Discussion on debate between Esquilax and His_Majesty.

[Jenny A]

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.

[Thumpalumpacus]

a block of limestone...with properly stratified fossil layers.

oooh nice

Stratified limestone is cool ... it lines my office.



Pay no attention to the serpent offering up apples.

[Mister Agenda]

I see His Magesty has replied, then made his opening statment, and takes the same position as Hovind.

[Jackalope]

That opening statement? It's as brilliant as Hovind's "PhD dissertation".

[abaris]

That opening statement? It's as brilliant as Hovind's "PhD dissertation".

Mail order degrees by a not accredited christian university in christian education rule when it comes to being an authority on scientific matters.

[downbeatplumb]

So, like, does anyone have any thoughts about my opening statement, in the meantime?

I thought you left him nowhere to go.

Which is probably why he has gone nowhere.

Ah I see apparently he has answered and does believe in evolution just not macro evolution.
Which means he does not understand what he is talking about.
He has lost the debate already.

[Esquilax]

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.

[Angrboda]

That's an opening statement? Pshaw. Apparently he's a one trick pony.

[pocaracas]

That's an opening statement? Pshaw. Apparently he's a one trick pony.

Why are you insulting ponies?

---

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"?

[JuliaL]

I'm looking forward to HM putting forth evidence that his claimed limits to divergence between 'kinds' exist. Perhaps he should start with a definition of what a 'kind' is then show that 'kind' boundaries are never crossed?

The observation of speciation http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html should put to rest the argument from ignorance that it doesn't happen.

Or is that when an argument from ignorance becomes an argument from stupid?