Speciation is a process, DtC.
Here’s the Talkorigins site on observed instances of speciation. Some of these seem rather shaky, but I guess I jumped the gun earlier in saying that the speciation process had never been observed directly. Some of the fly studies and plant studies look pertty rigorous.
Depends on how you define speciation. There are examples of fruit flies that can no longer breed with the general population, and numerous polyploid plants that are genetically isolated. Have a look at the talk.origins site for numerous other examples.
Precisely. It is a theory based upon good observational evidence. But that still doesn’t make it a fact.
DtC seems to have some bizarre idea that at some point there was a hypothesis that new species derived form old ones, then at some point that became a fact. Although so far he seems unable to explain exactly when or why it went form theory to fact.
Some scientists might, good scientists don’t. The reason being that the data that the sun revolves around people on Earth was widely accepted and easily reproducible. Nonetheless the inference drawn, ie the theory, was completely wrong. A fact of course can never become wrong.
What is so bad with admitting that we don’t know anything and are constantly working with assumptions?
500 years ago would you have been happy with the idea that people knew that sun orbited the Earth?
Why not? What is nonsensical about saying “I know nothing, but I make the following assumptions and accept the following axioms, and based on those assumptions and axioms I can deduce the following…”?
It’s nonsensical to have to qualify everything you say with that type of disclaimer. Once you say that a single time, it’s just easier to “this is a fact” with the understanding that you assume that, for instance, what we observe today is not a dream and we’ll wake up tomorrow and find out that all our assumptions were wrong.
The word “gravity” has two different meanings. There is a law of gravity and a theory of gravity. The law of gravity represents nothing more than the observed FACT that mass is attracted to mass. The theory (as formulated in General Relativity) explains WHY. The law does not have to be proven. It is undeniable. You are not floating from your chair right now. If you aren’t willing to say it’s a fact that you are physically pulled to the earth, then all you’re doing is retreating into such useless and childish semantic equivocating that will make any real discussion impossible. To make it simple for you, theories only explain why things happen. No observed phenomenon is a theory unto itself and observed phenomena do not need to be “proven,” save only in the most pointless and unhelpful epistemological sense of the word. Speciation is one such phenomenon. Speciation is the emergence of a new species from an antecedant. This emergence in itself is an event, not a mechanism and not a theory. A theory would explain WHY it happens. A mechanism is HOW it happens MECHANISTICALLY. It refers to the actual physical process. Speciation is a result of that process, it is not the process itself.
If the stone drops, then it is a fact that the stone dropped. When speciation is observed, it is a fact that speciation has occurred.
It is a directly observed phenomenon. That makes it a “fact.” No other discussion is necessary in that regard. The only question is WHY.
Speciation is neither a mechanism nor a theory…
No.
How about “observed phenomenon?”
This all just worthless sophistry. If you don’t like the word “facts,” substitute “Observed phenomena.” If you’re unwilling to say that anything is “true” or can be “known,” then you’re just wasting everbody’s time because it’s impossible to have a conversation about any scientific theory without utilizing language which separates ideas into some kind of ordered, ontological meanings.
Yes, and speciation would be a RESULT of a mechanism, not a mechanism itself. The mechanism for speciation is mutation, adaptation and selection.
It involves more than one specific mechanism but I suppose you could call it a complex mechanism if you wanted to.
It is not true that theories cannot be confirmed as facts. It is a theory that matter is composed of atoms. It is a theory that germs cause disease. “Theory” does not mean “unproven.” In scientific terms, a theory is an explanation for observed phenomena. No amount of proof cannot make a theory not be a theory, but that doesn’t mean a theory can’t be confirmed as "known fact’ (or as close to a known fact as we can get without being sophist babies about it),
Speciation is a result of the mechanism. It is not the mechanism itself.
Event: consequence: a phenomenon that follows and is caused by some previous phenomenon
Speciation is a phenomenon which is caused by preveious phenomena.
In this case, they are.
You did not observe David Copperfield flying. In science “observation” means more than just sensory perception.
Water has never boiled once?
If it can be repeatedly observed that under certain condition that water will boil, then it is a fact that water boils. Saying that there are conditions under which water will not boil does not erase that fact that water boils under other conditions.
You are parsing the language in this discussion to such an inane degree that you are effectively making it impossible to have a rational dialogue.
Actually, there is nothing wrong with saying the sun revoloves around the earth, since there is no absolute reference frame. In the reference frame of the earth, the sun **does **revolve around it. The error people were making in the past was that they assumed the earth was not moving. If we take that as an assumption, then it is correct to say that the sun revolves around the earth.
I’ve worked as a scientist and with scientists all my adult life. I’ve never heard one scientist quibble about the use of the word “fact” unless he was arguing about whether sepcific data was reproducible or not. Getting back to the water boiling example, we can say “it is a fact that water boils at 100 deg C at atmospheric pressure.”
Why would you ever have to do that if everyone accepts it to be the case? You are saying it’s ridiculous to discuss sicence if we all accept that we know nothing, because if we all accept that we know nothing we’ll have to qualify everything we say with “I know nothing”. But if we all accept it as axiomatic that we know nothing then why do we need to restate the axiom every time we say something?
I still don’t see anything ridiculous here except your apparent belief that we need to restate every axiom every time we speak. Why not just accept the axioms?
Why choose to aply this at this level? Why not apply it at the fundemental level? IOW why “assume that… what we observe today is not a dream and we’ll wake up tomorrow and find out that all our assumptions were wrong” only when using the word ‘fact’? Why not assume that from the outset and just say what you mean?
Or alternatively if you believe that you have to qualify everythingyou say with a disclaimer then why don’t you also need to qualify "“this is a fact” with a disclaimer?
It is easier to say what you mean, and it also avoids the propagation of ignorance of the type DtC just spouted forth. I’ve never believed that laziness was an excuse for aiding ignorance.
If you mean that somehting is immutably true and can never be proved wrong then say it is a fact. If you mean that you personally believe that something is a fact then say “IMO it is a fact”. If you believe somehting is scientifically established then say that it is scientifically established. Is that really so much harder than simply calling things facts when you know they are not?
Yes I realise all that. It’s a rather pedantic point given the nature of the illustration since, as you point out, with all the implicit assumptions the ‘fact’ was wrong.
We can say that, but we wouldn’t publish that would we?
IMO you are confusing two separate issues here. Scientists use the same vernacular as anyone else. Of course I’ll refer to the fact that water boils. I also refer to the fact that the sun will rise tomorrow. But that’s vernacular use. Nobody would ever quibble with my use of the word fact in those contexts. But that doesn’t mean that those things are facts. I also refer to alligators as lizards and nobody quibbles with that either, because it’s known that it’s vernacular.
As far as scientists quibbling about the word “fact”: http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&safe=off&q="no+facts+in+science"+site%3A.edu&btnG=Search&meta=
I’ll ask you the same question I asked Diogenes. At some point someone hypothesised that speciation occurred. Evidence was collected. Apparently you believe at some point that became a fact… When did it Become a fact and why? And since speciation is scientific it must be possible to falsify it, yes? So what happens if it is falsified? Is it still a fact, or does it cease to be a fact? And if so how can facts be mutable? What does “Fact” actually mean if it is so mutable?
Enough of this nonsense already. I’m no longer going to respond to it. I find it immature and evasive.
It’s called “sarcasm.”
Neither of those things are theories. Please look up the definiton of the word theory if you do nothing else.
What questions did I duck?
No. Only theories start out as hypotheses. Laws start as observations.
As soon as it’s observed.
I think you better go kick your ducks in the ass then, because they don’t seem to be helping you at all.
Process and mechanism are two different things. Process is what. mechanism is hhow. Speciation is a “what,” not a “how.” To call speciation a “mechanism” in itself is to say that speciation occurs by speciation. A meaningless statement.
Do you know what retrogenes are? If you did you wouldn’t be so cocky. They are the smoking gun for macroevolution.
Whatever. Ask and you shall receive. Irreftable confirmation of speciation from genetic evidence.
Scroll down especially to the section on endogenous retroviruse. If you can explain how that can happen without macroevolution there’s a Nobel Prize in it for you. I eagerly await your rebuttal.
I told you, I am no longer going to respond to this sophistry.
You did. You said that speciation was a “theory.” I was attempting to explain the difference between scientific theories and observed phenomena.
Cite for what? That you think speciation is a scientific theory? You said it in your first post in this thread. Take a look.
Is that what you were looking for? If not, then what do you want a cite for?
Look who’s talking.
Speciation is an observed phenomenon. It appears that John Mace has already posted the talkorigins link. I myself have provided a cite for the genetic evidence. If you are going to insist on waving your hands at the word “fact,” then we can’t really continue a dialogue.
Cite? Show me a cite which shows a mechanistic difference. What mechanistically distinguishes a speciating adaptation from any other adaptation? More to the point. what mechanistic barrier exists to prevent “micro” from becoming “macro?”
I’m sorry. but your cite said no such thing. You cherry-picked a vague quotation with little context and no link which said nothing about a mechanistic difference between micro and macro events. There is an unexplained reference to “discontinuities” at the bottom of your quote, but it doesn’t say what those discontinuities are or how they relate to the mechanisms of mutation and adaptation. It sure as hell did not say anything about a mechanistic barrier between the two events. You’re going to have to do better than that, dude.
Then what are you arguing about? Did you enter this thread simply to bicker about terminology?
If it happens once, doesn’t that disprove your assertion that speciation is not a fact (“fact” as in observed phenomenon, and I’m quite finished quibbling about that word. I’m not about to cripple myself lingustically simply to satisfy such an unimportant and specious semantic objection).
They provide irrefutable evidence of macroevolution…something you seem to be claiming has not been proven. If you accept the scientific evidence and are only picking some kind of abstract semantic or epistemological point then it isn’t really possible to have a scientific discussion.
No you haven’t, and once you conced that microevolution occurs, the burden shifts to you to show that something would mechanistically prevent macroevolution from occurring. Macro is proved by micro. The ball is in your court.
We can say it is a fact that water boils at 100 C at a pressure of 101.3 kPa (14.7 psi). Standard atmospheric pressure, not just whatever the atmospheric pressure happens to be.
??
Every single post you have made to this thread has been “a semantic argument,” so trying to claim that I have introduced that problem is a bit silly.
At any rate, while I am willing to have semantic discussions regarding various words, I have not the time to engage in a discussion where every single term must be defined and challenged just for the sake of some abstruse point. Since you do not believe that water ever boils, I think I will go steep some tea in the liquid that issued from my tap which has been raised to a temperature sufficient to make some sort of gas pass through the top of the vessel simultaneous with a sound resembling that of a whistle emanating from the direction in which I can see the vessel on the stove.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/21/AR2005122102326.html
Looks like the FISA court is a little problematic given the President’s new claims. If he can just bypass them, why do they exist? Seems like a giant waste of everyone’s time, not to mention tainting all the previous warrants. Totaly harmless, folks!
Diogenes the Cynic,
I see that you waffled much in that post, but you still haven’t provided any actual evidence to support nay of your claims. It’s all argument form assertion with no support at all. You can’t use your assertions to support your earlier assertions. Give me something of substance to support your claims.
Cite!
Cite.
“Speciation as a Gradual Process”
http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/lectures/speciation/speciation.html
“The process of speciation is a 2 stage process in which reproductive isolating mechanisms (RIM’s) arise between groups of populations.”
www.agron.iastate.edu/~weeds/AG517/Content/ChangeCommun/speciation.html
“Allopatric speciation (a process that potentially generates new species through physical separation of populations) is the best documented and is perhaps the easiest isolation process to illustrate.”PapkeR.T & Ward, D.M. 2004 “The importance of physical isolation to microbial diversification” FEMS Microbrial ecology. 48:3
“The radiation of the East African cichlid fishes has engaged biologists for over a century. Because so much taxonomic diversity has evolved recently, they are an ideal natural system in which to study the process of speciation.” Markert, J.A., Danley, P.D., Arnegard, M. E. 2001 “New markers for new species: microsatellite loci and the East African cichlids” Trends in Ecology and Evolution. 16:2
For the love of Pete, do you have any idea about the actual science involved in this subject? Do you have any evidence at all to support your claim that speciation isn’t a process?
Bollocks.
Now you have made an assertion, and I have made an assertion. The difference is that I have supported my assertions with references. Care to do the same?
Bollocks. I’ve already provided references showing that it is a mechanism. Now how about you providing evidence to support your claim that it is not?
Cite!
Suits me. Changes things not one bit.
I see. I prove that DtC is spouting ignorant tripe and has no facts to support what he declares so boldly to be ‘fact’, and then it becomes worthless sophiostry.
Buddy, proving that someone dishonest and propagating ignorance is not worthless sophistry. It is alarge part of why we are here, remember? Fighting ignorance, not disseminating it.
I will et the person you originally challenged deal with that in detail, but it does rather change the complexion of the debate.
DTC has gone from challenging spingears claim that there no proof positive that macro evolution with a retort that macroevolution is a fact to his current rather lame position that Speciation is an observed phenomenon. Yawn. I doubt that springears will even bother to challenge that claim since it doesn’t even contradict what he said. Observation of a phenomenon is not positive proof of the phenomenon and what he says stands.
Yawn.
Cite!
You repeat this assertion ad nauseum, that doesn’t make it true. Show us your evidence. I’ve provided references showing that you are wrong. Can you now pleas present your evidence, or are you just spouting off about shit you don’t understand?
Same assertion repeated yet again. Still no reference to support it.
Speciation is a phenomenon which is caused by preveious phenomena.
Which still doesn’t answer the question, which was for a reference that defines speciation as an event rather than a process or development. All you’ve done is provide a reference that shows that speciation can be an event as well as a process. Now if you can show that the terms are mutually exclusive you won’t be wasting our time.
No, they aren’t. Gee, I can argue form assertion too.
Does it really? Do tell?
No, that’s incorrect.
Cite!
Once more, all you do is keep repeating the same assertion with no actual evidence.
Saying that there are conditions under which water will not boil does not erase that fact that water boils under other conditions.
When you contribute something more than your own baseless assertions to this discussion you can start commenting on what is meaningful. So far you have provided nothing. You won’t even comment on the fact I have shown your claims regarding macro-evolution being mechanistically ident8icla to micro to be so much bull plop.
I know that GWB supports ID (and probably Creationism), but I doubt that he will try to quash supporters of science using FISA.
Different thread, perhaps?
Er, oops. Wrong meeting!
Anyway: facts are facts. In science, like all knowledge, facts are open to challenge if better evidence comes along showing they were misread, misreported, misconstrued, etc. But facts are facts in science, not theories. Facts are the evidence you use to prove theories. Sometimes, theories are needed to help find ways to establish facts. But common descent is a fact (a historical one). Natural selection is a theory. And thus both will always remain: natural selection will never become a “fact” (other than it being a fact that it occurs).
One thing often forgotten in the goofy contortions needed to scold scientists for using terms like “proved” or “fact” is that it is scientists who are using the everyday sense of the word, and their critics who are trying to equivocate in concepts foriegn to the everyday usage. Scientists get facts in exactly the same way that we regularly observe and call things facts in everyday lief: we observe them, or have very strong inferential evidence, and so on. Could we be wrong? Of course, always! But that isn’t a bar from stating that something is a fact or that some theory is proven. Not in everyday life. And not in science.
Evolution certainly does happen. Why, I remember when this thread was a debate, as far as the eye could see. [hwaak, spit] Ayep. Back in those days we useta debate about whether ‘twas right or not t’ ban Intelligent Design, y’know. 'Course, I 'member back when I useta speak with good grammblar, too, only I ain’t on accounta that evolution stuff agin. [puff pipe]
I’ve supported every claim I’ve made. You continued demands for “cites” are becoming ridiculous.
I don’t know why I keep responding to this stuff. Speciation is not a mechanism. Calling it a “process” does not make it a mechanism. A mechanism is HOW something occurs. Speciation is not a HOW, it’s a WHAT.
No, you’ve provided quotations which refer to it as a “process.” That’s a completely different thing. Water becoming ice is a “process.” It is not a mechanism.
I don’t have to provide a cite that an “observed phenomenon” is a “fact.” Your objection to using those terms synonomously is unworthy of any further discussion and does not prove you right about anything.
In that case, I’ll keep saying “fact.” For the purpose of this discussion I have defined "fact: as “observed phenomenon.”
[qupte]I see. I prove that DtC is spouting ignorant tripe and has no facts to support what he declares so boldly to be ‘fact’, and then it becomes worthless sophiostry.
[/quote]
You havn’t proven any such thing, dude. All you’ve done is argue incessantly about terminology and expose a complete lack of knowledge as to the actual FACTS.
Please. You’re embarrassing yourself. You’re getting stomped, in case you havn’t noticed.
This is really silly. I suggested a change in terminology simply as an attempt to get the discussion back on course and away from your sophist equivocating. There is no substantive difference between saying something is a “fact,” and saying it’s an “observed phenomenon.” Speciation is a fact. Deal with that honestly instead of…whatever it is you’re doing. I don’t even know.
Um…actually, that’s EXACTLY what it is.
No it doesn’t. Sorry.
Yawn.
Cite!
You repeat this assertion ad nauseum, that doesn’t make it true. Show us your evidence. I’ve provided references showing that you are wrong. Can you now pleas present your evidence, or are you just spouting off about shit you don’t understand?
[/quote]
I’m done trying to explain the difference to you. If you can’t understand that speciation does not occur “by speciation,” then I can’t help you. You simply aren’t tracking the conversation and you’re wasting my time.
There is no contradiction between the two. There is no reason that an event cannot be a process.
They’re NOT mutually exclusive. What is mutally exclusive is an event and a mechanism. Speciation is a WHAT, a mechanism is a HOW. Speciation is not a HOW. To say it is would be to say that speciation is an explanation of ITSELF. A statement that would make no sense at all.
Yes, really. Scientific “observation” means that something is confirmed through a variety of tools under controlled conditions.
Then why did you say it?
You’ve shown nohing of the sort. All you’ve done is raise nonsensical semantic objections, ignore cited facts and expose your own near complete ignorance of scientific terminology.
How are you doing on explaining those retrogenes?
Is this a new creationist strategy or something? To simply deny there are any such thing as facts?
Translation: I’ve been called on the issue and can’t find anything to support my outrageous claims.
How about you start providing something for a change? You’ve brought nothing but incorrect information and baseless opinion to this thread so far.
:rolleyes:
Oh dear, not this disingenuous trick.
The questions that I prefaced with “A couple of simple questions Diogenes.” Do a phrase search and you will find them. They aren’t hidden. You ducked them and never bothered to answer them, instead starting with the now thoroughly discredited lie that speciation isn’t a process or mechanism. Now that we’ve thoroughly established that speciation is a process and mechanism perhaps you can answer them?
Cite!
Let me guess, this is more baseless assertion on your part that you won’t be able to support, right?
But let’s play the game. How does a scientist making an observation know if they heading towards a law or a theory? It seems they would need to know w a priori to avoid passing through hypothesis at any stage.
That’s handy. So what if I hypothesis that David Copperfield can fly. Is that now a fact because I observed it?
Well let’s see, I thoroughly discredited your claim that there is no mnechanistic difference between macro and micro evolution with refernces.
I thoroughly discredited your repeated assertion that speciation is not a process, with references.
At this point I’d say I’ve won every point because of those ducks. I’m still waiting to see you provide anything at al but your baseless opinion.
Cite!.
I’ve provided references that contradict this. A mechanism is any process that produces a result accor9idng to the definition provided.
Can you tell us what bizarre world dictionary you are pulling these defintion from Diogenes?
Cite!
To call speciation a “mechanism” in itself is simply to say that speciation is a process that produces something, most obviously new species.
Yes I do know what retrogenes are. Now I;m waiting for the relevance to be introduced to this apparent red herring.
No, you said the evidence was unequivocal. Once more I suspect you wanted to use a word that seemed to brook no argument but didn’t actually know what it means. Unequivocal means that it allows no doubt whatsoever. That evidence still allows for doubt. I have doubts about it, albeit small doubts.
Now can you provide unequivocal evidence as you claimed, or were you once more talking rubbish when you said you had such evidence?
Pal I suggest that you not use absolutes like “unequivocal” and “fact” unless you know what they actually mean. Try using words like “compelling” instead. You won’t look so much like you’re making bluffing with no hand, which you clearly are.
Yes of course, I said that I could explai that. Oh hang on, no I didn’t. So this is one massive freakin’ strawman isn’t it.
I see. You make a claim, I ask for a reference and you say it’s sophistry so you don’t need to produce.
Don’t think that fools anyone. You clearly have nothing.
And I knew what that distinction is so no, I didn’t say it and the whole thing is a strawman.
Now can you produce some actual evidence for your claims?
A reference for your claim that speciation is not a theory.
A reference for your claim that speciation is not a process.
A reference for your claim that speciation is not a mechanism.
That will do for a start. You’ve repeated those claims ad nauseum, they form the basis of your argument, yet they have been refuted by reputable references and you can produce nothing to support the claims.
Is that what you were looking for? If not, then what do you want a cite for?
I just want one simple reference that any authority in the whole world agree with your contention that speciation is a fact. I’ve already provided numeporus references from reputable sources which say that there are no facts in science This isn’t handwaving, it’s trying to determine if you have any basis at all for what you say. Given your track record I’d have to conclude that you made it up form whole cloth.
How about Erwin again? “The empirical distribution of evolutionary novelties through time suggests that the origin of evolutionary innovation may be distinct form much of traditional microevolution”. How much plainer do you want it? The origin of the innovation is distinct between macro and microevolution.
There are any number of possibilities including the level of selection, the heritability of non-genetic traits such as geography, the loss of even beneficial phenotypes through inter-clade sorting, the mechanisms of morphological variation and the selection of traits that aren’t emergent at the level of selection.
None AFAIK, but once again you are weaseling. You never said that no barrier exists, you said they were mechanistically the same. This is not the case.
I am neither able nor wiling to quote the whole article for you. Now you can go out there and read it yourself. I can provide you with numerous others that also state quite clearly that macroevolution and microevolution are not mechanistically identical.
The point you should be noting is that the article exists. You made a statement in profound ignorance of the current state of the actual science.
This is such a blatant strawman I can hardly be bothered addressing it. Nobody said that a barrier existed. You however claimed that the two were mechanistically the same, this has now been well established not to be the case and you have been unable to provide any evidence to support your claim.
Yes, when you say that macroevolution and microevolution are mechanistically identical, and I provide an article actually entiltled “macroevolution is not repeated rounds of microevolution” that says “the origin of evolutionary innovation may be distinct from much of traditional microevolution” , I can see how I would need to do better.
:rolleyes:
Begging the question. If it is a fact that it happens of course it is afact that it happens. Now all you have to do is demonstrate that it is a fact that it happens, which of course you can not do.
No buddy. Nothing in science can be irrefutable. As soon as it isn’t open to refutation it ceases to be science. They provide compelling evidence. You really need to stop using these blanket words to bluff with.
…something you seem to be claiming has not been proven. If you accept the scientific evidence and are only picking some kind of abstract semantic or epistemological point then it isn’t really possible to have a scientific discussion.
Yes, I have. If the origin of novel evolutionary traits at a species level is distinct from microevolution then by definition the process that originated them (the mechanism) is distinct.
Absolute nonsense and a total strawman. Nobody ever claimed that anything mechanistaically prevents macroevolution for occurring.
You OTOH did claim that the process that produces to microevolution is identical to the process that produces to macroevolution. Now I’ve provided a reference that shows that is not the case. Please provide your reference for your claim that they are mechanistically identical.
Of course I; have long since realised that you are unable to do so.
Postmodern critical theory comes homes to roost. It seems to be the fashion among conservatives of all stripes these days. Curse those French intellectuals!
Laws don’t generally explain anything. They are just observations of either constants or simple relationships that are, to the best of everyone’s knowledge, universal. Setting out to prove that something is a law is a pretty different task than advancing a theory for how something works, even at the most speculative stage of hypothesis.