Speciation does not allow for change out side of the category. Fish do not become reptile and reptile do not become mammal. The reliance on speciation as the proof of the theory is ridiculous.
2007-06-02 08:13:17 · 11 answers · asked by ? 6 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
I have as much proof as you.
2007-06-02 08:18:07 · update #1
Come on folks what about the Cambrian explosion. You can't have it both ways.
2007-06-02 08:19:31 · update #2
The bible has two thousand years and more peer review and non peer review than any published scientific paper will ever have.
2007-06-02 08:25:45 · update #3
Speciation is *part* of the theory of evolution.
> "Speciation does not allow for change out side of the category."
On what basis do you say that??
Speciation is just the branching of one species into two genetically distinct species ... i.e. two subpopulations of a species became genetically isolated for long enough that they have lost the ability to interbreed (a process documented easily in the laboratory). A new species is BY DEFINITION, a new category.
Once they are genetically separated, the normal process of change through natural selection can take the two branches in *radically* different directions, depending on (a) the mutations that appear in the two genomes; and (b) the different environments they are exposed to. Given enough time, this process of branching + change + time *creates* new categories ... new species, new genera, new families, new classes, orders, phyla, etc. The evidence that this has occurred is in the fossils, in the genes, in the DNA.
This puts the burden is on you to show why speciation simply *CANNOT* produce new categories. You can't just say "it's ridiculous" ... you have to show *why*.
{edit}
C'mon ... it's not enough just to utter a phrase like "the Cambrian explosion" ... *how* does that show that species CANNOT lead to categories? The cambrian explosion just shows that this branching process can occasionally be *very* rapid (where by "rapid" I mean within 10 million years ... which is excruciatingly slow by human terms, but extremely rapid by geologic terms, in fact more rapid than the rate of fossilization). It also means that many of the precursors to the cambrian explosion were soft-bodied organisms that didn't leave fossils at all.
{edit}
> "The bible has two thousand years and more peer review and non peer review than any published scientific paper will ever have."
Hello??? If the Bible was written "by God", then how can it be "peer" reviewed? Now who's trying to have it both ways?
2007-06-02 08:16:21 · answer #1 · answered by secretsauce 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
???
the Bible isn't peer reviewed, it's just taken as true by believers.
They don't come out with more accurate versions over time.
What about the Cambrian explosion? That was the time when the basic body structures developed.
I don't quite get your top-level question.
It would be better if you asked the question, explaining what it is you're asking about.
What does "change outside the category" mean?
"Fish do not become reptile" -- well, no one says that a fish -- pop! -- turns into a reptile, so what's your point?
Unclear what you mean by "reliance on speciation as the proof".
But back to the Bible point: The Bible was written long before we had the tools of modern science -- the intellectual tools, as well as the technology we have now.
So it's being old is not a strong argument for its SCIENTIFIC accuracy.
I'm inclined to believe it was never intended as a work of science anyway.
So why should it be treated as a work of sound science.
2007-06-02 08:51:11 · answer #2 · answered by tehabwa 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Since most people who already answered have a problem with your question, maybe you should change it to, "Is speculation what the theory of evolution is?" And the answer is a resounding, "YES !".
One more thing : It's not a SCIENTIFIC theory; it's merely a hypothesis.
The Geologic Column shows species fully formed. According to evolution, there should be literally billions of transitional forms. Where are they?
Finally, for those who think that the concept of 'irreducible complexity' has no merit, answer this: Which part of the fish changed FIRST in order to make its life viable on land? Its lungs? Then it would drown before being able to live on land. Its fins into legs and arms? Then it wouldn't be able to swim so well and predator fishes would have eaten it up before it developed lungs to survive on land.
2007-06-02 08:44:08 · answer #3 · answered by flandargo 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Two things "just is" :
The cosmos, and
The change within the cosmos.
The first is a permanent "is"
the second is a changing and therefore inconstant "is."
The first is essentially what a religion/spiritualist calls as God or the Truth.
Nature and phenomenon is the second, the ever changing "evolution" of all things, which does not include the formless form (Absolute) that holds all things that change.
2007-06-02 08:27:02 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Nope 150 years of testing, and tens of thousands of peer reviewed papers is not speculation.
2007-06-02 08:19:21 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Anyone who has visited Darwin knows that many people up there belong to a different species.
2016-05-19 05:19:23 · answer #6 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Read "The Ancestor's Tale" by Richard Dawkins. It answers these inane questions beyond any doubt, and many more, like "irreducible complexity."
2007-06-02 08:23:49 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Stop answering this guy's questions. He is just trying to incite. Don't buy into it.
2007-06-02 08:18:16 · answer #8 · answered by Nunya B 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Locutus, I think you accept what you like to call 'micro-evolution', yes?
2007-06-02 08:18:15 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
kind of like the idea that a god created everything out of nothing...
2007-06-02 08:17:08 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋