance are the following. When a new phylum, class, or order appears, there follows a quick, explosive (in terms of geological time) diversification so that practically all orders or families known appear suddenly and without any apparent transitions. Afterwards, a slow evolution follows; this frequently has the appearance of a gradual change, step by step, though down to the generic level abrupt major steps without transitions occur. At the end of such a series, a kind of evolutionary running-wild frequently is observed. Giant forms appear, and odd or pathological types of different kinds precede the extinction of such a line.”
    Richard B. Goldschmidt, “Evolution, as Viewed by One Geneticist,” American Scientist 40 (January 1952), 97.

    As Roger Lewin (1988) explains in Science,
    “Several possible patterns exist for the establishment of higher taxa, the two most obvious of which are the bottom-up and the top-down approaches. In the first, evolutionary novelties emerge, bit by bit. The Cambrian explosion appears to conform to the second pattern, the top-down effect.”

    And as Chen stated,

    Challenging Fossil of a Little Fish
    Excerpt: “In Chen’s view, his evidence supports a history of life that runs opposite to the standard evolutionary tree diagrams, a progression he calls top-down evolution.”
    Jun-Yuan Chen is professor at the Nanjing Institute of Paleontology and Geology
    http://www.fredheeren.com/boston.htm

    Moreover, as Stephen Meyer pointed out, there are ‘yawning chasms’ in the ‘morphological space’ between the phyla which suddenly appeared in the Cambrian Explosion,,,

    “Over the past 150 years or so, paleontologists have found many representatives of the phyla that were well-known in Darwin’s time (by analogy, the equivalent of the three primary colors) and a few completely new forms altogether (by analogy, some other distinct colors such as green and orange, perhaps). And, of course, within these phyla, there is a great deal of variety. Nevertheless, the analogy holds at least insofar as the differences in form between any member of one phylum and any member of another phylum are vast, and paleontologists have utterly failed to find forms that would fill these yawning chasms in what biotechnologists call “morphological space.” In other words, they have failed to find the paleolontogical equivalent of the numerous finely graded intermediate colors (Oedleton blue, dusty rose, gun barrel gray, magenta, etc.) that interior designers covet. Instead, extensive sampling of the fossil record has confirmed a strikingly discontinuous pattern in which representatives of the major phyla stand in stark isolation from members of other phyla, without intermediate forms filling the intervening morphological space.”
    Stephen Meyer – Darwin’s Doubt (p. 70)

    Moreover, this top down pattern in the fossil record, which is the complete opposite pattern as Darwin predicted for the fossil record, is not only found in the Cambrian Explosion, but this ‘top down’, disparity preceding diversity, pattern is found throughout the fossil record subsequent to the Cambrian explosion as well.

    Scientific study turns understanding about evolution on its head – July 30, 2013
    Excerpt: evolutionary biologists,,, looked at nearly one hundred fossil groups to test the notion that it takes groups of animals many millions of years to reach their maximum diversity of form.
    Contrary to popular belief, not all animal groups continued to evolve fundamentally new morphologies through time. The majority actually achieved their greatest diversity of form (disparity) relatively early in their histories.
    ,,,Dr Matthew Wills said: “This pattern, known as ‘early high disparity’, turns the traditional V-shaped cone model of evolution on its head. What is equally surprising in our findings is that groups of animals are likely to show early-high disparity regardless of when they originated over the last half a billion years. This isn’t a phenomenon particularly associated with the first radiation of animals (in the Cambrian Explosion), or periods in the immediate wake of mass extinctions.”,,,
    Author Martin Hughes, continued: “Our work implies that there must be constraints on the range of forms within animal groups, and that these limits are often hit relatively early on.
    Co-author Dr Sylvain Gerber, added: “A key question now is what prevents groups from generating fundamentally new forms later on in their evolution.,,,
    http://phys.org/news/2013-07-s.....ution.html

    Thus, regardless of however someone might want to ‘arbitrarily’ classify organisms, the fact of the matter is that Darwin’s theory is falsified as being the correct theory as to explaining what order the various levels of classification should appear. In fact, Darwin’s ‘bottom up’ theory gets the order of appearance completely backwards from what it actually is, i.e. ‘Top Down’!

  24. 24
    Silver Asiatic says:

    AaronS
    Your comments did not receive a response, but I just noted this as a key element:

    This also falls into the category of infinite explanatory power of the theory, where it loses validity

    Exactly. Fitness is established after-the-fact. I don’t think it is every shown clearly, nor can it be in historical speculations, how part of a population can become so unsuccessful that it is an advantage not to breed with it.

  25. 25
    Mimus says:

    Exactly. Fitness is established after-the-fact. I don’t think it is every shown clearly, nor can it be in historical speculations, how part of a population can become so unsuccessful that it is an advantage not to breed with it.

    You could start here.

  26. 26
    bornagain77 says:

    Of note:

    The fundamental theorem of natural selection with mutations – William F. Basener, John C. Sanford – June 2018
    Excerpt: Because the premise underlying Fisher’s corollary is now recognized to be entirely wrong, Fisher’s corollary is falsified. Consequently, Fisher’s belief that he had developed a mathematical proof that fitness must always increase is also falsified.
    https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00285-017-1190-x

    Fisher’s proof of Darwinian evolution has been flipped?
    – December 27, 2017
    Excerpt: we re-examine Fisher’s Theorem, showing that because it disregards mutations, and because it is invalid beyond one instant in time, it has limited biological relevance. We build a differential equations model from Fisher’s first principles with mutations added, and prove a revised theorem showing the rate of change in mean fitness is equal to genetic variance plus a mutational effects term. We refer to our revised theorem as the fundamental theorem of natural selection with mutations. Our expanded theorem, and our associated analyses (analytic computation, numerical simulation, and visualization), provide a clearer understanding of the mutation–selection process, and allow application of biologically realistic parameters such as mutational effects. The expanded theorem has biological implications significantly different from what Fisher had envisioned.
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/fishers-proof-of-darwinian-evolution-has-been-flipped/

  27. 27
    Brother Brian says:

    BS77

    Aside from the fact that you entirely missed the main point of my post, …

    You are under the mistaken impression that I, or anyone, reads your entire posts.

  28. 28
    bornagain77 says:

    ^^^^
    Which explains why you, yet again, revealed your ignorance when you felt free to comment on a post that you admit that you did not even bother to read.

    Most normal people would make sure not to embarrass themselves like that, and would try to at least have a minimal understanding of what they were commenting on before they actually commented on it, but apparently in the Darwinian troll world, having a minimal understanding of a subject is no impediment for the troll commenting on it.

    Apparently, for the Darwinian troll, self-imposed ignorance is to be celebrated not shunned.

    Since reading is not your thing, perhaps a picture will help you understand what you have just done:

    http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-RCoI.....20foot.jpg

  29. 29
    ET says:

    Mimus:

    Certainly most people posting at UD don’t know much evolutionary biology.

    What is there to know? Most of the claims made by evolutionary biology are untestable and as such outside of science. Evolutionary biologists still don’t even know what makes an organism what it is- meaning no one has any idea what determines form. And that would mean that evolutionary biology is nonsense unless it restricts itself to changes within a population over time.

  30. 30
    ET says:

    Brother Brian:

    If anything, this fuzziness is something that would be expected if evolution proceeded as the theory proposes.

    That alleged fuzziness is why evolution does NOT predict/ expect a nested hierarchy. That fuzziness ruins any attempts at producing distinct groups.

    But that is moot as there still isn’t any known evolutionary mechanism capable of producing eukaryotes.

  31. 31
    ET says:

    Brother Brian:

    They are all the result of a subjective human classification system.

    Objective, unless you are saying that science is subjective. The criteria used is based on scientific reasoning.

  32. 32
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Mimus

    As with most evolutionary speculations, the article says that something happens but it does not explain why. “We observe something, therefore evolution did it. One feature was selected because it is dominant in the population.”

    For example, selection in one population might favor a large body size, whereas in another population small body size might be more advantageous, while individuals with intermediate body sizes are comparatively disadvantaged in both populations.

    “Selection favors” … because the temperature dipped that summer, the temperature went up in the fall, the temperature dropped in the spring, then it went up in summer, there was a little less food, then there was more, then it didn’t taste very good, some predators wandered around, some were faster some were slower, the sky was gray, the sky was sunny. A small body is more advantageous than a large one. A middle sized body is less advantageous than both. A semi-small is even less fit. A semi-big is more fit. Then, of course, they can’t breed with each other any more, obviously. Yes, “selection favors” and “some become more fit or less fit”. Ok, if you say so.

    As another example, in the Tatra Mountains, the introduction of ibex from the Middle East resulted in hybrids which produced calves at the coldest time of the year.

    Great example of what really happens in evolution. Take some animals that were confiscated in one region and stick them back into the wild in another region and notice that there is a problem with interbreeding. Basically replicates “what selection favored” two million years ago. Of course.

    The different mechanisms of outbreeding depression can operate at the same time. However, determining which mechanism is likely to occur in a particular population can be very difficult.

    No, really? “Very difficult”? Come on. They can’t see that “selection favors”, then a certain “mechanism occurs”, then organisms become “more fit” or “less fit”? The Wikipedia editors need to work on that. It’s pretty obvious what happens. Like gravity, it’s totally predictable. How could anyone doubt it? Plus, it sounds so scientific, only a Ph.D. in biology could truly understand what is going on.

  33. 33
    Silver Asiatic says:

    ET

    That alleged fuzziness is why evolution does NOT predict/ expect a nested hierarchy. That fuzziness ruins any attempts at producing distinct groups.

    Perfect example of how evolution wants it both ways. Supposedly there is a clear nested hierarchy that only evolution could produce. But there is also fuzzy gradation that makes it impossible to distinguish species.

  34. 34
    AaronS1978 says:

    SA

    There are actually real articles about outbreeding, outbreeding depression, it’s advantages, Fairly high for outbreeding fairly low for outbreeding depression and it’s disadvantages

    I think it is a stretch to use it as an example of a survival advantage. the one time it is actually a survival advantage is incredibly incidental for example one set of the species requires a fatter beak to break the nuts the other one requires a thinner beak to get the nuts out of a small crack And their supposed offspring they produced has a medium sized beak that’s not good at either of the two tasks for the areas that they live in, this is of course incredibly situational. I guess a lot of situational incidents happened with all the species in all the world but I don’t know much about the subject I’m not sure.

  35. 35
    Silver Asiatic says:

    AaronS

    I appreciate the reference and yes, the Wikipedia entry is for a popular audience, not academic.
    At the same time, I have a problem with the concept in simple terms. Over the centuries that it takes for a new feature to emerge, fitness factors change often and what was less fit previously becomes more fit later. Being able to reproduce with the less fit is an advantage. Cutting off possibilities of reproducing with your own species isolates a part of the population for specific selection conditions, which will eventually change and make the risk of extinction much higher. A broader-base of reproduction possibilities is an advantage.

    And their suppose it offspring produced as a medium sized beak that’s not good at either of the two tasks for the areas that they live in, this is of course incredibly situational.

    Exactly. And supposedly, at one point, cutting off the possibility of reproduction with the medium beaks is an advantage for the survival of the species? It only isolates the fat beaks, and then puts the species at risk of extinction when the weather changes.

    I guess a lot of situational incidents happened with all the species in all the world but I don’t know much about the subject I’m not sure.

    I believe you know enough to point out that it doesn’t make any sense.

  36. 36
    AaronS1978 says:

    SA
    No no, I know, sometimes it’s hard to convey but my last post should be taken with a dash of sarcasm 😉

    Except for the google scholar part, That is actually something that I’m a huge advocate of, after participating in a two-year debate involving Wikipedia and both oxytocin and the free will wiki I found more misquotes, fallacious, Accusations and direct omissions of studies that completely contradicted the wiki’s

    The one that was the most writhe with Problems and dishonesty was oxytocin wiki

    It almost only supported the Paul Zack view of it, and such science writers as Ed Young have done incredible work criticizing the fallacious work of oxytocin fans and more importantly the original study was overturned by the original group of scientists that posted it, they found that they could not reproduce their findings on trust, this was not even mentioned on the wiki and a lot of Ed Young’s criticisms as well as other studies that completely contradict the idea that it is the love hormone were also omitted.

    They might’ve changed it since the last I looked at it which would be nice if they did, but I have found this is often the case when it comes to wiki

  37. 37
    Mimus says:

    So, just to recap the galloping goal posts here

    In 13 you said teh inability to breed without another organism could not be a fitness advantage.

    I explained in broad terms when it could be

    In 24 you said such a scenario can’t be shown

    I linked you to a high-level article that explains some of the conditions under which is ts possible and gives a few examples.

    You claim the general discussoin in the article is speculative then complain about the specifuc example because… actually, no, I don’t know what the point of your complain is

    You then go on some stock rant about fluctuating patterns fo selection, whith not suggestion as to why this is relevant to the topic of isolating mechanisms… a topic you learned about two days ago.

  38. 38
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Mimus

    I linked you to a high-level article that explains some of the conditions under which is possible and gives a few examples.

    Great explanation. You remain fully convinced that your theory is rigorously accurate. You did well for yourself. As for anyone else ??? Ok, I know – they don’t matter. Circle the wagons and defend the absurdity of your ideas at all costs. That strategy has worked very well so far!

  39. 39
    Mimus says:

    I really dont’ understand why so many people post like this, but it’s certinaly another sign that I should probably leave y’all to yourselves.

  40. 40
    AaronS1978 says:

    “I really dont’ understand why so many people post like this, but it’s certinaly another sign that I should probably leave y’all to yourselves.”

    Uhm good. I never understood why somebody as intelligent as yourself would continue wasting your time making posts that nobody here was educated enough to understand. And you just kept doing it over and over again. Isn’t repetition expecting a different result the definition of insanity. I don’t know I’m not educated enough to understand that.

    “I linked you to a high-level article that explains some of the conditions under which is ts possible and gives a few examples.”

    So your definition of a high-level article is a wiki?!
    Do you read what you write?

    This is an article and it’s actually relatively high level it’s an easy read, off of Google scholar

    https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1558-5646.1991.tb04333.x

    It almost supports your point of view

    There’s many of these articles you could post I suppose I’m not sure if anybody on this site would be able to understand them.

    But I suppose you’re no longer going to waste your time, correct.

  41. 41
    Mimus says:

    “high level” means “more abstract”, dealing with something in more general terms then a low level approach. So yes, I do think a Wikipedia page is high-level.

    I don’t think anything I post here is particularly difficult to understand. But I must admit I do find reactions like SA’s above disappointing. I wish people could learn about the real biology the missing out on, instead of launching into these defensive rant about unrelated topics.

    So, yes I probably will stop wasting my time here.

  42. 42
    AaronS1978 says:

    Most people’s interpretation of high-level usually means high-quality not higher levels of abstract in either case Wikipedia does not fit the bill

    Anyways good luck to you

  43. 43
    bornagain77 says:

    “I wish people could learn about the real biology the missing out on”
    – Mimus

    And ‘What in blue blazes does biology have to do with Darwinian evolution in the first place?”

    As Marc Kirschner, founding chair of the Department of Systems Biology at Harvard Medical School, stated, “In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, and physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all.”

    “In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, and physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all.”
    Marc Kirschner, founding chair of the Department of Systems Biology at Harvard Medical School, Boston Globe, Oct. 23, 2005

    Or as A.S. Wilkins, editor of the journal BioEssays, stated, “While the great majority of biologists would probably agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky’s dictum that “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution”, most can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas. Evolution would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superflous one.”

    “While the great majority of biologists would probably agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky’s dictum that “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution”, most can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas. Evolution would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superflous one.”
    A.S. Wilkins, editor of the journal BioEssays, Introduction to “Evolutionary Processes” – (2000).

    Darwinian Evolution simply has nothing to do with the science of biology.,,,,
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/darwins-fossils-freak-out-over-id-in-brazil/#comment-679530

  44. 44
    Brother Brian says:

    Mimus

    So, yes I probably will stop wasting my time here.

    Don’t leave me here alone…,. 🙂

  45. 45
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Mimus

    I wish people could learn about the real biology they are missing out on …

    I’ve been debating with evolutionists for about 15 years. I pose problems, questions and skepticism about the theory. I set the goalposts at the farthest point: How does evolution explain this in the most comprehensive way? What is the overall consistency of the theory? What I always get in reply is reference to the most trivial example, and that supposedly explains the problem with the theory. If anyone is moving the goalposts, it’s answers like that that do it.

    If you have advanced knowledge on the topic, and you want people to learn, then try engaging the topic in your own words in a dialogue. If you face hostility or sarcasm, it means that you’re dodging the question, concealing the problem or acting arrogant. It may also be true that your opponent has not understood your point yet. So, try to explain it again in different terms. Make it crystal clear. Be prepared to defend the whole scope of evolutionary theory, from bacteria to human beings – as a theory, not as a patchwork of ad hoc observations. That’s what furthers dialogue, understanding and learning.

    People like myself become upset when I feel I’m being lied-to and that ignorance about the real problems in evolutionary theory is masked by an attitude of superiority and arrogance. Other members of the evolutionary community have joined this blog and taken exactly the same attitude. So, when I saw it in you, I realized that the situation for any real discussion was hopeless.

    As for you, quitting the site because you don’t like the tone of some people – it seems defensive to me. Why not try to win people over with a superior argument?

  46. 46
    AaronS1978 says:

    @SA

    You put that nicer than I would have

    I took five years of microbiology and chemistry in college I was trying to major in the subject so I could become a doctor I’ve since then changed my major and I am trying to teach

    Without even as much is knowing my history or background mimus I assumed I was ignorant on the topics he was trying to present

    He wondered why I was asking him the questions above and what was the point of me asking him

    The point was to fish out whether or not he was blindly arrogant and believed that he and only he was the smartest person on site and the only one educated enough to talk to the subject

    He answered exactly as I would predict somebody of that attitude would answer

    Exactly without even as much as asking my educational background he took a very ignorant position and assumed

    Hence my sarcastic change towards him, his opinion no longer mattered to me

    I don’t assume peoples educational backgrounds at all I would just like to talk to them

    There are reasons why I can generally talk to most people I can still talk to brother Brian with a little problem yet you could see the war that goes on between him and BA77

    I do not suppose or assume superiority over anyone

    And if I’m wrong I will apologize and I will back off

    Brother Brian has been able to correct me on a couple of subjects which I apologize for and to be honest with you he does the same

  47. 47
    Brother Brian says:

    AaronS1978

    Brother Brian has been able to correct me on a couple of subjects which I apologize for and to be honest with you he does the same.

    Thanks AaronS1978. I enjoy our discussions as well. Although we probably disagree more than we agree, you have always done so without making it personal. A couple others, sadly, are pathologically incapable of doing so. I usually just ignore them but sometimes I avoid my own advice.

  48. 48
    bornagain77 says:

    AaronS1978, your experience with BB is VERY different from mine. In my experience with him he has persistently attacked me personally, many times solely because of my Christian beliefs, and has consistently refused to acknowledge when he is clearly mistaken on the scientific evidence.

    From my experience with him, I consider him a prime example of a atheistic troll who could care less for the truth. And who resorts to slander rather than engage in honest debate of the evidence. When shown to be wrong by the evidence itself he NEVER acknowledges it, but lashes out with personal attack towards me.

    I’m glad your experience is with him is different, but, again, mine has been VERY different than yours.

    Personally. in my exchanges with him, I wish he would honestly engage the evidence.

  49. 49
    asauber says:

    “From my experience with him, I consider him a prime example of a atheistic troll who could care less for the truth.”

    My experience is the same. BB can be diplomatic, but he is a troll when you peel back all the layers. He doesn’t really ground his positions other than that they are the typical atheist/progressive talking points, which are all just cultural fads.

    Andrew

Leave a Reply