The Great Debate.

[pineapplebunnybounce]

While I think this debate is just for show. Nye can't prove anything and neither can the other guy. We will never know the truth about how humans/life came to be.
What does matter is what is happening now and the reality of the world, where we came from is irrelevant to the problems that face the whole world currently.

Science can "prove" natural selection and small changes within a species but it has not been able to show how a whole species comes to be.
Creationism doesn't prove anything it is a faith based line of thinking, with no science attached to it.

So we have 2 guys debating something that neither have concrete proof for or against.

They should debate monetary policy, immigration, race mixing, and other pertinent issue that effect us today.

Let's clear this up, shall we?

What is the definition of a species?

[Jackalope]

Let's clear this up, shall we?

What is the definition of a species?

That's a damn good question. Problem is, as far as I know, there isn't a single coherent definition where counterexamples can't be produced to invalidate it. That's part of the problem.

[pineapplebunnybounce]

Let's clear this up, shall we?

What is the definition of a species?

That's a damn good question. Problem is, as far as I know, there isn't a single coherent definition where counterexamples can't be produced to invalidate it. That's part of the problem.

Well if one were to claim that evolution hasn't shown that a species can come to be, the starting point would be for them to pick a definition, no?

The thing is, species is a human concept that came up because of our need to classify things. In the real world, it's all continuous. Our ancestors at no point gave birth to the "homo sapiens" they gave birth to children that became increasingly like us. But we would not be able to breed with our own ancestral species if we went back in time. But if we didn't go so far back, we would be able to. It's all continuous, that's why the definition of species cannot cover all living beings, which is where a lot of the confusion about evolution comes from.

[paintpooper]

A species... yes that is a good question. I'd say a dog is a species... or dog like creatures, I can see how a wolf dingo dog coyote are all very similar and evolution could create those differences.
But the problem is where did the first dog come from... a fish, out of the oceans somehow? I find that leap hard to comprehend, that is the issue I see with modern evolution theory.

[Cato]

Don't get too excited Zen, rumor has it that Ham will have to permanently return home if he loses the debate.

[Minimalist]

What is the definition of a species?

And the whole thing breaks down right there!

[pineapplebunnybounce]

A species... yes that is a good question. I'd say a dog is a species... or dog like creatures, I can see how a wolf dingo dog coyote are all very similar and evolution could create those differences.
But the problem is where did the first dog come from... a fish, out of the oceans somehow? I find that leap hard to comprehend, that is the issue I see with modern evolution theory.

I've briefly explained the concept of a species in my post right before yours. If you are interested in this subject, I highly recommend Richard Dawkins' "The Ancestor's Tale". He explains the human need for a discontinuities and order and how that conflicts with reality better than any other explanation I've read. It is also very well written and very enjoyable and you'll learn about a lot of new species ( I mean creatures you've never heard of).

ETA: The leap you perceive exists because the ones that would fill the gap from the modern species to their common ancestors are extinct. But a lot of their fossils have been found. It's basically very small changes over a long period of time (a very very long period of time) and then all the earlier ones died. Leaving you with modern species that don't look like each other.

[Zen Badger]

Don't get too excited Zen, rumor has it that Ham will have to permanently return home if he loses the debate.

But at least if he does come back to Oz the best he will be able to do is be a street preacher in Arundel mall that everyone ignores.

[paintpooper]

I have read plenty of Richard Dawkins, used to be a huge fan of his, until I found of the truth about him.

So lets break it down. Lets say a Dog has a mutation that is beneficial, lets say a thumb, so now the creature can grasp thing, now this dog has to mate with many other dogs and hopefully that mutation will pass on all his offspring. Now if that trait has to continue wouldn't there be massive amount of incest as it is only his offspring with that genetic trait? So each new "species" is a product of lots and lots of incest?

[pineapplebunnybounce]

I have read plenty of Richard Dawkins, used to be a huge fan of his, until I found of the truth about him.

So lets break it down. Lets say a Dog has a mutation that is beneficial, lets say a thumb, so now the creature can grasp thing, now this dog has to mate with many other dogs and hopefully that mutation will pass on all his offspring. Now if that trait has to continue wouldn't there be massive amount of incest as it is only his offspring with that genetic trait? So each new "species" is a product of lots and lots of incest?

What truth about him? He's a big deal evolutionary biologist.

Sorry, I'm not interested in teaching you evolution on a forum. Read other books then. And that's obviously not how inheritance work. You pass on your genes whether or not you marry within your family. Obviously.