Evolution as a "fact"

[Inferno]

1. Evolution is deemed a "theory" meaning that if theories are not absolute, (as you admitted and I underlined) then they cannot be fact, there is a huge contradiction here... .. I thought this was the league of "reason" for a reason.

No, I've already answered that. There is the theory of evolution and then there are the facts of evolution, the ones I highlighted above. I even gave you two excellent articles to read that would explain why that is so. Don't you remember?

Now on the last (or rather first) point: Which is evolution, a fact or a theory?

Well, you'll be delighted to hear that it's both.
Wait, what? Yeah, that's right, BOTH!

There are two excellent articles going into just that:
Richard E. Lenski's "Evolution: Fact and Theory" and Stephen Jay Gould's "Evolution as Fact and Theory"

2. Really...

As shown above, yes, really.

3. Not relevant to this discussion.

Actually, it is. I explained that this is the reason we don't call them something else and even gave you examples from every day life to back up my point.

4. Again, not relevant. I'd simply ask why not call it a zebu instead of a fact? and proceed to give it the definition you gave?

Because the world does not work the way you want it to, it's as simple as that. We would have to invent thousands of terms just for science, let alone for every day life. Again, it depends on the context. Is a star a ball of gas in the sky or is it a famous person? It depends on the context. And until you understand that, you won't understand anything else I'm trying to teach you.

5. How can such be in error when you state the exact same thing as I underlined?.... Again... "reason"...

I already showed that you misunderstand the term "fact", so what point is there in having a discussion about laws, hypotheses and theories? Absolutely none.
Is there any point in teaching a student about calculus if they don't understand that 2+2=4? No. You don't understand the equivalence of 2+2=4, so how can I teach you the equivalent of calculus? It's nonsensical.

6. Shakes head... This is not relevant to my point.... Answer this please...

Actually, it is. The fact is, you're so confused about basically everything you speak about that you don't even understand this simple point. Go back to the quiz I linked, from NASA, and understand what the definitions of fact, theory, hypothesis and law is. Until you can do at least that, there's no point in explaining anything related to science to you.

Bringing us back to my original question how does this not affect that plasticity of science to incorporate new data? If one has already made up their minds on what is correct or not, how can the new data be applied in the most critical (thus neutral) sense.

And there you go again with the incorrect statements about fact and theory. I'll try to make this as easy as possible:
Facts are the foundation. A hypothesis incorporates a lot of facts. A law, being a general statement about certain parts of nature is higher up the pyramid and comprises a lot of facts and hypotheses that can be tested. A theory, being the highest level in science is a well-substantiated explanation of all the above.
In short, it looks like this:

But what happens if there are not enough facts? Simple, the pyramid breaks down.

So if you have new facts, you can build new theories. Show that a theory is not supported by the facts and the pyramid breaks down.
That means that minds are NOT made up, data can be applied fairly neutral if the scientific method is adhered to and the plasticity of science... is well.

Many of the "facts" you claim are actually hypothesises derived from the "theory" of evolution... I write "theory" since there is no empirical test / experiment defined for evolution meaning that under the guidelines of the scientific method

Observation > Hypothesis > Experiment > Result

I challenge you to show that any of the facts I showed are not facts at all. Can you do that? I can prove everything I said to you and I can also check that it's verifiably accurate. Yet I challenge you to find even one fact that is positively indicative of miraculous creation over biological evolution. You simply can't do it.

Evolution is simply still at the hypothesis stage... DNA similarities, fossil similarities, ERVs etc are all observations and "evolution did it" is the hypothesis for these observations. Now all that is needed is a test to ensure that evolution was the cause of these observations, sadly no test is currently available, evolution is merely assumed as the conclusion.

Wrong again. Even if what you said were true, that we'd need experiments to "prove" a theory, I could still show them to you. There's Richard E. Lenski's E. coli long-term evolution experiment. It's been running for 24 years now and it has brought some incredible insights. That's evolution in action right in the lab, right under our very noses!

Gee thanks for giving me the heads up for your ridiclue, considering that the rules state that there is to be no abuse, one would ask how could you ridicule someone without breaking those rules... Hmmm... Its taught at university that there are no absolutes within scientific understanding, as your mod agreed to before.

I'm not sure where I "ridiclue'd" [sic] you, apart from right now. Seriously, did I? I pointed out that you were wrong about basically everything you've said, but that's not ridicule, that's the truth. It's nothing to be ashamed of either, so long as you understand the gaps in your knowledge and fill them. I know that I'm not perfect and I constantly try to increase my knowledge. I'm particularly poor at chemistry and physics, so I'd hardly ever take the arrogant position and assume that I'm right even when more experienced people from that field show me that I'm wrong.
Many here are scientists, either archaeologists, biologists, chemists, geographers... you name it. We cite sources from authoritative scientific bodies, like I did with NASA, yet after all that you STILL believe that you're right. Can you understand my frustration?

 

[australopithecus]

I wish Gilberto here would stop claiming I've said stuff when I haven't, and has been told previous that I haven't. There ARE absolutes, these cannbe observed to be facts as we understand them. Theories, however, are not absolute.

Evolution. Fact.
The speed of c in a vacuum. Fact.
Objects with mass attract each other. Fact.

The theories that explain these facts are not absolute because we don't know everything.

Understood? Great. You can stop putting words in my mouth now. Also, I must have missed the part where he apologised for claiming someone called him a redneck when they didn't.

 

[australopithecus]

Somewhat of a digression but I'm hoping Gilberto here can address something for me. The following is addressing a post about this forum and debate Gilberto made on the evofairytale forum: http://evolutionfairytale.com/forum//index.php?showtopic=5310

I've recently joined the League of "Reason" and from what I can see, its anything but. Simply put its a hate mongering site where whilst the "rules" state that no abuse is to take place the mods themselves dish it out in spades, calling people childish and such.

Dismissed as petty childishness. If you don't want to be called childish, don't act childishly.

I was also surprised to see a thread about us. Whilst its a little dated they complain that about the rules and mods banning people who break them, they complain this is unfair and such yet considering that their site enforces that each reply must be approved by a moderator in order to be shown means its a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

Not really. Posts by newly registered members are are all subject to approval to stop spam. Something of a good idea really, seeing as in the last 3 weeks an average of 10-20 spammers a day join trying to sell us Uggs. Your posts have been approved, we have not banned you, your indignation is moot. Also, it's slightly hypocritcal seeing as my own registration on the EFT forum needs to be approved....

Or did you conveniently forget that EFT also enforces approval? What's betting I don't get that approval?

Lets see how I go, currently only one of my two new topics went through, the one about evolution and its status as a fact, the morality one hasn't been accepted (I wonder why )

It has been approved.

additionally my post to Aronra hasn't been added, it was pointing to his contradiction that he claims that his attempt to redefine the dictionary is correct since its based on the dictionary, but then complains that his new definitions are required since the dictionary is not sufficient, (yet that is what he uses to claim his definitions as correct)...

As above.

The initial responses have been generally positive though there are some masked animosity seen with some. Its sad to see that they automatically assume evolution, and all its hypothesises are facts that need no explaining... They really have been duped.

It must be so hard on your pedestal all alone. Forgive us mere mortals if your glowing ignorance of basic biology is met with some hostility when you presume to talk down to us.

So, are you going to correct yourself on EFT, or are you content to just lie?

 

[Darkprophet232]

Gilbo, did you even read the definition dictionary.reference.com uses for "scientific fact?" You know, the one Dragan Glas provided and I've referenced three (or more) times now?

You know what? Never mind, instead, can you please explain why you hold this site as some kind of authority? What makes this more respectable than say the Oxford, Cambridge or Merriam-Webster dictionaries (all of which use a definition of "fact" that complies what the others here have been telling you)?

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

1) If you are speaking of this example, all I have to say is work on your reading comprehension. That article talks about how genetics is what determined that they were different species.

2) No citation? What a pity

3) No that is not what I am claiming; you have a knack at misunderstanding what is actually said. What I am saying is we observe evolution (change in allelic frequency in a population over time, something you agreed with). Now my question to you is what stops those changes from building up.
I have provided the evidence, the observed speciation events you so readily dismissed.
Again, I am not saying that hair color will lead to a new structural formation; I am claiming that a new mutation can lead to that.
Of course they are not, and no one is claiming they are. I gave examples of speciation events; you dismissed them based on your misunderstanding of what a species is.
A new structure or system is not required to come into existence.
Straw men all around.

4) I did not dodge the question now did I? I answered it with cladistics.
You already agreed that evolution occurs.

5) I have not assumed wrong, it is quite easy to tell you do not know the first thing about what you are talking about.

6) Go back and read where you put a number six next to my comment. Nowhere do I talk about a link. Again, work on your reading comprehension.

7) I doubt you have debunked anything in your travels (I know you think you have). Again, I have no idea what you are talking about here.

8) No shit. No one is making that argument. Please stop with the straw men.

9) I only need mutations (Evo-devo would also count though). There does not need to be more.

10) Evidence:

Claim CB101[/url]"]Certain mutations in humans confer resistance to AIDS (Dean et al. 1996; Sullivan et al. 2001) or to heart disease (Long 1994; Weisgraber et al. 1983).

11) I already made clear what I was talking about here. The list of observed speciation events.

12) I gave it. Now go back and read my post to see it again, because I am not going to waste my time on someone that refuses to read my whole post and to be frank, appears not to be interested in an actual discussion.

 

[gilbo12345]

Gilbo, did you even read the definition dictionary.reference.com uses for "scientific fact?" You know, the one Dragan Glas provided and I've referenced three (or more) times now?

You know what? Never mind, instead, can you please explain why you hold this site as some kind of authority? What makes this more respectable than say the Oxford, Cambridge or Merriam-Webster dictionaries (all of which use a definition of "fact" that complies what the others here have been telling you)?

It would help if a quote was given, then I will ask why is not claimed "evolution is a scientific fact"? Why is the scientific part skipped aluding to actual fact meaning an absolute

 

[gilbo12345]

1) If you are speaking of this example, all I have to say is work on your reading comprehension. That article talks about how genetics is what determined that they were different species.

2) No citation? What a pity

3) No that is not what I am claiming; you have a knack at misunderstanding what is actually said. What I am saying is we observe evolution (change in allelic frequency in a population over time, something you agreed with).

Now my question to you is what stops those changes from building up.
I have provided the evidence, the observed speciation events you so readily dismissed.
Again, I am not saying that hair color will lead to a new structural formation; I am claiming that a new mutation can lead to that.
Of course they are not, and no one is claiming they are. I gave examples of speciation events; you dismissed them based on your misunderstanding of what a species is.
A new structure or system is not required to come into existence.
Straw men all around.

4) I did not dodge the question now did I? I answered it with cladistics.
You already agreed that evolution occurs.

5) I have not assumed wrong, it is quite easy to tell you do not know the first thing about what you are talking about.

6) Go back and read where you put a number six next to my comment. Nowhere do I talk about a link. Again, work on your reading comprehension.

7) I doubt you have debunked anything in your travels (I know you think you have). Again, I have no idea what you are talking about here.

8) No shit. No one is making that argument. Please stop with the straw men.

9) I only need mutations (Evo-devo would also count though). There does not need to be more.

10) Evidence:

Claim CB101[/url]"]Certain mutations in humans confer resistance to AIDS (Dean et al. 1996; Sullivan et al. 2001) or to heart disease (Long 1994; Weisgraber et al. 1983).

11) I already made clear what I was talking about here. The list of observed speciation events.

12) I gave it. Now go back and read my post to see it again, because I am not going to waste my time on someone that refuses to read my whole post and to be frank, appears not to be interested in an actual discussion.

I agreed that changes in allele frequency are observed, I have been asking you for evidence to demonstrate how changing the frequency of genes (the same genes) can somehow lead to novel information that leads to major structural changes. Where is the empirical evidence?

Oh so resistance to Aids will somehow lead to structural changes? Have you been listening to what I have been saying? Again you need to demonstrate how such a benign change can lead to a structural change otherwise you're merely wishful thinking... Here I'll make it easier for you. Is a human who is resistant to aids still a human? Yes, then there has been no major change. No then I ask you how is the person no longer a human. If the mechanism of resistance were to increase, would this lead to some other change that would make the human no longer human? If No then its not supporting common descent, if yes then I ask for evidence of such.

Merely claiming "mutation" is not evidence, you need to demonstrate the mechanism, otherwise its as logical as the "god did it" argument, except change it to "evolution did it" or "mutations did it"

No strawmen since you keep claiming that the observations of new breeds is somehow speciation... I have asked you for evidence where is it?

 

[CommonEnlightenment]

Could possibly argue this one.......

 

[gilbo12345]

Could possibly argue this one.......

How so? More info please.

 

[australopithecus]

I especially liked the part where he ignored my post.

 

[Gnug215]

I'm interested to hear the reasoning / logic behind the claim "evolution is a fact" or "the facts of evolution" or something to that effect. Considering that the very first thing we learnt in tertiary Biology was that there are no absolutes (facts) in science, since every idea, hypothesis, theory and even law can come undone via future evidence.

[...]

Doesn't the claim of "evolution is a fact" defy the plasticity of science in that it incorporates new evidence and updates its claims accordingly, how can one update a claim when its already deemed an absolute? (Keep in mind that this is taught at university level)

In short, if this hasn't been made clear already:


Evolution = observable fact.

The Theory of Evolution = A scientific theory (which among other, explains in its framework the observable fact of evolution).

 

[Inferno]

In addition to what you said Austra, I was banned from the EFT forum for reasons they never specified. I was always polite, I always provided the information they asked... and then, banhammer.
Whereas here, he's free to roam and say whatever he likes.

 

[Darkprophet232]

Gilbo, why did you quote my entire post if you were only going to reply to the first half of it? In fact, now that I look back, you've done that repeatedly to nearly everyone in this thread. It's as if you're being doubly flippant about ignoring things people have told you, to the point where you will point out you're not responding to it either.

Furthermore, are you colorblind? I know I cannot convey tone, but understand I am not trying to antagonistic about it. It's just that Dragan Glas hyperlinked the definition. Or more likely, based on how you reply to posts, that you are at least somewhat technologically illiterate. I went over to EFT and saw that you had nearly 2500 posts. LoR and FTL, from what I saw, use a very similar quote function, one that I have yet to see you use properly. That would be understandable if you were new to both boards, but 2500 posts? Inexcusable, unless you are doing it as a kind of middle finger to the people you are responding to while ignoring most of the post.

I would also like an apology for you accusing me of an ad hominem attack that was never made, or at least an acceptance that you have not been called a redneck on this forum. I would expect someone of at least marginal integrity to admit when he or she made a mistake.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

I agreed that changes in allele frequency are observed, I have been asking you for evidence to demonstrate how changing the frequency of genes (the same genes) can somehow lead to novel information that leads to major structural changes. Where is the empirical evidence?

:facepalm:

It cannot, if you restrict it to the same genes, which you have. However, in reality, new genes are added with mutations (something I have been trying to explain to you from the beginning). Thus, you constructed another straw man.

Oh so resistance to Aids will somehow lead to structural changes? Have you been listening to what I have been saying? Again you need to demonstrate how such a benign change can lead to a structural change otherwise you're merely wishful thinking...

Define new structural change, because I could argue that any new mutation would equal a new structural change seeing as how a new mutation can make a new protein, which are three-dimensional structures. I could further argue, if new proteins are not to your liking, in most cases, new structures are unnecessary for major evolutionary changes (e.g. taking something similar to a chimpanzee and evolving it into a human). In such a case, modification to existing structures is all that was necessary. Furthermore, depending on how new structure is defined by yourself I could use the example CommonEnlightenment alluded too (i.e. chickens forming teeth).

Here I'll make it easier for you. Is a human who is resistant to aids still a human? Yes, then there has been no major change. No then I ask you how is the person no longer a human. If the mechanism of resistance were to increase, would this lead to some other change that would make the human no longer human? If No then its not supporting common descent, if yes then I ask for evidence of such.

:facepalm:

You obviously do not know anything about evolutionary theory, because you have constructed another straw man. A human cannot accumulate enough changes to stop being human. Apparently, this is why I am unable to show you that evolution is true, you have constructed a false idea of what evolution is in your head. Let me make this simple for you, something cannot evolve out of it's evolutionary history. That is why you and I are still vertebrates, mammals, primates, and apes.

Merely claiming "mutation" is not evidence, you need to demonstrate the mechanism, otherwise its as logical as the "god did it" argument, except change it to "evolution did it" or "mutations did it"

Again, you obviously do not understand what a mutation is. Mutations are observed facts, want evidence, here it is.

No strawmen since you keep claiming that the observations of new breeds is somehow speciation... I have asked you for evidence where is it?

Again, you refuse to use a standard definition of species. I provided a definition from your own source that agreed with me on what a species is, yet you keep equating species with breed simply because you have a preconceived notion you are refusing to give up. Gilbo12345, you are simply wrong about this, please have the maturity to at least concede that point.

 

[Dustnite]

6. So you think that because you claim something to be so that it must be so? Again I ask you for evidence?

I could peruse through the evolution fairytale website and find many examples, but I'm just going to allow this thread to continue to show exactly what I mean. A couple pages deep and you're already refusing to accept definitions and you already demonstrated that you either don't read or comprehend what people are saying to you or you simply choose to ignore points you can't defend against.

7. How can inquiring on the claim that evolution is true and how that affects the plasticity of scientific inquiry an exercise in "quote mining"... You simply refuse to see my point since its nothing of the sort.

I'm going to presume that this is an exercise in dishonesty because of my experience with evolution fairytale members, but I will be pleasantly surprised if I don't see this thread used for quote mining purposes later on the web. You're already putting words into people's mouths only a couple pages deep into this very thread.

8. I'm not a mod and I actually don't like it when they ban people since it means I have less people to refute , however banning is inevitable when rules are broken.

This is more of an observation of banning instances I've seen on that forum. As for the breaking of rules over at that website, I believe #6 gets used as a catch all excuse for banning anyone that disagrees with the creationist position. The existence of rule 6 on evolution fairytale makes it entirely pointless to post anything there as you and other posters at that forum never agree to a definition that everyone can live with.

The following are disallowed:

6. Equivocation, particularly regarding what "evolution" means. It is intellectually dishonest to claim that micro-evolution (something everyone agrees occurs) proves that all life originates from a common ancestor.

Consistent violators of the above guidelines will permanently lose posting privileges to the board, often without warning. Again, our moderators are looking primarily for time-wasters, regardless if they do not appear on the surface to be disingenuous.

That rule is a completely dishonest position to hold as a definition of evolution according to forum users there is not provided. There's even a convenient location where this "equivocation" rule is evoked. It is also convenient that the mods at that forum regularly get to have their last word in before locking a thread so a counter argument can't be made http://evolutionfairytale.com/forum//index.php?showforum=45, but this is merely an observation. However, I'm glad to see that you also find their banning practices distasteful and perhaps you may do something about it at the fairytale forums in the future.

I apologize to everyone in this thread if this is off topic, but I felt it was relevant. I personally find that website offensive but I won't detract from the discussion here more than I have.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

1. Except evolution, which is claimed to be a fact

Again, as others throughout this thread have pointed out, you continue to confuse "evolution" and the "theory of evolution".

Evolution is an observed fact.

The theory of evolution is the only one which explains the observed fact of evolution - there is nothing which comes close to challenging it as the explanation for evolution. As time goes by, more and more evidence supports it to the point that it is coming to be thought - itself - of being as close to a "fact" as makes no difference.

...... Also when there is conflicting evidence an ad hoc hypothesis is created, (see Punctuated Equilibrium)

Punctuated equilibrium is part and parcel of the theory of evolution - it's not a challenge to the theory.

2. Firstly the formation of amino acids is not life, unless you are an extremely zealous pro-life supporter....

As amino acids are a part of organic chemistry, which is the backbone of biochemistry - the chemistry of life - they are proof that the early Earth was already on the way to abiogenesis: otherwise how could we have ended up with the vast diversity of past and present forms of life which has existed and exists today on Earth?

Secondly Miller only used a fraction of the voltage of lightning, (if he had used the full voltage it would have oxidised, burnt out or otherwise destroyed the amino acids).

...Not to mention the glass container for their experiment!

In the real world, a lightning bolt destroys organics in its path. However, at a suitable distance from the bolt, the atmosphere - and any organics in the air or on the surface - will be unaffected. Somewhere between these two points, in the form of the thick surface of a cylinder, the atmosphere and surface will be subject to varying levels of ionization: organics will likewise be variably affected, permitting chemical reactions as a result, thus leading to the expected compounds which the experiment sought to reproduce.

It is for this reason that the voltage was reduced proportionately to allow for the gradation of ionization so as not to destroy any compounds - not to mention the container - and, therefore defeat, the purpose of the experiment.

Lightning is reported to be 100 million volts, reference below

http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1998/MathieuLo.shtml

Actually, it's reported to range from 10-120mV.

Thirdly Miller didn't have oxygen in the atmosphere, the reason is because it would (obviously) oxidise the amino acids, however oxygen is a part of the ozone cycle which is required to protect the Earth, (and the amino acids) from UV light, we use UV light in the lab... guess what... it kills stuff...

Do you believe that there was always oxygen - let alone the same as the current amount - in the Earth's atmosphere throughout its approximately 4.5 billion year history?

What was the atmospheric composition considered to be at the time which the Miller-Urey experiment reproduced?

And yet, despite your claim to the contrary - about the lack of oxygen and the presence of UV radiation - the Earth developed life in all its glory.

How did it ever manage that?

If you want to learn about the geological and atmospheric composition of the early Earth, read Rare Earth by Peter Ward and Donald Brownlee and/or Oxygen: The Molecule That Made The World by Nick Lane.

Fourthly the amount of amino acids is an extremely small percentage whereas the rest were toxic compounds, mainly carboxylic acids which by being weak acids would degrade the amino acids over time anyway.

So, you've also forgotten to take into account the dilution of said carboxylic acids in water - a necessary ingredient of the "primordial soup" hypothesis and the experiment.

You're aware that they found more than twenty organic compounds in the vials after Miller's death?:

After Miller's death in 2007, scientists examining sealed vials preserved from the original experiments were able to show that there were actually well over 20 different amino acids produced in Miller's original experiments. That is considerably more than what Miller originally reported, and more than the 20 that naturally occur in life.[7] Moreover, some evidence suggests that Earth's original atmosphere might have had a different composition from the gas used in the Miller-Urey experiment. There is abundant evidence of major volcanic eruptions 4 billion years ago, which would have released carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrogen (N2), hydrogen sulfide (H2S), and sulfur dioxide (SO2) into the atmosphere. Experiments using these gases in addition to the ones in the original Miller-Urey experiment have produced more diverse molecules.[8]

3. I'd like you to state the evidence, its your claim not mine so I don't see why I should waste my time sifting through an entire site when you have given no explanation as to what to look for anyway. Post some quotes and a summary up here then we can discuss it.

"Site"? What "site"?

I linked to a paper and drew your attention to a particular section relevant to the discussion of chirality regarding your claim that it ruled out abiogenesis - and, dare I say, possibly even chemistry itself(!)

Did you not bother to read it?

4. Care to quote me stating that, or was this your interpretation?

You said the following:

Now considering the nature of chirality of molecules abiogenesis is almost certainly impossible, since DNA / RNA / Proteins require one "form" of molecule, (left handed form or right handed form depending on what is being made).. Yet these are found in a 50/50 mix in nature.. Meaning there needs to be a natural mechanism of selection of only choosing the correct "form" of molecule, since over time the odds of continually getting the right one via chance is slim indeed, (more so as the conc. of the correct "form" lessens as its used up) . There is no natural mechanism given for such a thing, in fact I'm not sure if many people realise this problem.

...Which suggests that you believe that Nature runs out of molecules of the required chirality, and thus renders abiogenesis impossible.

Have you not heard of the various "cycles" which ... recycle :facepalm: ... elements allowing new molecules to form?

Carbon cycle? Nitrogen cycle? Etc?

"Dust to dust, ashes to ashes"? As in the freeing-up - recycling - of chemicals due to decomposition after death?

Not to mention that the Earth is an open system, with new material arriving daily from space.

5. So when asked for evidence you indirectly admit that there is none... So I'm wondering why make such a statement if you cannot back it up with evidence? Dawkins said you need evidence, yes?

All that's needed is proof of a possible path to abiogenesis - any path.

The fact that life exists on Earth from a position of non-life is telling of its actuality and inevitability, given the right conditions - which clearly must have occurred at some point in the Earth's history.

6. Ring "species" are debatable since whilst the entire group cannot breed together some individuals can with others, meaning its not clear cut as you seem to assume.

Despite the point you make, Ring species are very strong evidence for - what creationists erroneously term - ("macro-")evolution:

Greenish warblers
Greenish warblers, a ring species, are found in parts of Asia and eastern Europe.

Another ring species that has provided valuable insights into speciation consists of the greenish warblers (Phylloscopus trochiloides). These small, insect-eating songbirds breed in the forests of central and northern Asia and eastern Europe. In the center of Asia is a large region of desert, including the Tibetan Plateau and the Taklamakan and Gobi Deserts, where the warblers cannot live. Instead, they inhabit a ring of mountains surrounding this region, as well as the forests of Siberia to the north. The warblers have remarkable geographic variation:9-11
irwinphoto4.jpg

Greenish warblers are found in parts of Asia and eastern Europe. Speciation can happen when related species are isolated geographically. Source: Wikimedia Commons.

In Siberia, two distinct forms of greenish warblers coexist, one in the west and one in the east, their distributions narrowly overlapping in central Siberia, where they do not interbreed. These forms differ in color patterns, the songs that males sing to attract mates, and genetic characteristics. Also, males of each form usually do not recognize the song of the other form, but respond strongly to their own.

The traits that differ between the two Siberian forms change gradually through the chain of populations encircling the Tibetan Plateau to the south.

Thus two distinct species are connected by gradual variation in morphological, behavioral, and genetic traits.

DNA evidence points to an ancestor somewhere in the Himalayas.

Claude Ticehurst,9 who during the 1930s studied variation in museum specimens of greenish warblers, hypothesized that the present pattern of variation arose when an ancestral species in the south, perhaps in the Himalayas, expanded northward along two pathways, one on the west side of Tibet and the other on the east. The two expanding fronts gradually became different, resulting in two distinct Siberian forms. More recently, studies of genetic variation and song variation have strongly supported this view.10-11

The pattern of song variation is particularly interesting:

Songs are short and simple in the south, but to the north songs become gradually longer and more complex along both pathways into Siberia.
However, songs have also become different in structure, resulting in distinct differences in songs between the Siberian forms.

Song patterns changed as new species emerged.

The birds distinguish between these differences; males respond aggressively to tape recordings of their own songs, thinking that another male has invaded their territory, but they do not respond to songs of the other form. In most species of songbirds, songs play an important role in mate choice; usually, only males sing, and females listen to songs when deciding which male to choose as a mate.12 Speciation is essentially the evolution of reproductive isolation between two populations, and song differences can cause reproductive isolation. Hence, the geographical variation in songs of greenish warblers provides a rare illustration of how gradual change in a trait can cause speciation.

Demonstrations of evolution

Greenish warblers and Ensatina salamanders illustrate three fundamental ways that ring species can teach us about evolution:

1) Ring species provide strong evidence for evolution.

Ring species provide strong evidence for evolution causing the appearance of new species, demonstrating that many small changes can eventually accumulate into large differences between distinct species. Some critics of evolutionary theory think that evolution can only cause limited change within a species and cannot lead to the evolution of new species. Ring species show that they are wrong; variation between species is qualitatively similar, though different in degree, to variation within a species.

2) Complete geographical isolation is not necessary to produce new species.

Ring species allow a reconstruction of the history and causes of divergence during speciation, since spatial variation may illustrate change through time. Without the rings of populations connecting the terminal forms, we would have little understanding of the history of divergence of greenish warbler songs or Ensatina color patterns.

3) Ring species provide evidence that speciation can occur without complete geographic isolation. As discussed at the beginning of this article, the prevailing view of speciation has been that two populations must become geographically isolated, such that they do not exchange genes, before speciation can occur (this process is called 'allopatric speciation'). Ring species, however, show that the ends of a long chain of interbreeding populations can diverge to the point that they do not directly interbreed, even though genes can travel between them through the intermediate populations (in other words, they are connected by 'gene flow'). This aspect of ring species has been rather controversial, and critics have argued that some apparent examples of ring species, such as Ensatina, have breaks in gene flow.13

The fact that males of each species of warbler, despite being in the same locality, don't respond to each others' calls nor see females of the other species as potential mates is highly significant of having evolved into different species.

There is further information on the salamanders as "ring species".

Luckily the definition of species makes allowances for times like these. As per my university studies we were taught 2 definitions of species.

1- It looks similar, (I kid you not! its this simple)
2- Same species can breed together

Number one fails in light of sexual dimporphism (though that is generally related to size so the basic body plan remains the same anyway...)

Number two fails in light of a nifty insect disease called wolbachia which makes infected males female and makes it that only infected individuals can breed together, therefore under the number 2 definition of species infected insects technically become a new species... However luckily there is enough sense for people to admit that this is not the case.

Which begs the question:

Are humans and gorillas or chimpanzees/bonobos the same or different species ("kinds/baramins") or not, on the basis of similarity or the ability to breed (regardless of whether, like the warbler, they see each other as potential mates or not).

[At present, there's no evidence to suggest that humans, gorillas or chimpanzees/bonobos can't interbreed - if only through artificial insemination.

Although there have been rumours of a Russian scientist attempting to cross-breed humans and chimpanzees using women in Africa, who had his research funding terminated, this has not been substantiated. There was also a report - I believe in Fortean Times some years ago - of a French teenager who allegedly became pregnant by a male chimpanzee belonging to her circus-worker father: again, unsubstantiated.]

I'll be interested to hear what you have to say about this!

+++++++++​

What I and others have been - gently, I hope! - trying to point out to you is that you are arguing from ignorance, what I call the "Chicken Little Syndrome": as the saying goes, "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing".

You need to read up on these subjects rather than rely on the half-baked notions of any version of creationism, which is on what you appear to be basing your (mis)understanding of a number of scientific terms and concepts.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Greetings,

Yet I found the term "scientific fact" in your preferred dictionary.

Kindest regards,

James

Care to quote it? This will be interesting

Definition: any observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and accepted as true; any scientific observation that has not been refuted
Example: The structure of a cell membrane is considered a scientific fact.

So, what point are you trying to make here?

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

There is a very important distinction that needs to be made in order to understand these aspects. In science there are 2 frameworks, practical and theoretical.
The practical framework is about the things themselves, what we see, what we measure.
The theoretical framework is about the concepts that explain the practical part.
I personally never seen a scientific paper ever mention the term "fact", however (even though they are not exactly the same) for all intents and purposes' they are what we call "data points" (which is what is actually mentioned), and they are part of the practical framework.
Hypothesis, laws, theories, rules, theorems, conjectures, enunciates, models, postulates, principles and corollaries (except for the first 3, everything else seems to be neglected because layman almost never hear of them, and there are more, but I don't remember them), are what we use to classify concepts or groups of concepts of the various types for a variety of purposes and this belongs to the theoretical framework.

Let's take the example of the earth and other planets going around the sun. What you would call the "fact" are the measurements of angles of the planets, sun and background stars over time, the measurement of time itself, the distance of the celestial bodies, etc. Those are the facts, it's a number that you get from an instrument, it's the observed thing. Can the facts be wrong? Sure, it happens more often than you think. Sometimes you are measuring something when in fact you were measuring something else, sometimes the tools malfunction, sometimes data is lost or corrupted (and don't get me started on the noise), etc.. lots of thing can go wrong.
In today's understanding of science, we know that a phenomenon called gravity is responsible for this motion. Something like Gravitation formula given my Newton would be called a "rule" (to warn us that it is not exactly correct at all scales, but it is mostly correct at the scales we generally work with, so much so that we can't even tell that it is wrong). But if we want to be exact, we would use the corrected formula given by Einstein (which spawned from the general theory of relativity), because Einstein's formula seems to be so far correct in all conditions, we call it a "Law". Now we can use this Laws to make predictions of what is going to happen in the future to the solar system, but to do that we need a description of properties like the mass of each planet, its initial conditions and so forth. To the conceptualized collection of properties, initial conditions of objects and the laws governing them, we call that a model. The models work as a surrogate to simulate what is going to happen to the real thing, and we can use them for instance to try and predict were the planets will be in the future so that we can send probes to the right place in a space mission. To this collection about the subject of things moving about in space in relation to other things, we call it "orbital mechanics" or "orbital theory". The word of theory comes not from "guess", but rather from the word theoretical i.e. conceptual.
Facts are what we use to base our theoretical framework, the theoretical framework is what is actually useful.

So in the concept of evolution, fossils would be facts, so it would be DNA maps, so is the anatomy of a certain individual. "Natural selection" would be a model, so is the hereditary process. Evolution is the name of the group of subjects relating to the concept of "certain distinct animals having a common descent", which include things like DNA analysis and fossil analysis (among other things). But there is also the fact of "evolution" which is actually means the observation of a certain organism bringing about another organism with traits that did not exist on the parent organism.
It is an observed fact that certain organisms can bring about other organisms with different traits. It is an inferred model (similarly with the way we infer where the planets will be in the future) that organisms we see today came about from other more simple organisms (by a process similar to the fact of evolution we observe), this inferred model is corroborated with other factual pieces we call "evidence" like fossils or DNA maps.

Get it?

 

[Frenger]

Thanks James for the kindest regards, its rare for such niceties from an atheist (considering from some of the first replies given here)

I would like to disagree here. I am actually very polite and ALWAYS wipe my feet before entering as forum.

 

[Frenger]

(Good catch, Dragan Glas)

Gilbo12345, if you take that definition, and recheck the definition of Fact #3, you'll see that it is analogous to definition #5, and follows your own rules for context. I believe we are done here now.

So I'm a redneck now? Thats not an abusive comment....
[/quote]

Just to clear up this redneck thing, Darkprophet said "recheck". As in, you should go and look at that again. How ironic.