You probably want to rephrase this part, as either 'organism' is not the word you want, or 'new' needs to be defined.

The problem here is that you'd then be asking for more than a lifetime's worth of observation. But taking together what we have observed along with the fossil record and genetic analysis, there's really not much more that you could want.

I mean we've seen the evolution of species that can no longer interbreed, we've seen how different dogs can look, we've seen bacteria create novel proteins -- it doesn't take much imagination to see where this all leads. And then when you look underground and find exactly what you were imagining, you'd almost have to be crazy to continue to deny evolution. (Not that I'm saying you deny evolution, but I think that understanding Concerto's objection as quoted doesn't encompass the full picture.)

You're right, "organism" is incorrect there.

Demonstrating mere novelty is not enough to justify the claim evolutionists are making.

There you go. When lacking evidence, let imagination take over.

more like, it doesnt take much imagination to come up with a decent hypothesis that is yet to be proven wrong.

wow i really feel bad for concerto after reading these last 2 pages.

Concerto,

You can honestly tell me that you would be saying the same exact stuff itt if the bible mentioned something that was clearly what we know as ToE? (when i say clearly let's imagine over 90% of all Christian sects believe it's true)

Fair enough, however:
You seem to be equating the two bolded categories in those two paragraphs (?) and I don't see the justification for this.

In the second paragraph, what makes you think 1) and 2) are necessarily distinct? I think this is the heart of my question - drosophila have been observed to split into two mutually distinct species in the sense that the two populations can no longer interbreed, yet are viable going forward. I can accept they're not "distinct enough" - but what's the criteria for determining that?

You even quoted me where I mentioned things other than novel proteins that have been demonstrated. Which part exactly did you miss?

Maybe you should have continued my quote to find the evidence you claim I'm lacking. Here, let me do it for you:

Semi-presumptuous FYP as per your concession to ganstaman above.

It still depends on your definition of 'species' and 'new'. I can't proceed without a fixed definition of both.

Can you please provide an exhaustive list of the necessary and sufficient criteria for determining that what you term 'macro-evolution' has taken place.

Is there some part of "Morphological distinctions aren't just movable goalposts; they're basically goalposts that can't be made sit still" that's in some way ambiguous? I will need the above-requested exhaustive list in order to satisfy this request.

Say what now?

thats right, hes started creating his own biological concepts

ToE provides mechanisms for how speciation occurs. Concerto's objection seems to be ‘prove to me that these mechanisms will never ever stop!’ (1). He’s incapable of ever accepting evolutionary evidence because his requirements for evidence are to show that 2 species ‘sufficiently different’ had a common ancestor(2).

He claims ‘sufficiently different’ means reproductively incompatible (3). Then when hes shown that the species are reproductively incompatible he’s basically said ‘well, I don’t consider them distinct organisms’(4). He’s using definitions of species not used in biology (5) and hes making up biological concepts (6).

Concerto, you are a lunatic.




1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

I don't know, maybe not. That is another topic though. My objections to the evolution hypothesis are based on the handwaviness of its arguments.

Yes.

That's what we see: two types of reproductive incompatibility.

To start with, a simple quantification of the differences. The two underlying categories of reproductive incompatibility correspond to vastly different orders of magnitude of genetic separation between parent and descendant. More importantly, a causal continuity between the types in which one leads to the other by reiteration of the first has not been demonstrated.

I did you a favor by snipping the end part because saying "you'd almost have to be crazy to continue to deny evolution" is a garbage argument.

Exhaustive? No, not given time constraints. For our purposes here, macro-evolution has occurred if both 1) the descendent population is reproductively incompatible with an ancestor population and 2) the mechanism of that reproductive incompatibility can be repeated within the descendent population to produce another descendent population that is reproductively incompatible with the first descendent population, etc indefinitely.

I don't mean what's the difference between your two categories, I mean how have you determined that the observed speciation of drosophila is not "distinct enough" to count as an example? What specific criteria are considered?

Incompatibility with ancestor population seems like setting an inherently unachievable goal. To demonstrate the possibility of the creation of new species through natural selection,iIt is sufficient (and has the advantage of being achievable) to demonstrate two sibling populations from a common ancestor which do not interbreed. (Provided they are "sufficiently distinct" which I still don't think has been defined although I concede such a classification may well exist).

That is not how the determination of type is made. The "distinct enough" property is a justification of the categorization by showing it fits into a broader biological scheme.

The determination of reproductive incompatibility type is made by asking, "Could the operation that produced this reproductively incompatible population be repeated on it to produce from it a subsequent reproductively incompatible population, an arbitrary number of times on successive populations?" The answer must be yes for a candidate mechanism of macro-evolution to be viable, but such has not been demonstrated.

I don't see how this answers the question - what do you mean by "type"? I havent seen you use that before.

Drosophila has been observed to evolve into two distinct, viable species. You and I agree that this in itself is not enough to demonstrate humans came from sludge. What would be enough? If one of the new drosophila had an extra couple of legs? Could distinguish color? Breathed water?

If your category of "distinct enough" is to mean anything I think these kinds of questions need to be answerable. (Is this tied up with the meaning of type I asked about above?)

Reposting: For our purposes here, macro-evolution has occurred if both 1) the descendent population is reproductively incompatible with an ancestor population and 2) the mechanism of that reproductive incompatibility can be repeated within the descendent population to produce another descendent population that is reproductively incompatible with the first descendent population, etc indefinitely.

The two types of reproductive incompatibility I am referring to here are macro-evolution versus whatever meets only the first criterion.

What would be enough is a function of the extrapolatability of the operation (or set of operations) that produced the observed "speciation" such that the operation could be repeatedly applied to the extent of giving rise to something like the current biodiversity. That is what has to be demonstrated, not a minimum difference of morphology necessarily.

Oh, so you're going with that and ignoring the other part where I mention the fossil evidence? Well done, continue to mischaracterize my quotes in order to make your argument.

Pretty much this, to be honest. I admit I was foolish - I assumed that when Concerto said 'science', he meant the same thing I meant when I said 'science'. Instead, Concerto-science is some enimgatic, never fully defined will-o'-the-wisp constituting whatever suits Concerto at whatever time.

Reproductive incompatibility, in order to be 'real', must combine with the (arbitrary, undefined) criteria constituting morphological differences. For some reason. That Concerto is disinclined to reveal.
How much time would be needed? Are you actually refusing to outline the criteria you require for persuasion of evolution's truth? Do you really expect to be taken seriously by anyone if you maintain that position?

And then we have an absolute doozy like this:
"A function of the extrapolability of the operation..." well my, my, my. And the bolded part, ah yes. What we must do, perhaps, is recreate an entire biosphere complete with whole separate kingdoms? The only consistent criterion I can see applied is Concerto's personal incredulity.

...yeah. I think I'm done here, pending an update from Professor Concerto.

I was feeling done with this, but I'll correct your "I don't seem to have been reading the actual thread" absurd mischaracterization.

All reproductive incompatibility has been "real" in this discussion.

A basis for categorizing a given reproductive incompatibility is the operation (mechanism, combination of mechanisms, etc) that caused it.

Just like there are felt-tip markers that are black verses those that are not, and times of day when the sun is up verses those when it is not, there are, I suggest, reproductive incompatibilities caused by operations that can be continually applied to produce successive populations where each is reproductively incompatible with its predecessor, and those that cannot.

So far, the former type of reproductive incompatibility inducing operation, which is essential to the evolution hypothesis, has not been shown to exist.

All of which has what, exactly, to do with speciation 'associated with "sufficient distinction" of overall morphology'?

The explanation in my previous post replaces "sufficient distinction" since that approach did not seem to get the meaning across.

...and drops all mention of 'morphology'. IOW, changes the subject altogether.

Whatever. Have a good one.

It seems to me that the reason you say that the first has not been demonstrated is because any putative example does not satisfy some unstated minimum difference of morphology.

Fruit flies have been shown to evolve into species which are not able to interbreed with sibling populations*. One reason this may be said to be 'not reproducible to the extent of giving rise to something like the current biodiversity' is due to the morphological similarity between the two resultant, viable populations. How else are you saying that those incremental changes are not sufficient to 'give rise to the current biodiversity'?

*You havent also directly addressed this - but requiring that it be demonstrated with parent populations is an unnecessarily strict prescription. If a parent population can be shown to have resulted in humans and possums it is enough to show those two can't interbreed, it's not necessary to identify a parent population and demonstrate neither sibling can interbreed with that.

This is only a misquote if you assume my intention in using it. For instance if my point in using it is to illustrate that many scientists do what Patterson was condemning (making up stories), else why would he even comment on it, then it is not a misquote at all. It is good to use this quote to demonstrate a scientist who is an evolutionist warning against what I observe happening all the time--scientists telling stories that cannot be put to the test. And the issue of putting theories to the test was the theme of my post. I never claimed to debunk evolution with that quote, or show an evolutionist admit there are no transitional forms, or other ways Creationists tend to misquote him. I have read the evolutionist retort to the use of this quote before and I don't believe I am out of place to use it to show what Patterson himself has observed.

In fact, on the talkorigins page which was linked to refute my use of the quote, it is said:

(emphasis mine)

It seems talkorigins concedes my use of the quote. For a person to make up stories about what the fossils mean is like making up stories about Santa--how do you put that to the test? The question should rather be how to prove positively the claim, yet in many circles the unproven stories are accepted and it's assumed the fossils do more than they can. Above, both talkorigins and Patterson make salient points which if applied to evolutionary theory consistently would go a long way towards demonstrating its insufficiency.

You continue to assert your own unproven assumptions. That you think micro vs. macro is only small differences is mere opinion. There are various theories on the subject. Since we don't observe macro there's no way of proving your claims.