Ashwin on Common Descent

I’ve reached out to Coyne to get some clarification - I don’t think you’re interpreting him accurately. Regardless of what he says though, he’s one evolutionary biology out of many, and I think most of the others use the definition that I am.

In other words “I’m a creationist so I’d rather side with creationists”. Thanks for that tautology.

Really? That’s a pretty low bar - guessing right when there are only 2 possible options. Besides, I don’t know many “creationists” who actually accept the currect science on the origin of the universe, so I’m not sure that’s your best example.

@swamidass

I certainly had no idea that Joe was not a Christian. And so I suppose his main task here is to be a “spoiler” … throwing grenades into every thread he can find with a minimum of explanation.

In my blogosphere world he would already be ejected for antisocial behavior.

I don’t see the point of keeping posters like Joe around… when it is difficult enough to discuss these topics when everyone agrees with the terminology!

How Christian of you-

Ignore them too

@JoeG,

I place the interests of “dual creationism” above treating you with more respect than you treat us.

You and the likes of atheists like Patrick care more about wrecking discussions than the deep implications of this new stance between Science and Religion.

PS: As for these links you provide… the links are no doubt more valuable than YOUR interpretation of them.

@JoeG… your ability to convey information is quite flawed… and it seems to be intentional.

I would think you could have explained the premises of your refutation long before @swamidass unveiled your actual philosophical stance!

First off, both comments are out of line. Stop inferring deceit so quickly. Much more commonly, there was a failure to communicate. For example, the way I know @JoeG’s position is because I asked, he revealed, and I remembered. He was not hiding it or lying.

@gbrooks9 look at our exchange here: Newton's Four Rules.

@JoeG, I wan tot give you a title to avoid this sort of confusion in the future. You suggested “reincarnated IDist”, colorful but non-informative. I’d suggest: “Intelligent Design Diest”; is that okay? There is a lot of confusion that arises when people are atypical from a respective camp. Usually ID advocates on forums like this are Christians, and this confuses people to import of lot of that point of view onto you. You have not been evasive when asked, but its not clear up front the position you are coming. Giving you the right title will at least cause people to question their neat categories to ask you what your position it.

@evograd

That said, the species concept is subjective and ambiguous. People would be arguing about what is and isn’t a different species. People would be arguing about the ambiguous “evolution at or above the species level”. For me The Genera are above the species level. Each different Genus has its own set of characteristics that have to be met. Homo vs Pan- two allegedly closely related species- but the differences at the Genus level are huge.

So the definition you two prefer is subjective and uses very subjective language, whereas the one I prefer at least hints at quantification.

@swamidass Intelligent Design Deist is OK with me and thank you for the explanation

But speciation is subjective and ambiguous- that is the whole problem with using it as any type of demarcation. You would be spending time on arguing what is and isn’t a new species. The different varieties of finch wouldn’t qualify as new species.

But thank you for contacting Jerry. At least now you know that I was not making it up.

@gbrooks9
ETA “What Evolution Is” by Ernst Mayr- page188:

When we review evolutionary phenomena, we find that they can be assigned readily into two classes. One consists of all events and processes that occur at or below the level of species, such as the variability of populations, adaptive changes in populations, geographic variation, and speciation. At this level one deals almost exclusively with populational phenomena. This class of phenomena can be referred to as microevolution. (bold added)

1 Like

Can you please ask him if we can post it verbatim (perhaps with some appropriate edits)? That would do good to serve the public record. His view on this is important to record by more than a paraphrase.

By the way, thank you for doing this. That is exactly what we should do for anyone still living and accessible…

The alternative is to look at “size of changes”, which is equally if not more subjective and ambiguous, where you’d spend all your time arguing whether change A is bigger or smaller than change B.

1 Like

People can count body parts. People can tell the difference between a wing, an arm and a fin. Major changes, not just size.

And even Ernst Mayr says that speciation is microevolution. What you, @gbrooks9 and @swamidass, need to realize is that I have read a ton of evolutionary literature starting with Darwin, the architects of the modern synthesis, Gould, Coyne, Dawkins, Shubin, Carroll, Jones (Darwin’s Ghost), Futuyma’s college textbook “Evolution” etc., etc., etc. I have also read a ton of Creation and ID literature. I have a keen interest as to our origin and being retired early I get to pursue it. And I started by getting to know what each major player has to say- by reading what they say and by talking with them.

The point is I know and understand what each position states. I have a small library that I can easily use for references- such as “What Evolution Is” by Ernst Mayr (one of the architects of the modern synthesis and a zoologist I wanted to emulate until I realized the limited career opportunities and went into electronic engineering instead). I am not trying to be confrontational. All I was trying to do is to make sure everyone was using the same definition and that the definition used was the correct one. I provided both reasoning and references. Now with Mayr I have game, set and match. But who cares as long as we can all now agree on the definition.

For me it isn’t that I am confrontational. I just cannot back down when I know that I am right.

Just keep it to the appropriate threads, like this one and the one with your name, and you can make your case. Do not interpose it on threads where it is not the central point.

I entirely grant that you think you are right. I just see things of which you are unaware. That is fine by me. Believe as you must, and advocate in the places we’ve given you for this, but do not disrupt the other conversations. That seems like a fair request. Right?

I think you are right here. There is a distinction between mere speciation and large evolutionary transitions. Precise agreed upon definitions are not established.

That is why I focus on human evolution. The evidence there is far more clear and strong.

@JoeG

You.Have.Misunderstood.Ernst. All.This.Time!

Oyyyyy.

“Speciation” is a process! While rarely (usually in plants) it can happen in a single generation… usually it is a multi-generational process where cousin offspring lines become INCREASINGLY less compatible reproductively.

Hence… until we actually HAVE TWO SPECIES… the process of speciation is an ADAPTATION WITHIN A SINGLE SPECIES.

How do we know? Because sometimes the process of increasing incompatibility between 2 populations reverses itself… and the culmination of two species appearing NEVER OCCURS.

@JoeG… I believe you owe me a steak dinner for helping you to avoid embarrassing yourself in the real world outside !

@swamidass… unbelievable.

Oh my. You really do have issues. I haven’t misunderstood Dr Mayr. I haven’t misunderstood Dr Coyne. And I have not misunderstood all of the Creationists’ orgs who also agree with me.

Such as?

Yes, the evidence says that humans evolved from other humans. Kinesiology argues against humans evolving from non-human knuckle-walkers. There was a time that I really wanted to accept humans evolved from non-humans but then I started looking at the science and what is required for the transformation to take place.

People need to stop looking and focusing on the genomes. For example- rats and mice could easily vary as much as they do genetically under a design scenario. The original population had a high heterozygosity. And between built-in responses to environmental cues and designed recombination the extant genetic diversity arose.

Yes, speciation is much too ambiguous.

1 Like

Well study all the different species of genus Australopithecus and the all the different species of genus Homo. While you can’t trace a line to us, you have to admit there is some kind of transformation going on there over the time period of 4 million years.

1 Like

Mayr did NOT assert that when a new species is formed it is micro evolution.

He said that micro-evolution distances two populations from each other until, at last, there are two species. Then, and only Then, does micro-evolution become macro-evolution.