Yes, because I believe the gene pool degraded over time, which is much more obvious if you look at fruit flies (which your article specifically mentions).

I honestly think you're incapable of looking further than your nose on this topic. I specifically said that I understand that over time a disparity "could" occur between two populations such that they cannot inter-breed, making them two separate species.

But the cross-breeding incompatibility is the foundation for the identification of species and the fact that you missed that is beyond me. I've said since the start that for speciation this is a foundational aspect and you continue to dismiss it, because you're biased, simple as that.

And then I'm getting owned... wow. I can dish this shit out better than you can, and I don't even believe in it.

Yes, two populations would separately evolve and as such would develop an inability to cross-breed, making them more and more "true" species. Don't counter this because your article said that itself. I think they used the word "proper" species. My issue is when does this happen? When does A become B which in turn becomes C, whereby C can no longer mate with A? Because we know (per the article) that the speciation is a gradual process that takes time. So what mutation causes this incompatibility, and what happens with B that can still mate with C and with A, or is there a threshold at which time the mutation is just too much and it creates an incompatibility, but if that's the case where is the partner in procreation? I think you just got powned and are out of articles, so for the sake of it, put it in your pipe and smoke the hell out of it. You too Runa.

EDIT: It's funny you mention that the globalchange article was for kids, I kind of felt like it was all so basic.

You didn't pwn anyone.  I stopped replying becuase it's very clear you need to take Biology 101.  You show next to no understanding of evolutionary biology, and trying to argue the finer points of genes and mutations would be like Albert Einstein explaining general relativity to someone who just got an A on their first algebra test and think that they've made math their bitch.  

While you've done the noble thing and accepted that I'm not that bad of a guy in another thread, conceding that you and I can be on the same side since I really just want to take the religious weapon the fanatics have away from them, your assault and insults on scientific progression is not something I wish to waste my time with.  

If you don't understand the simplest biological truths, I'm not going to bother arguing with you about it.  I will not argue with steadfast and aggressive ignorance masquerading as 'deeper truth', and I certainly won't stand for being treated as a fool becuase I won't lower myself to your level just so you can beat me with experience.  I think dsgrue3 would be wise to do the same.  I understand prides can hurt when you walk away, dsgrue3, but trust me, happydolphin does not win just becuase you give up an unwinnable fight.  Call it a noble retreat.  

You went against me on the very first point, that observation precludes existence yet I was right.

You say many many things but little to counter my argument.

I did the noble thing because I call thing s as they are. Funny how I neither want to walk away because I would feel like I've "lost" the fight, though neither of you actually argued my concern, and that was what point is it where the speciation occurs precisely and since it's a gradual speciation, is there a breaking point upon which incompatibility occurs. If so, how do the individuals mate together and is it sustainable? Then, once we get to the point of it actually being plausible, my question would be to you guys, is it probably. But we're not even there yet. We're just at the point of "happyd, you know nothing". And we stay there.

But once again I'm told I am clueless, I need to take biology, I'm at the level of kids.

Seriously, to maintain _my_ pride, I kind of want to walk away right now. But why does it have to come to this? Why do I constantly have to prove myself to you guys? How is that even fair in any way?

This far, I've destroyed dsgrue's point on existence using Evolution to counter-argue him. He lost that fight. Now, after so much back and forth, we're finally at the point where we are arguing speciation in its detail and I'm told I'm not worth arguing with. Why, because I am too tough a fight? I sure would think so you guys are struggling to answer my questions.

You know what, you guys turned this into a fight since the very beginning, and rather than arguing my points you got personal. You guys first.

This should help explain to a lot of people why debating religion is so difficult, because people haven't learnt not to make it personal or make personal attacks.

I'm very sorry but it's the truth and as much as it hurts it needs to be said. It's really frustrating when you actually want to find answers and help others find answers that you're constantly at a stand-still due to hostile dispositions. To be very frank now.

You need to understand the difference between 'making it personal' and simply acknowledging a fight is unwinnable.  You also need to understand that nobody needs to prove anything to anyone.  this is an internet forum about games, not congress.  your ability to convince someone of something does not matter.  You, like myself, dsgrue3, and anyone else in here arguing evolutionary biology (which, by the way, is completely off topic) are wasting your time.  

Walking away when you see this doesn't mean you're less of a man.  It doesn't mean you lose the debate.  It doesn't mean the world is going to end or that 'the world just won't understand your brilliance'.  facts are facts.  I've not read every post by every poster in this thread, but what I have read thus far has been incredibly one sided when it comes to who is and who is not using facts, evidence, or proof to back their claims.  you can whine all you want and try to discredit what others say, but facts are facts.  When someone just won't accept facts, you don't keep arguing with them, you move on and stop wasting your time trying to fit a square peg into a circular hole.  There comes a time when the only way to force something in something that doesn't want it is intellectual rape, and is accompanied by violence.  

So you want to ignore evolution.  So you want to discredit science or support religion becuase you're not convinced of the evidence in support of established biological fact.  good for you, neither I nor dsgrue3 are in charge of enlightening you, but don't get offended when we dismiss you as the devoutly faithful zealout you are.  that's not making it personal, that's a fair and well reasoned conclusion based on dozens of arguments back and forth wherein you were unable to combat ANY of dsgrue3's  points.  

Philosophy is great, but using philosophical ideas to support your misguided views on biology is not something that anyone outside of a philisopical class respects in a debate.  Just like he can't force the square peg that is evolutionary biology in your circular hole, don't expect to get away with using your philisophical hammer to force your circular peg in his square hole. 

I love analogies. 

I'm in awe of this person I'm reading, but I'm aware it's the part of Runa I like.

Then comes this, it is completely ugly and biased.

Whether I ignore evolution or not has little to do with the points I've made in this thread, I have no idea what kind of twisted intent requires you make this a black and white thing when I was clearly challenging the status quo with basic and honest concerns to the theory.

Other people in history have challenged the status quo, and they ended up being vindicated. You know when the whole Gallileo thing goes upside down. This is it, this is where those who profess to be scientifically minded treat those who disagree with their theory as being "devoutly zealous".

I am not a faithful zealot, I do not even practice my faith just so you know. Yet that has little to do with the actual matter at hand, that you are a religious intolerant, that is the matter at hand. I say that because rather than arguing my points, you make this once again a personal attack at me due to my religious background and use that against me when I am arguing points.

If it were reasonable, what then of the rebuttal of his observance precludes existence. Did you forget that one now?

Shame on me for thinking you're reasonable? Make me think not, because you seem like an actually ok guy. What is that thing that is making you so biased against the _points_ I bring to the table really defeats me.

Do you also think observation precludes existence, after I destroyed that using proof by contradiction?

You couldn't have been reading my replies to him because I was clearly debating with him on a scientific level, giving scientific concerns as to why I have difficulty with the process of speciation, and I've made that clear. If you want to go ahead and lie and say I've been speaking on philosophical terms, that's your choice. But it isn't true and I'd be sad to think that people don't see through it.

Far as I've read there is no threshold between group A and C, there is only a continuum.  So let's say that a true species 100% of them cannot mate with another true species.  WHile they are being differentiated because of one reason or another they can be anywhere within that range from everyone being able to procreate to noone between two groups being able to procreate, and then they are truly different species.  The point to make though is that there is no point at which someone from a group turns into a different species by themself and therefore can't find a mate.  Groups speciate together because it requires many many generations while separation is maintained, so at no point will you get someone simply unable to procreate because they've basically "evolved" by themselves.  And if you do that's just a genetic defect that obviously won't be included in the gene pool further.  

Yes it's a complex system, but to me that's just the watch maker analogy which I get so tired of hearing because with time we've come to understand many things that at first seemed too complicated and were simply chalked up to god, and this seems like the exact same thing. 

Yes, because I believe the gene pool degraded over time, which is much more obvious if you look at fruit flies (which your article specifically mentions).

Not sure what this is in response to? If it is in response to 2 people populating the Earth, your argument is entirely irrelevant. Fruit flies aren't people, and people have become stronger, faster, smarter disproving your notion (counter-argument) entirely. lmfao how easy was that?

I honestly think I'm incapable of looking further than my nose on this topic. I specifically said that I understand that over time a disparity "could" occur between two populations such that they cannot inter-breed, making them two separate species.

Fixed for truth.

But the cross-breeding incompatibility is the foundation for the identification of species and the fact that you missed that is beyond me. I've said since the start that for speciation this is a foundational aspect and you continue to dismiss it, because you're biased, simple as that.

I never argued against this. Learn to read. I said cross-breeding isn't relevant to evolution because evolutionary changes occur within the species itself, not via cross-breeding. Again - read the E. Coli experiment in its entirety. You're clueless.

And then I'm getting owned... wow. I can dish this shit out better than you can, and I don't even believe in it.

Funny, no one else has said this.

Yes, two populations would separately evolve and as such would develop an inability to cross-breed, making them more and more "true" species. Don't counter this because your article said that itself. I think they used the word "proper" species. My issue is when does this happen? When does A become B which in turn becomes C, whereby C can no longer mate with A? Because we know (per the article) that the speciation is a gradual process that takes time. So what mutation causes this incompatibility, and what happens with B that can still mate with C and with A, or is there a threshold at which time the mutation is just too much and it creates an incompatibility, but if that's the case where is the partner in procreation? I think you just got powned and are out of articles, so for the sake of it, put it in your pipe and smoke the hell out of it. You too Runa.

When the DNA becomes too dissimilar. There is no "hey man this DNA has X number of chromosomes more than this DNA so it's incompatible" - it's such a complex thing that is not quite understood in its entirety. It's somewhat ambiguous at this point.

 or is there a threshold at which time the mutation is just too much and it creates an incompatibility, but if that's the case where is the partner in procreation?

Ah, you misunderstand. The E. Coli experiment is about generations meaning after X generations ALL offspring experienced this evolution to metabolize citrate.

"Twelve flasks, each containing an independently evolving population of E. coli, have been growing in Lenski’s lab for more than 56,000 generations. A low concentration of E. coli’s favorite food, the sugar glucose, keeps most of the populations in check. But around generation 33,000, one flask, designated Ara–3, suddenly became cloudy as the bacteria within developed the ability to gobble citrate, an acid-controlling chemical that is abundant in the growth solution."

Source: http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/345247/description/E_coli_caught_in_the_act_of_evolving

You really are clueless when it comes to reading sources and evolutionary biology which explains your ineptitude on the topic at hand and self-proclaiming wins. It really is quite amusing for someone so completely devoid of logic and understanding.

I think Runa is right, best to just step aside and allow you to live in blissful ignorance, unfortunately I've been sucked in too many times. 

Oh don't stop guys! This really is thrilling an extraordinarily enlightening! (For both positive and negative, nevertheless fascinating different reasons).

Re-tagging