What is the debate here?
Simon: For your own good, you might want to give up on this. The mods have already closed your other thread which attenpted to flame someone in the title.
ok
The effects of gravitry today don’t “say a thing about what happened millions of years ago” either. Is one to believe that this is grounds for supposing that gravity began relatively recently? Or is the evidence that corroborates the hypothesis that gravity existed in the past , (coupled with the lack of evidence that disproves the hypothesis), to be taken as proof that gravu=ity did indeed exist and function in th epast the same way it does today?
Wait! SimonX, I promise to be good. I won’t flame anybody.(whatever that means) I like to talk about evolution. It’s kinda important. Surely gentlemen can talk about things without resorting to name calling…watch…
- DaveX said…
Technically, speciation is just a set of criteria that we use to catalog biological life forms. The rules are completely and arbitrarily assigned by us. *
And I respond politely …
Well not quite DaveX. Although no biological entity is exactly the same as another, the arbitrary classification of species has worth. For one thing it allows us to grasp the concept of evolution.
And then DavidX will likely respond…
Oh yeah, I get it milum, like everything else in this world, words and groups of words are not absolutes but serve an evolutionary function. Dang it milum if had given me half a sec I would have said it myself.
See?
______ 
Actually, speciation Refers to the evolutionary formation of new biological species, usually by the division of a single species into two or more genetically distinct ones.
Being genetically distinct is different than arbitrary.
DaveX is referring to something else.
"Being genetically distinct is different than (being)arbitrary."
sez SimonX
Oh oh, I see we have a petty semantical problem at the outset of our discussion, so, let’s try to establish a common basis for our use of terms. Let us agree that …
** Ultimately there is no difference between life and non-life.*
So then after applying an arbitrary definition of life, let us ask…
** Given the requirements of continuing through time were does the extent of an isolated single life-form begin and end in space?*
(you don’t have to be definite, just agree that the entity doesn’t end at the perimeters of its cell or its cell clusters.)
Agree quickly and we’ll proceed.
Ultimately there is no difference between life and non-life.
Unless you’re using an odd definition of ultimately, I’m not sure as to what you’re talking about.
Life is distinct from non-life.
I see, SimonX…umm, it seems like I’ve got a long row to hoe.
Meanwhile, anyone else?__
I’ve got one. In the pledge thread you said that evolution was “very well designed.” Were you just speaking figuratively or do you think that evolution was actually “designed?” If so, what is your evidence?
life ( P ) Pronunciation Key (lf)
n. pl. lives (lvz)
1:
a: The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism.
b: The characteristic state or condition of a living organism.
There seems to be a distinct difference between life and non-life, as the term is conventionally used. I’m sorry, Milum, but I don’t understand your statement.
Do you mean “everything dies”? (Technically, not true, yet) or are you talking about the Gaia Hypothesis?
Ah ** Cynic**, you digress. Evidence? Determinism. Look around. The design was inherant with first light.
Now can anybody out there in Straight Dopeland define life as opposed to non-life without being arbitrary?
Why of course you can’t, such is the nature of words.
Now. I’ll ask again. Does a person end at the end of his skin or does the he that is him continue into the envelope of air that allows him continuance?
Hurry.
Do you have a special definition of arbitrary you’d like to use?
on the same note, nobody has ever observed god. Yet a lot pf people do not doubt he/she/it exists.
especially creationists.
Life is the following: Eats, reproduces, mutates.
http://www.panspermia.org/whatis2.htm
As for your question, it depends on what your definition of ‘end’ is. Pray tell, good sir, enough with the leading questions. Submit to us a hypothesis.
Determinism does not imply design. Try again.
Can you rephrase this in a comprehensible manner? Or is that even possible?
Just because no one understands you doesn’t mean you’re clever.:rolleyes:
I think I can decode a little bit of it. “Determinism” is basically the philosophy that all events are the result of antecedent events. IOW, everything was “caused” by something else. This is really just a truism, not a philosophy, but some use it as an argument aginst free will. Milum may also be trying to imply a First Cause argument but it’s sort of hard to tell.
In any event, the statement that evolution proceeded from a series of events precipitated from the Big Bang (“first light”) is still not an argument for design.
The “end of the skin” thing is probably an implication that life/evolution/etc. is not a static phenomenon but is only part of a continuum stretching from Big Bang to the End of the Universe.
Milum, explication, please?
I would certainly not argue that life is part of some sort of temporal continuum, as Milum seems to be implying. However, it is part of a chemical continuum. Consider that we have objects which we know to be “not life”: rocks, dirt, air, etc. We also have objects which we know to be “life”: bacteria, sea cucumbers, kudzu, xebu, etc.
There are some objects, though, which are close to the boundary. Virsues, for example. There is much debate as to whether they can be considered “alive” or not, and this is largely because they are close to the chemical boundary which separates life from non-life.
If we stick to definitions such as E-Sabbath posted, then one can make the call, but there would still be grey areas. What is an object that reproduces and mutates, for example, but doesn’t eat?
The point, then, is that the definition of life is somewhat subjective, if, at these fine levels of detail there becomes a sort of blur between which category to put an object in. Does the virus go in the “life” pile, or the “not life” pile?
Milum’s analogy (which instead is likely to become an entirely separate discussion), then, illustrates is that there is a similar subjectivity to the determination and assignment of species. There are numerous species concepts (.pdf document) which attempt to define them, but individual definitions typically only work in certain cases. Using the criteria of interbreeding, for example, isn’t much help when examining the fossil record, since it is virtually impossible to determine the extent to which two organisms of similar morphology and habitat could have interbred when living, simply by looking at bones or shells.
In an evolutionary context, as populations diverge, it then does become rather subjective to point to a given generation and say, “This is where a new species has evolved!” We can look at the end results (which, of course, introduces a new wrinkle: how do we know what we see is the “end result”?) and possibly identify populations as separate species, but during the process of divergence, it will be nearly impossible to do so in any objective fashion.
Species exist, but they aren’t always so discrete as we would like.
Eliminate all Dogs except Saint Bernards and Chihuahuas. By definition, you now have two separate species of dogs as they cannot interbreed.
Another Thought:
Lions and Tigers are clearly different species. However, their hybred offspring, Ligers and Tigons are fertile. Fertility also occurs in many other interspecies matings.