(November 14, 2014 at 12:12 pm)pocaracas Wrote: Errr.... who were you talking to in that last sentence?

Whoever happened to be reading.

Quote:Why do you guys refer to each other as "my opponent"?

On my part, I just find it easier to type that instead of producing the underscore in his username on my keyboard.

For as devoid of content as HM's opening statement was, I thought your response was great Esqui. Gotta work with what they give you, heh. I did specifically enjoy the fact that you pointed out his utter lack of outside sources though.

(November 14, 2014 at 10:23 am)Jenny A Wrote:

(November 14, 2014 at 12:26 am)Exian Wrote: I was explaining evolution the best I could to my daughter the other day, and we got snagged up on how one species could become another. I told her minor changes add up over long periods of time. She looked like she was just taking my word for it, so I came up with this (thought I'd share it here and let it get picked apart before I told her):

Take 100 generations of any animal. Every 10 generations will be a bench mark for change. Animal 1 produces animal 2, animal 2 produces animal 3-- all the way up to 10. If some how the animal in generation 10 could find an animal from generation 1, they could reproduce, because not enough changes have occurred for speciation. But! once animal 10 produces animal 11, animal 11 can not reproduce with animal 1, because enough small changes have occurred to make it a new species of animal.

I'd also make it clear that its not that clean of a process and it takes way more than 10 generations. Also, there will be a lot more fart jokes. She loves those. So, what's up? Is there a simpler way?

---

Actually, let me apologize- This probably doesn't belong here. The conversation steered this way and I just posted this without thinking about it.

You have it exactly except that 100 or more generations would be better.

There's another way too. Sometimes a population gets split by a geographical barrier-- a landslide separates one population/species into two. Both sides continue breeding, and for several generations if you removed the barrier there would still be one species, but there would come a time when they could no longer breed even if you lifted the barrier.

The barrier can be social too. Change one bird's mating song and he and his off-spring might become a new breeding population.

Thank you for the taking the time to critique this Jenny. I have more to say, but I don't want to derail this thread, so, for now, just know I appreciate the help.

(November 14, 2014 at 12:19 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote: For as devoid of content as HM's opening statement was, I thought your response was great Esqui. Gotta work with what they give you, heh. I did specifically enjoy the fact that you pointed out his utter lack of outside sources though.

but, but, but

His Majesty's tactic seems to be what ever the opposite is of the Gish Gallop and word salad. Leave your opponent clinging on to the skin of your argument's teeth.

Well done, Esq., on working with what you had.

---

(November 14, 2014 at 12:17 pm)JuliaL Wrote: I'm looking forward to HM putting forth evidence that his claimed limits to divergence between 'kinds' exist.

I had the same thought. He wants evidence of "macroevolution", claiming it's accepted on blind faith, then asserts some boundary on kinds changing kinds without evidence to back the claim.

I wonder if he would agree that grass and corn are "two different kinds".
http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/selection/corn/

His_Majesty Wrote: I take the position of Kent Hovind, who calls the theory of evolution rightfully what it is, a religion.

I must admit, the moment I read that, any shreds of micro-respect I had for Madge's position went extinct out of sheer embarrassment.

(November 14, 2014 at 12:12 pm)pocaracas Wrote:

(November 14, 2014 at 12:08 pm)rasetsu Wrote: That's an opening statement? Pshaw. Apparently he's a one trick pony.

Why are you insulting ponies?

---

(November 14, 2014 at 12:08 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Well, I posted my response to his opening, which was a bit of a struggle since... honestly, there wasn't much there. My response to his rebuttal will take a little longer but stay tuned, I'll see what I can do.

Feedback's always appreciated, of course.

Errr.... who were you talking to in that last sentence?
Why do you guys refer to each other as "my opponent"?

How else are you supposed to speak to or about a person who PMs you to tell you you're a "dead man walking"?
I agree though, taking up his majesty's challenge was more kindness on Esquilaxs part than a debate.

Quote:I take the position of Kent Hovind, who calls the theory of evolution rightfully what it is, a religion.

Well, there you have it. He's a fucking moron.

Rather comically, Hovind Sr actually accepts evolution... he just doesn't want to call it that:

(November 14, 2014 at 12:20 pm)Exian Wrote:

(November 14, 2014 at 10:23 am)Jenny A Wrote: You have it exactly except that 100 or more generations would be better.

There's another way too. Sometimes a population gets split by a geographical barrier-- a landslide separates one population/species into two. Both sides continue breeding, and for several generations if you removed the barrier there would still be one species, but there would come a time when they could no longer breed even if you lifted the barrier.

The barrier can be social too. Change one bird's mating song and he and his off-spring might become a new breeding population.

Thank you for the taking the time to critique this Jenny. I have more to say, but I don't want to derail this thread, so, for now, just know I appreciate the help.

Considering I had a creationist upbringing/education, my introduction to evolution has been like that of a child. I'd say what helped me to understand this subject was the concept of ring species (finches on island A can breed with B and B with C, but A and C cannot), and looking with my own eyes at the evolution of Skinks in Australia transitioning from egg birth to live birth (they can currently do both) in response to its' change in environment from temperate climate to mountain climate. I do believe Esquilax linked to the skinks in his opening statement. Lastly, transitional fossils like this one:

Livescience.com Wrote:
This ancient creature was undoubtedly a fish, possessing gills, scales and fins. However, it also had features seen in modern tetrapods — four-limbed creatures like amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals — such as a mobile neck and robust ribcage.

This extinct fish had large forefins and shoulders, elbows and partial wrists, enabling it to support itself on ground. This makes it the best-known example of an intermediate between finned animals and limbed animals marking the evolutionary leap from water to land for vertebrates, or creatures with backbones.
The scientists discovered the rear portion of Tiktaalik, which contained hips as well as partial pelvic fin material. This made a direct comparison of the front and rear appendages of the animal possible. [10 Useless Limbs (and Other Vestigial Organs)]

Unexpectedly, the researchers found Tiktaalik had big, strong pelvic bones with similarities to early tetrapods.

"I was expecting to find a diminutive hind fin and pelvis,"study lead author Neil Shubin, a paleontologist at the University of Chicago,told LiveScience. "Seeing the whopping pelvis set me back a bit — I looked at it again and again, because I was quite surprised."

The pelvic girdle of Tiktaalik was nearly identical in size to its shoulder girdle, a tetrapodlike feature that would help support strong rear appendages. It also possessed a deep ball-and-socket hip joint that connected to a highly mobile femur — analogous to a tetrapod thighbone — that could extend beneath the body.

It remains uncertain how the hind appendages of the earliest limbed vertebrates were used. "Were they used to walk, swim or both?" Shubin asked.

The scientists detailed their findings online today (Jan. 13) in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

http://m.livescience.com/42525-early-fis...-legs.html

There's lots of examples of species alive who are obvious in transition.

Phylogenic taxonomy (DNA) has also undoubtedly connected land mammals to ocean mammals. The transitional fossils are impressive.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary...vograms_03