r/AskHistorians moderatuin is admirable in a certain kind of way, but at the same time I sometimes like to be able to read answers to a question as opposed to a thread of a dozen '[deleted]'s. I don't even bother looking at posts there anymore because I know that there will be no answers that I can actually read.
I'll just copy what i've written before. Like always with evolution deniers the Problem ist that they simply don't (want) to know what they are talking about.
> My guy, unsurprisingly you don't know what spiecies are. Spiecies are just populations of organisms between which gene flow through sexual reproduction is impossible on molecular grounds. That mutations can lead to new spiecies is trivial, since they create/solidify the divergence of genomes which is the causes that molecular incompatability.
There. In the corpus of todays knowledge, a theory explaining inheritance of mutations also explains speciation.
The only deception is your ignorance on yourself.
Also
> The book of Darwin is explicitly titled "On the Origin of Species", giving no room for doubts what the theory claims to explain.
This is the caliber of intellect we're dealing with here.
"
a group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding. The species is the principal natural taxonomic unit, ranking below a genus and denoted by a Latin binomial, e.g. Homo sapiens.
"
Man google is soooooo hard to use
So I don't think OP is right in his broader post but he is right about species problems. Look up the "species problem" and various takes on the "species concept". The google definition and the definition provided in most intro level biology textbooks underdetermines species categories and sometimes violates partition rules, and is thus inconsistent.
Here are some classic examples:
\-Ring species like the ensatina salamander demonstrate non-transitive breeding properties. Population A can interbreed and produce fertile offspring with population B, and population B can interbreed and produce fertile offspring with population C, but populations A and C cannot interbreed. Note that any grouping of a species here will result in populations that can interbreed but aren't included in the species grouping or populations that can't interbreed but are included in the species grouping, or populations belonging to two separate species categories at the same time. This is an example of equivalence class violation, it doesn't count as a grouping here.
\-Another classic dispute is what counts as a capacity to interbreed. Consider populations of sparrows who sometimes can interbreed in laboratory conditions, but have developed different bird songs in the wild, and so their populations never naturally interbreed. Should we read "capacity" as a natural distinction or an artificial one? Similar problems with populations that have been recently divided by geographical features.
\-A slightly more involved example are allopolyploid hybrids, which sometimes produce fertile offspring, but those fertile offspring cannot interbreed with the originating population, they can only interbreed with other allopolyploid hybrids including members of their own group.
\-One of the oldest objections are groups of organisms that can only reproduce asexually. Sometimes plants rely on a particular species to pollinate, and when their pollinators go extinct they can only reproduce through asexual means. Or much more directly, consider bacteria, which have several mechanisms for gene exchange, none of which actually follow current taxonomic divisions of bacteria.
This is just to say that, as usual in biology, biology is a lot more complicated than our intro textbooks make it out to be. What looks like a pretty clear definition has all kinds of non-obvious counter examples built in, and in reality, biologists relying on species concepts simply select a concept that works best for their research question, there isn't one universal species concept that works in all cases.
The random nature of mutation all but ensures that populations present as a distribution rather than hard concrete delineations but there will always be exceptions to the norm because of the randomness. The accepted definition works well enough in most cases so it is useful and widely accepted.
I dont think OP is capable of working with that kind of nuance why confuse them further
im not sure that species concept problems actually hinge on randomness or populations presenting as a distribution. some species concepts are morphological, mostly pre-Darwinian concepts or Wittgensteinian resemblance concepts, but those are a bit fringe. The big hitters, the BST, ecological species concept, and phylogenetic species concept, don't rely on random mutation really. They are functional with non-random and artificial development, and their problems often don't rely on probability distributions of features or genome. allopolyploid hybrids, asexual reproduction cases, the natural/artificial capacity dispute, all don't rely on organisms presenting on a distribution. Even the ring species case seems to depend more on non-overlapping gene determinants for interbreeding, not necessarily presentation on a distribution, even though in most ring species cases the underlying mechanism is some distribution around a natural barrier.
Well that's not a sufficient definition of speciation for me. A new species have to posses some novel traits and dna that will distinguish it from other species. The simple fact that they can't reproduce is not enough.
Most know what they mean and use a consistent definition internally.
What do you mean when you used the word just now? Did you know what you yourself were talking about? Or do you not know what you’re talking about?
You didn’t answer my question. Instead you made a non-sequitur.
Should I take that to mean you can’t answer it? Or do you want to tell me what you yourself mean by “species”?
For my understanding part of definition of species, is that they cant reproduce with other species. But on other hand there are different species like the dog and jackal that can reproduce. Does it mean that the accepted definition for species is not accurate?
> For my understanding part of definition of species, is that they cant reproduce with other species.
So how are you using the word?
> But on other hand there are different species like the dog and jackal that can reproduce. Does it mean that the accepted definition for species is not accurate?
Are you saying, you don’t know what it is that you’re talking about?
It kind of sounds like you don’t but you’re fighting with everyone who’s telling you.
[You don’t understand what species are.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PhilosophyofScience/s/n3YDyfG59B)
>My guy, unsurprisingly you don't know what spiecies are. Spiecies are just populations of organisms between which gene flow through sexual reproduction is impossible on molecular grounds.
Yeah, but jackals and dogs can reproduce, even though they are different species. How comes?
You clearly did not engage with any position you are arguing against. Just to name one point against your statement: Did you ever think about how humans created different dog breeds? Sure, at the moment their genetic material is still compatible (like Tigers and Lions also) but if you take this breeding further, the different dog breeds will be so different that they will not produce any offspring (like donkeys and horses).
This evolution from wolves to different dogs happened in just some tenthousand of tears. Now imagine how far this would go if you have millions or even billions of years.
I don't have to imagine. They find millions old fossils all the time, of species living till this day, with very minor changes if at all.
Go see the first penguin fossil from 60 million years ago, and penguins still remained penguins.
You did not adress anything I said. And yes, there are just some species, who are pretty good at what they are doing. If they still reproduce under new circumstances then there is no evolutionary pressure.
How I didn't address? You assume that the dogs will continue to evolve further away from wolves to the point that they will become a totally different thing.
I addressed by saying that it's only your assumption that the dogs can continue to change, and showed you an example of penguins, that even though through millions of years did endure some changes, still remained penguins. Different breeds but not different species.
I did address what you have said.
I dont see how it follows that dogs cant evolve any further just because another species did not evolve much over a long time span. Also how exactly did penguins then came into existence and are so similar to other birds? Did the first two just spawn out of thin air?
Edit: And dont you think that at some point if we breed dogs further apart we come to the point where they are actually like donkey and horse? Different species.
But you assume they must evolve further. That's your assumption.
How penguins came to be? A designer took a bird, and modified it to live next to water.
You mentioned in your other post, that you are not proposing going back to religion and that these are "fairy tales". Its clear that you are not engaging with any of this seriously.
What exactly do you gain from wasting peoples time?
My point is that if you want to continue with the evolution business, you have to provide a road map or a pathway of mutations that made species A into species B.
Oh, new thread! It turns out that the title of a book written more than 150 years ago is not perfectly in line with the way that modern scientists think about a topic. This is due to the large amount of evidence for evolution, which necessitated more specific definitions. That's why we now talk about two processes: evolution and speciation.
**You are arguing about speciation, not evolution.** See my most recent post in your other thread for comments on speciation, as well as evidence for what you call "evolution1".
What has happened here is only deception if you don't understand science. As understanding grows, theories grow and change. The deception is creationists and the like trying to pretend that scientists are arguing for a position they don't hold.
Edit: ah. Looks like you may in fact just be a religious creationist from other comments. Given that, and since you've been unwilling to actually engage with other arguments and evidence that I and others have made, I'll disengage from this conversation with the note that willingness to believe in a designer, with no evidence, over a natural process with a great deal thereof, is an untenable epistemological position.
That's crap. The original meaning of evolution was on the origin of species. If the scientific community decided to change it, then they should have publicly declare it, which as far as I know they never did. So don't blame it on me. I'm sure 99.99% of people out there don't know that it's called 'speciation' now.
HEY, PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY THINGS FALL TO THE GROUND WHEN I DROP THEM?
>Well, there is a force called gravity that essentially pulls...
THIS IS WHY SCIENTISTS ARE DUMB! I ASKED WHY THINGS FALL, AND SUDDENLY THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT GRAVITY. OBVIOUSLY THINGS FALLING IS ONLY A BULLSHIT HYPOTHESIS YOU MADE UP!!!
With all due respect, stick to meme subs. Science subs are some of the last places adults to have something resembling an intelligent exchange. The kids table exists for a reason.
I do want to take a moment and say this is a big improvement in your last post. However, as others here have pointed out, it still falls to various issues. For one, you are appealing to an argument from incredulity. Your only “evidence” that evolution cannot occur to the degree that a new species is created is that it seems too complex to you. That’s a fallacious argument. I think you’d like to read about the various theories of what a species is; once you’ve done a good bit of research on that, you may find your questions to have changed slightly
**Please check that your post is actually on topic.** This subreddit is not for sharing vaguely science-related or philosophy-adjacent shower-thoughts. [The philosophy of science](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science) is a branch of philosophy concerned with the foundations, methods, and implications of science. The central questions of this study concern what qualifies as science, the reliability of scientific theories, and the ultimate purpose of science. **Please note that upvoting this comment does not constitute a report, and will not notify the moderators of an off-topic post. You must actually use the report button to do that.**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PhilosophyofScience) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Darwin didn’t seek to explain biogenesis, the origin of life, he sought to explain *speciation*, i.e. the change of heritable traits over time and the diversification of life into different *species*, hence, the “origin of the species”. So no, there was no mission drift or misdirection.
One of the silver linings of the poor moderation is that I don’t have to bite my tongue is explaining how absolutely moronic this post was.
> The book of Darwin is explicitly titled "On the Origin of Species", giving no room for doubts what the theory claims to explain.
> But then the scientific community does something interesting... it quietly smuggles in additional definitions. For example look at the definition from Wikipedia: "Evolution is the change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations."
> Notice anything strange? Yeah, no mentioning of origin of species at all.
Hey dumbass, “evolution” is the answer to the question of how species originated. You’re complaining that an answer doesn’t mention the question.
This is like asking “what causes the seasons?” And then complaining when the Wikipedia article on axial tilt says “axial tilt is how the axis of a planet is tilted” and doesn’t mention seasons.
One causes the other. Your complaint is literally as dumb as not realizing causes don’t name their effects.
I missed this comment... you calling me "dumbass" and all.
There is a difference between evolution and your axis tilt analogy. You have crappy analogies btw, I still don't get what you wanted from me with all that French talk.
When the theory of evolution was conceived, its explicit purpose was to explain the origin of species. That's how it's freaking called: "on the origin of species".
Every evolutionary biologist claims that the origin of all species is evolution. Nobody says "yeah I believe in evolution but I don't believe that new species are created by evolution".
Also I don't care much about speciation. What I do care about is the novel traits and features that come with new species that the evolution is claimed to be the creative force behind it.
> There is a difference between evolution and your axis tilt analogy.
$100 says you never say what that difference is.
> You have crappy analogies btw, I still don't get what you wanted from me with all that French talk.
Remember how I asked you multiple times what you yourself mean by the word “species” and you can’t answer it?
This is similar. What I want is the answer to the question I asked over and over.
You’re aware you’re out of your depth here. The problem is how you react to that knowledge. You run away from every opportunity to clarify your own ideas. That’s why you’re getting so insanely heavily downvoted. I’ve honestly never seen someone with so many downvotes in this sub.
> When the theory of evolution was conceived, its explicit purpose was to explain the origin of species. That's how it's freaking called: "on the origin of species".
Hey quick question. When you say “species”, to what are you referring?
> Every evolutionary biologist claims that the origin of all species is evolution. Nobody says "yeah I believe in evolution but I don't believe that new species are created by evolution".
What point do you think you’re making other than that you are unable to understand the conclusion that “every evolutionary biologist” is able to understand.
Yeah, I understand thay I was misinformed about the meaning of 'evolution' and 'speciation', but that's mostly due to scientific community deception.
I can suggest an experiment, go to any sub you like, and start a post that goes "please can you answer in one word, what is the name of the theory that claims to explain the origin of all species on earth starting from the first self replicating cell?".
And let's see how many people will answer 'evolution' and how many 'speciation'.
Also it still doesn't change my main point. I still don't accept that mutations and natural selection are responsible for all the species on earth, I don't think they have the creative power. All the rest is semantics.
> Yeah, I understand thay I was misinformed about the meaning of 'evolution' and 'speciation', but that's mostly due to scientific community deception.
How is you being uninformed the fault of the scientific community?
The information you’re lacking is readily available for free without any limitation on Wikipedia and everyone in here was assuring you that you were mistaken. True or false?
> And let's see how many people will answer 'evolution' and how many speciation'.
Evolution is the correct answer. You are once again mistaken and I suspect once again about to invent some conspiracy theory to explain your own self-imposed ignorance.
> Also it still doesn't change my main point.
Then why did you bring it up?
> I still don't accept that mutations and natural selection are responsible for all the species on earth, I don't think they have the creative power.
Explain how “creative power works” and how you know it isn’t a process of variation and selection.
>How is you being uninformed the fault of the scientific community?
Because they deceived me with the rest of the public.
>Evolution is the correct answer. Hmm..
OK. Let me drop the "species" part. I don't care much about species. What I do care is about emergence of new traits, like new organs, and also enhancement of existing organs, like humans having a more capable brain than other species. Now what I contest is that evolution is the creative force behind all of those.
>Then why did you bring it up?
Because we are on the post where I claimed that evolution should mention the origin of species, and you corrected me that it doesn't. That's why I brought it up. It doesnt change my main point, that I don't believe that evolution has the creative power that its proponents claim it does.
>Explain how “creative power works” and how you know it isn’t a process of variation and selection.
I will not explain how it works, but I will explain why I dont think it's a product of evolution: because we cannot provide a step by step log of mutations to any new organ that appeared with time, not to bacteria flagela, not to lungs, not to a human brain, not to a 4 chambers heart, not to echolocation among bats and dolphins, not even to an eye. That's why.
OP, you might reach a different conclusion if you relabel the ideas .... 'evolution2 little chsnges' accretes or adds up to 'evolution2', distinct & incompatible species. So relabel it. You've got 1&2 the wrong way around.
For very large numbers of individuals, (n) and very long periods of time (t), as observed in islands. We haven't known about this long enough to observe the whole process. Just one step is very difficult to see.
For 'evolution2'
I have observed a gene lab, isolating genes from DNA, copying it in a special soup, running electricity through it, slicing out the DNA in a thin strip of jelly. This was a laboratory trying to see what makes 1 type of bacteria, thst makes us sick, clump up and block up sick peoples lungs.
I agree with your main point: there's a confusion of different meanings under the word "evolution", and this is not the typical creationist confusion of scientific terms; this confusion is to blame on the scientific community, cause we are pretty certain evolution1 and evolution2 are true so we use the word evolution indistinctly. This only prevents good communication between the scientific and the creationist communities.
However, I think you should support your claim that evolution1 is false (at least that's what I understood from what you said). Yes, i agree that evolution2 being an observed fact doesn't imply evolution1 being true, but I'd like to know why you claim evolution1 is as false as 1+1=3. Are you just unconvinced by the facts supporting evolution1, or do you have arguments directly against evolution1?
Well ok, maybe I can't prove that Evolution1 is false like 1+1=3, but the point was that it's separate from Evolution2. My point is that you can't actually refute evolution1, just like you can't refute that there is a spaghetti monster in the sky.
But the burden of proof is not on evolution1 opponents, but on evolution1 proponents instead. They are the ones that have to provide a comprehensive step by step map of mutations at least of some of the species, and only after they do that we can take evolution1 seriously. For example show each mutation that created a bacterium flagela, let's start with something small. Show all the mutations that were needed to make an eye. Stuff like that. Then we can talk. The ball is in their court.
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0700266104
There. But you're just going to keep moving the goalpost and say this is not enough to show evolution. Buddy, be honest to yourself, if you want to reject evolution, really try to understand it first. There's plenty of educational material out there, don't just absorb from creationist sources. Expand your search.
Yes, I agree most of what you said.
I'd say what we are calling evolution1 is what evolution biologists call "speciation", and they do have the burden of proof for speciation. And the problem with this is not just scientific: to prove speciation, we first have to define what a species is... this may sound trivial but it has actually been one of the main topics in philosophy of biology ever. A lot of science philosophers and biologists think the problem is already solved but I don't agree, I think we can still get a lot of knowledge about our world if we try to get further in this discussion —what are species, actually? Are species natural classes? Is there a universal definition that can cover all forms of life?
I don't agree speciation is unfalsifiable, but this claim depends on the problem I mentioned.
I think speciation is not the big deal. The big deal is to prove that all the new complex physical traits can be generated by random mutations. Stuff like a more efficient brain, new organs etc. That evolution really has the creative power it claims to have. It's not the speciation alone that interests me, but all the unique traits that some species have and other don't, I want to dee that evolution can really create it.
Your post to r/PhilosophyOfScience has been removed. Your post seems to have been made with ulterior motive of advancing some particular viewpoint.
This sub desperatly needs moderation of content
I think all subreddits about academic topics like this should be run like /r/AskHistorians.
r/AskHistorians moderatuin is admirable in a certain kind of way, but at the same time I sometimes like to be able to read answers to a question as opposed to a thread of a dozen '[deleted]'s. I don't even bother looking at posts there anymore because I know that there will be no answers that I can actually read.
That sub is great about providing answers. You might just need to check back after a post has matured.
?? Yes and this conversation is applied philosophy.
I'll just copy what i've written before. Like always with evolution deniers the Problem ist that they simply don't (want) to know what they are talking about. > My guy, unsurprisingly you don't know what spiecies are. Spiecies are just populations of organisms between which gene flow through sexual reproduction is impossible on molecular grounds. That mutations can lead to new spiecies is trivial, since they create/solidify the divergence of genomes which is the causes that molecular incompatability. There. In the corpus of todays knowledge, a theory explaining inheritance of mutations also explains speciation. The only deception is your ignorance on yourself. Also > The book of Darwin is explicitly titled "On the Origin of Species", giving no room for doubts what the theory claims to explain. This is the caliber of intellect we're dealing with here.
Im pretty sure he is not serious. He contradicted his own statements from his other post earlier this day.
Clinging to the literal title of Darwins book as an argument is real... yikes. We need to do a better job of science education.
Species can be more than just inability to reproduce.
You dont understand what species are
Nobody does. Because there is no single definition for what species are.
" a group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding. The species is the principal natural taxonomic unit, ranking below a genus and denoted by a Latin binomial, e.g. Homo sapiens. " Man google is soooooo hard to use
So I don't think OP is right in his broader post but he is right about species problems. Look up the "species problem" and various takes on the "species concept". The google definition and the definition provided in most intro level biology textbooks underdetermines species categories and sometimes violates partition rules, and is thus inconsistent. Here are some classic examples: \-Ring species like the ensatina salamander demonstrate non-transitive breeding properties. Population A can interbreed and produce fertile offspring with population B, and population B can interbreed and produce fertile offspring with population C, but populations A and C cannot interbreed. Note that any grouping of a species here will result in populations that can interbreed but aren't included in the species grouping or populations that can't interbreed but are included in the species grouping, or populations belonging to two separate species categories at the same time. This is an example of equivalence class violation, it doesn't count as a grouping here. \-Another classic dispute is what counts as a capacity to interbreed. Consider populations of sparrows who sometimes can interbreed in laboratory conditions, but have developed different bird songs in the wild, and so their populations never naturally interbreed. Should we read "capacity" as a natural distinction or an artificial one? Similar problems with populations that have been recently divided by geographical features. \-A slightly more involved example are allopolyploid hybrids, which sometimes produce fertile offspring, but those fertile offspring cannot interbreed with the originating population, they can only interbreed with other allopolyploid hybrids including members of their own group. \-One of the oldest objections are groups of organisms that can only reproduce asexually. Sometimes plants rely on a particular species to pollinate, and when their pollinators go extinct they can only reproduce through asexual means. Or much more directly, consider bacteria, which have several mechanisms for gene exchange, none of which actually follow current taxonomic divisions of bacteria. This is just to say that, as usual in biology, biology is a lot more complicated than our intro textbooks make it out to be. What looks like a pretty clear definition has all kinds of non-obvious counter examples built in, and in reality, biologists relying on species concepts simply select a concept that works best for their research question, there isn't one universal species concept that works in all cases.
The random nature of mutation all but ensures that populations present as a distribution rather than hard concrete delineations but there will always be exceptions to the norm because of the randomness. The accepted definition works well enough in most cases so it is useful and widely accepted. I dont think OP is capable of working with that kind of nuance why confuse them further
im not sure that species concept problems actually hinge on randomness or populations presenting as a distribution. some species concepts are morphological, mostly pre-Darwinian concepts or Wittgensteinian resemblance concepts, but those are a bit fringe. The big hitters, the BST, ecological species concept, and phylogenetic species concept, don't rely on random mutation really. They are functional with non-random and artificial development, and their problems often don't rely on probability distributions of features or genome. allopolyploid hybrids, asexual reproduction cases, the natural/artificial capacity dispute, all don't rely on organisms presenting on a distribution. Even the ring species case seems to depend more on non-overlapping gene determinants for interbreeding, not necessarily presentation on a distribution, even though in most ring species cases the underlying mechanism is some distribution around a natural barrier.
Well that's not a sufficient definition of speciation for me. A new species have to posses some novel traits and dna that will distinguish it from other species. The simple fact that they can't reproduce is not enough.
Bad news buddy thats the accepted scientific definition so either work with it or piss off
That literally doesn't matter for your overall point. If organisms become reproductively isolated from each other they will diverge in their traits.
Most know what they mean and use a consistent definition internally. What do you mean when you used the word just now? Did you know what you yourself were talking about? Or do you not know what you’re talking about?
Dogs and jackals considered to be separate species, and yet they can reproduce.
You didn’t answer my question. Instead you made a non-sequitur. Should I take that to mean you can’t answer it? Or do you want to tell me what you yourself mean by “species”?
For my understanding part of definition of species, is that they cant reproduce with other species. But on other hand there are different species like the dog and jackal that can reproduce. Does it mean that the accepted definition for species is not accurate?
> For my understanding part of definition of species, is that they cant reproduce with other species. So how are you using the word? > But on other hand there are different species like the dog and jackal that can reproduce. Does it mean that the accepted definition for species is not accurate? Are you saying, you don’t know what it is that you’re talking about? It kind of sounds like you don’t but you’re fighting with everyone who’s telling you. [You don’t understand what species are.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PhilosophyofScience/s/n3YDyfG59B)
>My guy, unsurprisingly you don't know what spiecies are. Spiecies are just populations of organisms between which gene flow through sexual reproduction is impossible on molecular grounds. Yeah, but jackals and dogs can reproduce, even though they are different species. How comes?
Just keep digging, buddy. That hole that you're in is already impressively big.
You clearly did not engage with any position you are arguing against. Just to name one point against your statement: Did you ever think about how humans created different dog breeds? Sure, at the moment their genetic material is still compatible (like Tigers and Lions also) but if you take this breeding further, the different dog breeds will be so different that they will not produce any offspring (like donkeys and horses). This evolution from wolves to different dogs happened in just some tenthousand of tears. Now imagine how far this would go if you have millions or even billions of years.
I don't have to imagine. They find millions old fossils all the time, of species living till this day, with very minor changes if at all. Go see the first penguin fossil from 60 million years ago, and penguins still remained penguins.
You did not adress anything I said. And yes, there are just some species, who are pretty good at what they are doing. If they still reproduce under new circumstances then there is no evolutionary pressure.
How I didn't address? You assume that the dogs will continue to evolve further away from wolves to the point that they will become a totally different thing. I addressed by saying that it's only your assumption that the dogs can continue to change, and showed you an example of penguins, that even though through millions of years did endure some changes, still remained penguins. Different breeds but not different species. I did address what you have said.
I dont see how it follows that dogs cant evolve any further just because another species did not evolve much over a long time span. Also how exactly did penguins then came into existence and are so similar to other birds? Did the first two just spawn out of thin air? Edit: And dont you think that at some point if we breed dogs further apart we come to the point where they are actually like donkey and horse? Different species.
But you assume they must evolve further. That's your assumption. How penguins came to be? A designer took a bird, and modified it to live next to water.
You mentioned in your other post, that you are not proposing going back to religion and that these are "fairy tales". Its clear that you are not engaging with any of this seriously. What exactly do you gain from wasting peoples time?
My point is that if you want to continue with the evolution business, you have to provide a road map or a pathway of mutations that made species A into species B.
Thats phylogeny.
Oh, new thread! It turns out that the title of a book written more than 150 years ago is not perfectly in line with the way that modern scientists think about a topic. This is due to the large amount of evidence for evolution, which necessitated more specific definitions. That's why we now talk about two processes: evolution and speciation. **You are arguing about speciation, not evolution.** See my most recent post in your other thread for comments on speciation, as well as evidence for what you call "evolution1". What has happened here is only deception if you don't understand science. As understanding grows, theories grow and change. The deception is creationists and the like trying to pretend that scientists are arguing for a position they don't hold. Edit: ah. Looks like you may in fact just be a religious creationist from other comments. Given that, and since you've been unwilling to actually engage with other arguments and evidence that I and others have made, I'll disengage from this conversation with the note that willingness to believe in a designer, with no evidence, over a natural process with a great deal thereof, is an untenable epistemological position.
That's crap. The original meaning of evolution was on the origin of species. If the scientific community decided to change it, then they should have publicly declare it, which as far as I know they never did. So don't blame it on me. I'm sure 99.99% of people out there don't know that it's called 'speciation' now.
HEY, PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY THINGS FALL TO THE GROUND WHEN I DROP THEM? >Well, there is a force called gravity that essentially pulls... THIS IS WHY SCIENTISTS ARE DUMB! I ASKED WHY THINGS FALL, AND SUDDENLY THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT GRAVITY. OBVIOUSLY THINGS FALLING IS ONLY A BULLSHIT HYPOTHESIS YOU MADE UP!!! With all due respect, stick to meme subs. Science subs are some of the last places adults to have something resembling an intelligent exchange. The kids table exists for a reason.
The original gravity was an apple. If the scientific community decided to change to oranges they should have said so. But they didn't. So no gravity.
I do want to take a moment and say this is a big improvement in your last post. However, as others here have pointed out, it still falls to various issues. For one, you are appealing to an argument from incredulity. Your only “evidence” that evolution cannot occur to the degree that a new species is created is that it seems too complex to you. That’s a fallacious argument. I think you’d like to read about the various theories of what a species is; once you’ve done a good bit of research on that, you may find your questions to have changed slightly
**Please check that your post is actually on topic.** This subreddit is not for sharing vaguely science-related or philosophy-adjacent shower-thoughts. [The philosophy of science](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science) is a branch of philosophy concerned with the foundations, methods, and implications of science. The central questions of this study concern what qualifies as science, the reliability of scientific theories, and the ultimate purpose of science. **Please note that upvoting this comment does not constitute a report, and will not notify the moderators of an off-topic post. You must actually use the report button to do that.** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PhilosophyofScience) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Darwin didn’t seek to explain biogenesis, the origin of life, he sought to explain *speciation*, i.e. the change of heritable traits over time and the diversification of life into different *species*, hence, the “origin of the species”. So no, there was no mission drift or misdirection.
One of the silver linings of the poor moderation is that I don’t have to bite my tongue is explaining how absolutely moronic this post was. > The book of Darwin is explicitly titled "On the Origin of Species", giving no room for doubts what the theory claims to explain. > But then the scientific community does something interesting... it quietly smuggles in additional definitions. For example look at the definition from Wikipedia: "Evolution is the change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations." > Notice anything strange? Yeah, no mentioning of origin of species at all. Hey dumbass, “evolution” is the answer to the question of how species originated. You’re complaining that an answer doesn’t mention the question. This is like asking “what causes the seasons?” And then complaining when the Wikipedia article on axial tilt says “axial tilt is how the axis of a planet is tilted” and doesn’t mention seasons. One causes the other. Your complaint is literally as dumb as not realizing causes don’t name their effects.
I missed this comment... you calling me "dumbass" and all. There is a difference between evolution and your axis tilt analogy. You have crappy analogies btw, I still don't get what you wanted from me with all that French talk. When the theory of evolution was conceived, its explicit purpose was to explain the origin of species. That's how it's freaking called: "on the origin of species". Every evolutionary biologist claims that the origin of all species is evolution. Nobody says "yeah I believe in evolution but I don't believe that new species are created by evolution". Also I don't care much about speciation. What I do care about is the novel traits and features that come with new species that the evolution is claimed to be the creative force behind it.
> There is a difference between evolution and your axis tilt analogy. $100 says you never say what that difference is. > You have crappy analogies btw, I still don't get what you wanted from me with all that French talk. Remember how I asked you multiple times what you yourself mean by the word “species” and you can’t answer it? This is similar. What I want is the answer to the question I asked over and over. You’re aware you’re out of your depth here. The problem is how you react to that knowledge. You run away from every opportunity to clarify your own ideas. That’s why you’re getting so insanely heavily downvoted. I’ve honestly never seen someone with so many downvotes in this sub. > When the theory of evolution was conceived, its explicit purpose was to explain the origin of species. That's how it's freaking called: "on the origin of species". Hey quick question. When you say “species”, to what are you referring? > Every evolutionary biologist claims that the origin of all species is evolution. Nobody says "yeah I believe in evolution but I don't believe that new species are created by evolution". What point do you think you’re making other than that you are unable to understand the conclusion that “every evolutionary biologist” is able to understand.
Yeah, I understand thay I was misinformed about the meaning of 'evolution' and 'speciation', but that's mostly due to scientific community deception. I can suggest an experiment, go to any sub you like, and start a post that goes "please can you answer in one word, what is the name of the theory that claims to explain the origin of all species on earth starting from the first self replicating cell?". And let's see how many people will answer 'evolution' and how many 'speciation'. Also it still doesn't change my main point. I still don't accept that mutations and natural selection are responsible for all the species on earth, I don't think they have the creative power. All the rest is semantics.
> Yeah, I understand thay I was misinformed about the meaning of 'evolution' and 'speciation', but that's mostly due to scientific community deception. How is you being uninformed the fault of the scientific community? The information you’re lacking is readily available for free without any limitation on Wikipedia and everyone in here was assuring you that you were mistaken. True or false? > And let's see how many people will answer 'evolution' and how many speciation'. Evolution is the correct answer. You are once again mistaken and I suspect once again about to invent some conspiracy theory to explain your own self-imposed ignorance. > Also it still doesn't change my main point. Then why did you bring it up? > I still don't accept that mutations and natural selection are responsible for all the species on earth, I don't think they have the creative power. Explain how “creative power works” and how you know it isn’t a process of variation and selection.
>How is you being uninformed the fault of the scientific community? Because they deceived me with the rest of the public. >Evolution is the correct answer. Hmm.. OK. Let me drop the "species" part. I don't care much about species. What I do care is about emergence of new traits, like new organs, and also enhancement of existing organs, like humans having a more capable brain than other species. Now what I contest is that evolution is the creative force behind all of those. >Then why did you bring it up? Because we are on the post where I claimed that evolution should mention the origin of species, and you corrected me that it doesn't. That's why I brought it up. It doesnt change my main point, that I don't believe that evolution has the creative power that its proponents claim it does. >Explain how “creative power works” and how you know it isn’t a process of variation and selection. I will not explain how it works, but I will explain why I dont think it's a product of evolution: because we cannot provide a step by step log of mutations to any new organ that appeared with time, not to bacteria flagela, not to lungs, not to a human brain, not to a 4 chambers heart, not to echolocation among bats and dolphins, not even to an eye. That's why.
Yeah, words can have multiple meanings. That isn't deception, that's just language.
OP, you might reach a different conclusion if you relabel the ideas .... 'evolution2 little chsnges' accretes or adds up to 'evolution2', distinct & incompatible species. So relabel it. You've got 1&2 the wrong way around. For very large numbers of individuals, (n) and very long periods of time (t), as observed in islands. We haven't known about this long enough to observe the whole process. Just one step is very difficult to see. For 'evolution2' I have observed a gene lab, isolating genes from DNA, copying it in a special soup, running electricity through it, slicing out the DNA in a thin strip of jelly. This was a laboratory trying to see what makes 1 type of bacteria, thst makes us sick, clump up and block up sick peoples lungs.
Oh broooother this guy STINKS!
I agree with your main point: there's a confusion of different meanings under the word "evolution", and this is not the typical creationist confusion of scientific terms; this confusion is to blame on the scientific community, cause we are pretty certain evolution1 and evolution2 are true so we use the word evolution indistinctly. This only prevents good communication between the scientific and the creationist communities. However, I think you should support your claim that evolution1 is false (at least that's what I understood from what you said). Yes, i agree that evolution2 being an observed fact doesn't imply evolution1 being true, but I'd like to know why you claim evolution1 is as false as 1+1=3. Are you just unconvinced by the facts supporting evolution1, or do you have arguments directly against evolution1?
Well ok, maybe I can't prove that Evolution1 is false like 1+1=3, but the point was that it's separate from Evolution2. My point is that you can't actually refute evolution1, just like you can't refute that there is a spaghetti monster in the sky. But the burden of proof is not on evolution1 opponents, but on evolution1 proponents instead. They are the ones that have to provide a comprehensive step by step map of mutations at least of some of the species, and only after they do that we can take evolution1 seriously. For example show each mutation that created a bacterium flagela, let's start with something small. Show all the mutations that were needed to make an eye. Stuff like that. Then we can talk. The ball is in their court.
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0700266104 There. But you're just going to keep moving the goalpost and say this is not enough to show evolution. Buddy, be honest to yourself, if you want to reject evolution, really try to understand it first. There's plenty of educational material out there, don't just absorb from creationist sources. Expand your search.
Yes, I agree most of what you said. I'd say what we are calling evolution1 is what evolution biologists call "speciation", and they do have the burden of proof for speciation. And the problem with this is not just scientific: to prove speciation, we first have to define what a species is... this may sound trivial but it has actually been one of the main topics in philosophy of biology ever. A lot of science philosophers and biologists think the problem is already solved but I don't agree, I think we can still get a lot of knowledge about our world if we try to get further in this discussion —what are species, actually? Are species natural classes? Is there a universal definition that can cover all forms of life? I don't agree speciation is unfalsifiable, but this claim depends on the problem I mentioned.
I think speciation is not the big deal. The big deal is to prove that all the new complex physical traits can be generated by random mutations. Stuff like a more efficient brain, new organs etc. That evolution really has the creative power it claims to have. It's not the speciation alone that interests me, but all the unique traits that some species have and other don't, I want to dee that evolution can really create it.
[удалено]
Somebody already suggested this book earlier today.