I suppose you claim this process links humans with chimps among others. Yet this kind of biologic transmutation (alchemy) was never observed. What was observed is that organisms have plenty of genotype and phenotype flexibility while remaining in the same biologic family. Interbreeding is a fake milestone given that breeding between “species” like HS and Neanderthal never bothered the Darwinist believers despite going against the “species” definition. No, more time doesn’t solve anything.
Perhaps if you read the article you will understand why the concept of “species” is obsolete and why even Dawkins agrees. The implications are deep - one is that there is no “speciation”.
Just as with “species,” no one definition of “language” is adequate. There are a number of competing definitions (including the old half-tongue-in-cheek sociopolitical definition, “a language is a dialect with an army”), all of which have their weaknesses. Some people go with intercomprehension — do speakers of A and B understand each other? If so, then they speak the same language. But this has trouble dealing with Chinese and Arabic — each languages with strong cultural reasons to assert their unity in spite of their inability to understand one another across dialects as diverse as Iraqi and Maghrebi (Moroccan) Arabic or Cantonese and Mandarin Chinese — and on the other end of the spectrum it struggles to account for situations like Hindi / Urdu or Serbian / Croatian, where the independence of these languages is strongly asserted by speakers even though levels of mutual comprehension are quite high. And what do you do with dialect continua like German and Dutch, where town A understands town B and town B understands town C and so forth, but speakers in town A and town Z don’t understand one another? Where do you arbitrarily split the languages?
This is just a taste of a complicated subject, but my response here is already too long. Suffice it to say that while the similarities between biological evolution and language change have their limits, actually the difficulties in defining “species” and “language” are almost exactly parallel.
I hope that now you see the non sequitur in your reasoning. If not, regrettably I’m not sure how else I can help you understand. But I wish you well all the same!
[Edited for tone (with apologies for previous condescension)]
I missed participating! I’ve just had to prioritize other things, and honestly still need to, so I’ll probably “ghost” again momentarily. Meanwhile I’ve noticed while lurking that the few times I’ve wanted to chime in as I did on this thread, you’ve usually already had the “level-headed person with a linguistics background and young children” niche pretty well covered, and beat me to the punch!
Nonlin, whether or not this process links humans with chimps has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject of the article to which you linked.
No, Nonlin, you are the one who needs to read the article. You’ve either not read past the headline, or else you’ve completely misunderstood it, or else you’re approaching it as an ammunition-gathering exercise and you’ve only skimmed it trying to quote mine it. The article is not about what processes do or do not happen in the real world. The article is about how the end results of these processes are classified and named. Nothing more, nothing less.
Look, Nonlin, I know you’re trying to fight to defend the Bible against what you perceive to be attacks on it. If that’s your goal, then I’m wholeheartedly in support of it. But you can’t fight a battle with weapons that don’t work, or that just blow up in your face.
I’ve said this before several times and I’ll say it again: I don’t care how old you think the earth is, or who or what you think did or did not evolve from what. I’m satisfied that the Bible can handle it either way. But I do care deeply that you know what you’re talking about, and that you’re getting your facts straight.
It’s very tempting to rush into the battle with all guns blazing, but if you’re making claims that are blatantly untrue, or that otherwise demonstrate that you haven’t a clue what you’re talking about, you’ll just do more harm than good. Bad arguments do not build faith; on the contrary, they undermine it, sow confusion in the Church, and drive people away. And that makes all of us, as Christians, look bad.
You should argue this case instead of looking for analogies. And be much more concise.
Not this topic, but you should read ‘Kingdom of Speech’ if you’re a linguist, evolutionist and your name is indeed Wolfe. Nice coincidence.
You brought up said “process”.
And here you’re completely wrong. Look at all my posts and blog http://nonlin.org/evolution/ - it doesn’t bother me one bit if evolution turns out to be true or not. But for now, as the story goes, it’s completely illogical.
If it doesn’t bother you a bit, why do you fight it tooth and nail using inadequate arguments like “there is disagreement on exactly what a species is, therefore evolution can’t be valid”? I would really love to here you explain what you DO believe about the development of life on earth as we see it today, rather than what you DON’T believe - just for one post.
The article you linked to does nothing more than ignore species designations when looking at the interactions of organisms within the context of ecology… It says nothing about doing away with defining species as it relates to organizing life or looking at evolution. You seemed to have jumped the gun on this one.
[[quote=“NonlinOrg, post:18, topic:36715”]
I guess a continuum of life forms, but that has a huge problem of its own: where are all the transitional organisms?
[/quote]
Do you not see the irony of that comment? If lifeforms all fit on a smooth continuum, then every life form is by definition a transitional form.
I have long questioned the concept of species as a model that often works, but sometimes really doesn’t. I think its dismissal makes the case for evolution stronger, not weaker.
(I wanted to “let it go” but Im still learning how to do that).
It is easier to see in microscopic critters because we can observe many generations in a very short time. If the drug companies are using DNA to predict the next year’s sub-species . . . it seems work more than half the time. We have not been collecting DNA data on more than a couple of generations of animals or humans.
One of my kids talked me into submitting my DNA because he is interested in our family tree. We have located some “missing” relatives on my side and I get at least a half dozed mtDNA hits every week which is interesting but of no practical use. My wife located one cousin but that’s about all.
Sidebar: Some people get upset when I mention that “breed” has the same meaning as “race.” We are all a single sub-species except for sasquatch and the black-eyed children. (grin)
I can assure you that I am not related to this breed of human …
He seems to be equipped with a very robust, turtle-like shell …
but somehow he got himself turned over on his back … he looks
completely hopeless. Admittedly, I do detect a certain halo of cleanliness
and godliness hovering about him … but how long can that last?
I don’t see the “Bathtub Breed” lasting very long
… it’s just too much to carry around all the time…
No it isnt. Gradualism is the rule in evolution, since different alleles usually differ in their phenotypes only marginally. What is also true is that not all change is gradual. Remember that what is being punctuated in PE is an equilibrium. The only truly carved-in-stone rule in biology is that there are no rules carved in stone. Everything has exceptions. And this is because really smart human engineers did NOT design biological creatures. And so we need to discard all of our pre-conceived ideas about programs and plans and consistency and all the analogies to how our world operates when we talk about biology. The number of concepts that work to some degree in life is vast. The number that never apply or always apply is very small.
No thanks, you have failed to support your claims with anything factual, and refuse to answer the simplest of questions. Why would I read any of your points again?
I can assure you that I am not related to this breed of human …