Unusually, I agree with someone on this forum about something.

I started looking at a species I called 'J' evolving into a species I called 'K' with the condition that J cannot interbreed with K. Once you dig down and figure out the process blow by blow the laws of genetics forbid it.

I'm curious what you think of the gull species continuum example that Hazel brought up in the religion thread?

I have unsubscribed from that thread, which appears to be about anything except Faith & Religion. I don't know the context, and don't care to enter that debate, but I stand over my remarks.

The context there is irrelevant. You posted here about species being unable to interbreed and I think hazel's example (which I quoted in full) calls this concept of species into question. I'm curious what you think about that.

I'm not interested in thinking about it. Hazel probably quoted the current state of scientific knowledge in her example.

This has all been scientifically tested in mutation breeding experiments over decades(1930s -->) by dyed-in-the-wool evolutionists, and the results were embarassing. They could supercharge mutations, intervene to preserve the unfittest, and selectively breed mutation with mutation. They achieved no improvements, no new species, they just wasted money. It was done up until the 1980s with plants, producing 50 years of abject failure. The money then went into GMOs.

So when someone at a safe distance waves his hand and says the impossible happened, I don't take it very seriously.

How do you think the seagulls crossed the species barrier? I'm curious.

Business_kid, while you have every right to continue using words like "evolutionist" you should at least be aware that it comes with a label you might not enjoy, "clueless" and or possibly worse, "agenda-ridden" and "sanctimonious".

Scientific theories are not belief systems which is why they are not static, unchanging dogma, but merely the most currently supported conclusions based on corroborating, objective repeatable evidence. This is entirely different from a questionable tale of one man, alone, seeing a talking "burning bush" in desert hills as a supernatural entity. That is not corroborated, not objective, and not repeatable, therefore not evidence of anything open to discussion. One is forced to either accepts it whole cloth, ignore it, or view it as metaphorical myth. It is literally hearsay. So I have to ask... do you call people convinced by the evidence that gravity exists, "gravityists"?

BTW there are no "seagulls". There are only "gulls" of which there are currently over 40 species and possibly a new one in the making as many have left the seashores to adapt to city life. Those most suited to the city will pass on their genes. Others may not. They in turn speciated from the earliest known common ancestor Anchiornis with the earliest discovered fossil being dated to around 160,000,000 years ago.

Thanks! I hadn't heard of this beastie before, though I did know about microraptor.

Hmm, seems you have one more thing in common with sundialscvs: refusing to think about the things you say. I find that terribly sad.


I think species isn't really a boolean thing, there's just sliding scales of genetic compatibility. (compare Sorites paradox aka paradox of the heap)

Terribly sad? Give me a bucket.(/sarc)
If there's any real biological evidence and not assertions about what 'must have happened' thousands or millions of years ago, I might consider it. But I'm not going to give consideration to every dog that barks about evolution because I'd get nothing else done.

Whereas (within limits) a mother can bear an incompatible child, they can never conceive one and bring it to full term. There are biological mechanisms for preventing that. The Sorites paradox is a straw that you grasped to try and circumvent reality.

Business_kid, the number of validated scientific research efforts and scientists over more than 200 years hardly qualifies as "every dog that barks". Anyone who denies the fundamentals of Evolution (minor details only to continually be refined) is simply in denial of the scientific method, technology, all of the evidence, the vast consensus of experts actually in the field, in favor of 2000 year old superstition. It does not compute, especially in 2022, and will only snowball over more time.

Certainly believe what you prefer, but it is demonstrably unwise to resort to denigrating proven works just to shore up cherished belief.

It astonishes me that someone would start or comment on a "Thought Question" if their objective is to not think! I will have to think abut that.

Good one! However as much as I find it distasteful, I can't be astonished anymore since I see it as the primary value of buying into dogma for those who subscribe. Unfortunately for many, that cam easily morph into "drinking the KoolAid" as we have seen repeatedly throughout history.

I'd like to clarify that "not thinking" is different and orthogonal to "believe evolution". I'm not try to say that you must believe one thing or another (that would be quite silly and presumptuous of me), but the insistence on not even following out the logical implications of what you post is what gets me down.

I guess if the child is conceived and brought to full term, then you would label it compatible. So it's binary by definition.

On the other hand, I would assume the biological mechanisms are not 100% effective (nothing ever is). So mother and father could be X% compatible is the sense of having X% chance of conceiving a compatible child. (Although between most different species, X is approximately 0.)


To me it looks like you're just ignoring the reality of hybrid species.

It's not a fairy tale exactly because it specifies what is very high odds of accuracy and what is mere speculation. If you don't realize what the current state of evidence, that's on you. Science and diligent scientists have no problem admitting what is speculation, what is still controversial, and what is very solid.

For example no credible scientist thinks we yet know anything about what may have existed before Big Bang, that is speculation. How Life first began is very controversial because we have uncovered important chemical processes that look very promising especially given the progress continues. How long ago our Universe expanded from an incredibly small, hot, dense singularity (that word an actual designation of where controversial drops odds down to speculation) is not speculation, is not controversial.

The age of the Universe as roughly 13.7 billion years or the Earth as around 4 billion years, is literally like saying New York City is 3000 miles from Los Angeles. It is GENERALLY true within a useful level of accuracy. In Science there is a standard called "Significant Figures". We can "zoom in" and get ever finer measurements and we are but the results for our Universe will most definitely not be 13.7 million years or 13,700. It will be something like 13.679432 billion until we are able through technology increase accuracy even finer.

Admittedly you are technically correct that I possibly have yet to fully clarify that the majority of Christians are not "Flat Earthers". I am somewhat confidant that I did specify Fundamentalist Christians, but nevertheless in full appreciation of thorough diligence and Logic that I didn't nail it down any finer does reveal a prejudice on my part. As far as I am generally concerned Flat Earth, Young Earth, Adam and Eve being the first humans with zero precursors, is part of all the same magical thinking - "We don't know so therefore God did it".

BTW, the Univers is not roughly "13.8 trillion year old" it's 13.7 Billion.

If you wonder why I quoted an estimate from 21 years ago it's because we are days away from the first James Webb Space Telescope images (June 12, 2022) which will begin the collection of data on an order of magnitude greater accuracy.

Again if you don't research that promising new data, that's on you, not on Science.

mrmazda the greatest problem you face is that poking holes in competing arguments does not prove yours.

From what I can see here, your only "proof" of any of your positions is one book (OK, one book of many chapters and authors) written by men mostly over 2000 years ago when the entire human race, even it's most learned, knew the smallest fractions of what we know in 2022. The sole exception to this is other men who quote the same ancient superstitions in that book. Quantity, from the same exact source is not the equivalent of Quality. Ultimately it is from those same few ancient authors with zero progress.

I'm not one calling them, as some do, "ignorant goat herders" because that is not only condescending but hugely inaccurate. Those who wrote the books of the bible (many, over very many years) were for their times highly educated, intelligent men. They simply hadn't the collection of millions of highly educated intelligent men and women with ever increasing background and technology over 2000+ years to make discoveries and advance human knowledge.