An Extinct Question
Bill
newly evolved species causes the extinction of the parent species. I'm
not sure why that's so or the logic of Darwinianism that would require
it. Is there some fixed limit on the number of species that can exist
at the same time? Can someone explain this to me?
Bill
Budikka666
Yeah - you're a friggin' moron.
Quit buying into creationist LIES and get an education.
Budikka
Bill
That doesn't answer a question anyone was asking. It does however,
avoid the question which may mean you can't answer it or, more likely,
your answer will prove you're a fool so you limit yourself to prattle.
Bill
Jeanne Douglas
I'll have to agree here. It was a legitimate question and deserves a
legitimate answer.
I will say that the only limit on the number of species is the number
of ecological niches available to be filled (correct me if I'm wrong).
As for the extinction of parent species, it would depend on the
conditions of the speciation. If conditions changed in place, it's
likely that the parent species would tend to go extinct as the new
species would be better suited to the new environment and therefore
would survive to procreate more efficiently. However, if the
speciation came from part of a population moving to a new location,
the original species in its original location would stay alive. The
Galapagos Islands are the perfect example of this--different
conditions on each island led to speciation of the finches on each
island without killing off the finches on other islands.
JD
Apostate
>It's often said that one of the consequences of speciation is that the
>newly evolved species causes the extinction of the parent species.
If that's often said, it's often said by fuckwits who haven't studied any biology.
> I'm
>not sure why that's so
It isn't.
>or the logic of Darwinianism that would require
>it.
There's one of your problems: you believe in the superstition that there's something
called "Darwinism". Biologists don't collectively worship Darwin, or any other figure,
and the field of evolution study has progressed well beyond anything Darwin knew or
guessed when he proposed natural selection as the mechanism driving the already-accepted
fact that species evolve from precursor species. Neither Darwin nor any biologist I've
heard of ever suggested that the evolution of species B from species A entails the
extinction of species A.
>Is there some fixed limit on the number of species that can exist
>at the same time?
Is there some fixed limit on how far beyond learning to tie their shoes anti-science
anti-intellectuals can extend themselves?
>Can someone explain this to me?
Judging from experience, and substituting anything that isn't a strawman for "this",
not bloody likely.
>
>Pill
--
Apostate alt.atheist #1931 I've found it!
BAAWA Knife AND SMASHer freelance Minion #'e'
EAC Deputy Director in Charge of Getting Paid,
Department of Redundancy Department
"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure
and the intelligent are full of doubt." -- Bertrand Russell
"Mr. Worf, set phasers on "Fuck You" and fire at will."
-- Doc Smartass
"Nature has a dark sense of humor, but life is certainly
one of the things it laughs at."
-- Rinaldo of Capadoccia
e-mail to %mynick%periodaaperiod%myAA#%@gee!mail!dottedcommie
Scott Balneaves
> It's often said
By who?
> that one of the consequences of speciation is that the
> newly evolved species causes the extinction of the parent species.
Wrong. That isn't a consequence of speciation. Here's a link that provides
some reasons:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction
> I'm
> not sure why that's so or the logic of Darwinianism that would require
> it.
It's not so.
> Is there some fixed limit on the number of species that can exist
> at the same time?
None, other than resource limits.
Bill
> On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 15:38:26 -0800 (PST), Pill <b...@billconner.com> wrote:
> >It's often said that one of the consequences of speciation is that the
> >newly evolved species causes the extinction of the parent species.
>
> If that's often said, it's often said by fuckwits who haven't studied any biology.
>
> > I'm
> >not sure why that's so
>
> It isn't.
>
> >or the logic of Darwinianism that would require
> >it.
>
> There's one of your problems: you believe in the superstition that there's something
> called "Darwinism". Biologists don't collectively worship Darwin, or any other figure,
> and the field of evolution study has progressed well beyond anything Darwin knew or
> guessed when he proposed natural selection as the mechanism driving the already-accepted
> fact that species evolve from precursor species. Neither Darwin nor any biologist I've
> heard of ever suggested that the evolution of species B from species A entails the
> extinction of species A.
Since there are few (if any) biologists posting here, your
observations about them are irrelevant. There are lots of posters here
who do worship Darwin which makes them Darwinists and their doctrine,
Darwinism. Since speciation doesn't include extinction, what
evolutionary mechanism does?
Bill
Don Kresch
scrawled in blood:
>It's often said that one of the consequences of speciation is that the
>newly evolved species causes the extinction of the parent species.
Who says that?
Don
aa#51, Knight of BAAWA, Jedi Slackmaster
Praise "Bob" or burn in slacklessness trying not to.
k...@kymhorsell.com
What S Kauffman is rejected by some biologists as somone that
"rejects whole areas of knowlege", his "At Home in the Universe"
has some interesting derivations of e.g. number of cell types
as a function of number of genes. I also keep reading from time-to-time
there is similar work on determining bounds for number of species.
...---...
[Some n00b can't tell the diff between HTML and binary:]
Why have you posted binaries to a text-only newsgroup, fuck wit?
-- Gillard Lies <oyroolout...@gmail.com>, 18 Feb 2011 22:57 -0800 (PST)
Bill
> On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 15:38:26 -0800 (PST), Bill <b...@billconner.com>
> scrawled in blood:
>
> >It's often said that one of the consequences of speciation is that the
> >newly evolved species causes the extinction of the parent species.
>
> Who says that?
>
From Wikipedia: "Extinction of a species (or replacement by a daughter
species) plays a key role in the punctuated equilibrium hypothesis of
Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge."
Why pretend this isn't a legitimate question?
Bill
Bill
> scrawled in blood:
>
> >It's often said that one of the consequences of speciation is that the
> >newly evolved species causes the extinction of the parent species.
>
> Who says that?
>
From Wikipedia: "Extinction of a species (or replacement by a daughter
Don Kresch
scrawled in blood:
>On Feb 22, 7:54 pm, Don Kresch <spamca...@spamcatch.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 15:38:26 -0800 (PST), Bill <b...@billconner.com>
>> scrawled in blood:
>>
>> >It's often said that one of the consequences of speciation is that the
>> >newly evolved species causes the extinction of the parent species.
>>
>> Who says that?
>>
>
>From Wikipedia: "Extinction of a species (or replacement by a daughter
>species) plays a key role in the punctuated equilibrium hypothesis of
>Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge."
Now reconcile that with your question. Hint: you can't. What
you asked and what you quoted from wikipedia are two different things.
Uncle Vic
69771e...@8g2000prb.googlegroups.com:
> It's often said that one of the consequences of speciation is that the
> newly evolved species causes the extinction of the parent species.
Bullshit. It's a well-known fact that the left-behind parent species of
Homo Sapiens (Homo Sapiens Creatius) still exists, and has evolved the
unique ability to post pseudo-science to usenet without first learning
something about science.
> I'm
> not sure why that's so or the logic of Darwinianism that would require
> it.
See what I mean? Cute, isn't it?
--
Uncle Vic
AA # 2011
Member EAC Bitchslapping Dept.
Yap
can easily learn from biological text.
Being a creationist, you are just nasty and refuse to accept
scientific facts.
>
> Bill
Bill
> On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 18:30:15 -0800 (PST), Bill <b...@billconner.com>
> scrawled in blood:
>
> >On Feb 22, 7:54 pm, Don Kresch <spamca...@spamcatch.com> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 15:38:26 -0800 (PST), Bill <b...@billconner.com>
> >> scrawled in blood:
>
> >> >It's often said that one of the consequences of speciation is that the
> >> >newly evolved species causes the extinction of the parent species.
>
> >> Who says that?
>
> >From Wikipedia: "Extinction of a species (or replacement by a daughter
> >species) plays a key role in the punctuated equilibrium hypothesis of
> >Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge."
>
> Now reconcile that with your question. Hint: you can't. What
> you asked and what you quoted from wikipedia are two different things.
>
My reply was to the question, "Who says that?". Why do creatures
become extinct? the popular view that we're all cursed with is that
evolution is like a wave front with the current generation of every
species on the crest. It's as if there is some biological zero-sum
formula where extinction is evidence of less well adapted species in
the past and more highly evolved possibilities in the future.
This gives evolution the appearance of direction and purpose. It's all
part of the same package and there's really no other way to explain
it. Granted some scientists may know better but most people here are
not scientists so they perpetuate the myth. So, "Who says that?", well
just about everyone whether they know it or not.
Bill
Bill
> Bill <b...@billconner.com> wrote in news:8c5d4990-d033-4db8-90f2-
>
> > It's often said that one of the consequences of speciation is that the
> > newly evolved species causes the extinction of the parent species.
>
> Bullshit. It's a well-known fact that the left-behind parent species of
> Homo Sapiens (Homo Sapiens Creatius) still exists, and has evolved the
> unique ability to post pseudo-science to usenet without first learning
> something about science.
To which the even less evolved inevitably respond.
Bill
Richo
> It's often said that one of the consequences of speciation is that the
> newly evolved species causes the extinction of the parent species.
Well that's wrong.
The parent species and the new species can continue to coexist.
> I'm
> not sure why that's so or the logic of Darwinianism that would require
> it.
There is nothing requiring it - it isnt true.
> Is there some fixed limit on the number of species that can exist
> at the same time? Can someone explain this to me?
>
Yes. It isn't true.
Mark.
Kelsey Bjarnason
> here are lots of posters here
> who do worship Darwin which makes them Darwinists and their doctrine,
> Darwinism.
I've been here for years, and I've yet to see anyone show even the
slightest signs of worshipping Darwin. Oddly, I hear this kind of
accusation from the god-addled twits in the group fairly regularly, but
those folks just aren't bright enough to tell the difference between
accepting evidence-backed claims of science and some form of worship.
So, assuming you're discounting that particular group of stupendous
bloody morons, exactly where do you get this notion there's anyone here,
let alone "lots of posters", who "worship Darwin"?
--
Information vanishes by magic. -- Michael Gray (paraphrased)
Kelsey Bjarnason
That extinction plays a role does not mean it is the only player
involved, nor the only role being played, nor even that it plays a part
in every instance. And the whole "consequence of speciation" bit is all
arse-backwards anyhow.
Consider a species on its own merit. It survives or goes extinct on its
own ability to adapt to the environment; if it can adapt, it carries on,
if it can't, it dies out. This is true whether it has produced daughter
species or not, so the notion that extinction is somehow a "consequence
of speciation" is just plain silly.
Indeed, about the only case where extinction even arguably _could_ be a
consequence of speciation would be where the daughter species out-
competed the parent, in the same environment, presumably for the same
resources, using the very features which define them as a new species to
simply take over the landscape, leaving the parent with insufficient
resources to survive in the long run.
On the other hand, if they're in the same environment, competing for the
same resources, one would tend to expect them not to be diverging into
separate species in the first place.
magilla
No, that is not correct. And there's no such thing as "Darwinism".
There are two forms on speciation (in one sense of the word). There is
anagenic speciation, in which one species evolves into another. Do not
mistake this for the new species driving the parent species into
extinction. It's just that there is a gradual change that eventually
results in something different enough that humans call it a new
species.
More commonly, though, we see cladogenic speciation. In this case,
often due to genetic drift, we see a _portion_ of the parent
population evolving into a new species. This results in two species-
the parent species and the daughter species.
Chris
Nathan Levesque
Darwinianism? lol
Most speciation occurs from genetic drift, when a population is split
into two geographically isolated regions such that the gene flow
between them is significantly or completely reduced. In this case the
two populations speciate with regard to each other, no extinction
necessarily occurs.
Now with simply phyletic gradualism there is no real extinction of a
parent species. The population speciates gradually over generations,
each of them always the same species as their parents. But not
necessarily the same species as their much older ancestors.
The limit on the number of species is not static as far as we can
tell. The only definite limit seems to be resources. The rain forest
for example has magnitudes more species than a desert ecosystem, and
in fact the rain forest is one of the most efficient ecosystems.
magilla
> On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 16:55:25 -0800 (PST), Bill <b...@billconner.com>
> and for some reason their moderators haven't yet approved it. Sorry.
>
> Holy Bretts
> Mother Fucker of God
> Pray for us assholes
> Now and at the hour we post
> Amen
>
> aa atheist #2262
If you cross post to more than 4 groups, the mod-bot at talk.origins
rejects it.
Thank Jabriol (and others, to be honest) for that.
Chris
Bryan
> I'll have to agree here. It was a legitimate question and deserves a
> legitimate answer.
Have to disagree.
> I will say that the only limit on the number of species is the number
> of ecological niches available to be filled (correct me if I'm wrong).
We see that the question made so little sense that you think the issue
is a "limit on the number of species".
> As for the extinction of parent species, it would depend on the
> conditions of the speciation. If conditions changed in place, it's
> likely that the parent species would tend to go extinct as the new
> species would be better suited to the new environment and therefore
> would survive to procreate more efficiently.
What a mess. The question was simply dumbed-down too far, probably
deliberately. Jeanne's answer, like the question, conflates the
phenomena of speciation and adaptation. Speciation is genetic
divergence when a single interbreeding population divides into
multiple populations that do not interbreed and thus lose the ability.
Adaptation is a change in form over generations of a population that
is advantageous in their environment. Natural selection plays at all
levels; it can drive to extinction a species poorly suited to its
environment, and it can improve the gene pool of a species by favoring
the reproduction of better-suited individuals.
--
--Bryan
Budikka666
> Yeah. Well I always did think Budikka doesn't have both oars in the
> water
I don't have any oars in the water - I have a Mercury Verado!
Budikka
Budikka666
> On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 15:38:26 -0800 (PST), Pill <b...@billconner.com> wrote:
> >It's often said that one of the consequences of speciation is that the
> >newly evolved species causes the extinction of the parent species.
>
Now *that's a respponse!
Did you note his very revealing reply? "Since there are few (if any)
biologists posting here, your observations about them are irrelevant."
Since that's obviously the case and he knows it, why is he posting his
biology question to alt.atheism and only to a.a.? Quite obviously
he's a LYING troll who gets the responses he desrves - at least from
me and you!
Budikka
Budikka666
> On Feb 22, 4:55 pm, Bill <b...@billconner.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 22, 5:43 pm, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>
> > > > It's often said that one of the consequences of speciation is that the
> > > > not sure why that's so or the logic of Darwinianism that would require
> > > > it. Is there some fixed limit on the number of species that can exist
> > > > at the same time? Can someone explain this to me?
>
> > > Yeah - you're a friggin' moron.
>
> > > Quit buying into creationist LIES and get an education.
>
> > > Budikka
>
> > That doesn't answer a question anyone was asking. It does however,
> > avoid the question which may mean you can't answer it or, more likely,
> > your answer will prove you're a fool so you limit yourself to prattle.
>
> legitimate answer.
You evidently haven't met creationist Coward-For-Christ™ Chicken
Bill®, champion of creationists, who was too big of a chicken to show
up in his own thread:
http://tinyurl.com/4k8z3jw
So no, it isn't a legitimate question, it's a dishonest, straw-man,
two-faced troll of a question and it got *precisely* the answer it
merited.
Allow me to point out the dishonesty.
Creationist Coward-For-Christ™ Chicken Bill®: "It's often said that
one of the consequences of speciation is that the newly evolved
species causes the extinction of the parent species"
Said by whom? Not by evolutionists. There's nothing in the Theory of
Evolution which says that a parent species must die out because it has
spawned a daughter species. Darwin's finches alone prove that:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin%27s_finches
It's also quite easy to prove this with the simplest of questions;
even creationists should understand these since they are masters of
deceit, asking a similar kind of question: "If humans evolved from ape-
like ancestors, then why are there still apes?"
That question is no different, and of no more merit than this: "why
are there still wolves since we have domesticated dogs?" Or, "why are
there lions and tigers if we have domesticated cats?"
So Creationist Coward-For-Christ™ Chicken Bill® is reduced to LYING in
his very first sentence.
And notice the neat little segue from the tentative "It's often said"
in his first sentence to the now 'established fact' in his second:
"I'm not sure why that's so..."
Well you're right not to be sure, because it's not so at all.
Creationist Coward-For-Christ™ Chicken Bill® is so out of control by
his second sentence that he invents an entirely new word: "...logic of
Darwinianism.."
Darwinianism? Darwinism is a bad enough LIE, but 'Darwinianism'?
Seriously?
But you're correct, JD, to point out that there's a limit on the
number of organisms and species the available environmental niches can
sustain, but it isn't fixed, since the environmental niches and the
species which inhabit them are changing all the time.
But no amount of pointing out the truth is going to have any impact
whatsoever on young-Earth creationist Coward-For-Christ™ Chicken
Bill®. All he merits is a good hard slap down every time he pops his
empty head up.
Budikka
Budikka666
Er, because it's posted not to any biology group but to a.a., t.a.,
and s.s.?
But how does that quote support your weasel troll question which
begins "It is *often said*" (emphasis mine)?
Does the wikipedia quote say extinction of the parent species is a
necessary result of speciation? No!
Does the wikipedia quote say extinction of the parent species happens
"often" as a result of speciation? No!
Your question is a troillish straw-man. Extinction is not a
requirement of evolution and no one said it is. And, BTW, there's no
such thing as "Darwinianism", Moron.
Get a decent science education and then you won't embarrass yourself
so badly.
Budikka
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>I see you already know the guy. Is he deliberately ignorant?
He's alt.atheism's longest running loonie, being here since 1993.
Just treat him as he deserves.
Les Hellawell
wrote:
>It's often said..
A lot of things are 'often said'.
Some people believe that if something is 'often said' often
enough it is often enough considered to be true.
Are you one of those in that 'if it is often said it must
be true' camp?
It is often said 'Pepsi is better than coke'
It is often said 'Coke is better than Pepsi'
It is often said evolution occurs
> that one of the consequences of speciation is that the
>newly evolved species causes the extinction of the parent species. I'm
>not sure why that's so or the logic of Darwinianism that would require
>it. Is there some fixed limit on the number of species that can exist
>at the same time? Can someone explain this to me?
Les Hellawell
Greetings from:
Yorkshire -The White Rose County
Tronscend
"Budikka666" <budi...@netscape.net> skrev i melding
news:f74e68d7-9d3b-49df...@y3g2000vbh.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 22, 7:19 pm, Apostate <Apost...@yeehaw.org.invalid> wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 15:38:26 -0800 (PST), Pill <b...@billconner.com>
> wrote:
> >It's often said that one of the consequences of speciation is that the
> >newly evolved species causes the extinction of the parent species.
>
>Since that's obviously the case and he knows it, why is he posting his
>biology question to alt.atheism and only to a.a.?
I've been wondering why there is so much biology-talk on a.a..
Why is there no hounding of historians, economists, psychologists?
Hm .... must be an American thing.
T
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
Because pig-ignorant, deluded, stupid, rude creationists believe the
lies of their religious leaders that evolution equals atheism and wipe
it in our faces.
>T
>
>
Jimbo
> It's often said that one of the consequences of speciation is that the
> not sure why that's so or the logic of Darwinianism that would require
> it. Is there some fixed limit on the number of species that can exist
> at the same time? Can someone explain this to me?
>
Bill, nothing in Darwinism requires the extinction of the previous
species and never has. Darwin never said a thing along those lines,
nor has anyone researching evolution among the non-nutcase (non-
religious) researchers) ever made that claim.
Jimbo
> On Feb 22, 5:43 pm, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>
> > > It's often said that one of the consequences of speciation is that the
> > > newly evolved species causes the extinction of the parent species. I'm
> > > not sure why that's so or the logic of Darwinianism that would require
> > > it. Is there some fixed limit on the number of species that can exist
> > > at the same time? Can someone explain this to me?
>
>
> > Quit buying into creationist LIES and get an education.
>
> > Budikka
>
> That doesn't answer a question anyone was asking. It does however,
> avoid the question which may mean you can't answer it or, more likely,
> your answer will prove you're a fool so you limit yourself to prattle.
>
You're asking for an explanation of your own strawman argument. It
doesn't wash.
Jimbo
> On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 15:38:26 -0800 (PST), Pill <b...@billconner.com> wrote:
> >It's often said that one of the consequences of speciation is that the
> >newly evolved species causes the extinction of the parent species.
>
>
> >not sure why that's so
>
Exactly, question answered, case closed.
Jimbo
> On Feb 22, 4:55 pm, Bill <b...@billconner.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 22, 5:43 pm, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>
> > > > It's often said that one of the consequences of speciation is that the
> > > > not sure why that's so or the logic of Darwinianism that would require
> > > > it. Is there some fixed limit on the number of species that can exist
> > > > at the same time? Can someone explain this to me?
>
> > > Yeah - you're a friggin' moron.
>
> > > Quit buying into creationist LIES and get an education.
>
> > > Budikka
>
> > That doesn't answer a question anyone was asking. It does however,
> > avoid the question which may mean you can't answer it or, more likely,
> > your answer will prove you're a fool so you limit yourself to prattle.
>
> legitimate answer.
>
> of ecological niches available to be filled (correct me if I'm wrong).
>
> conditions of the speciation. If conditions changed in place, it's
> likely that the parent species would tend to go extinct as the new
> species would be better suited to the new environment and therefore
> speciation came from part of a population moving to a new location,
> the original species in its original location would stay alive. The
> Galapagos Islands are the perfect example of this--different
> conditions on each island led to speciation of the finches on each
> island without killing off the finches on other islands.
>
He set up a parameter where the claim (as he is misrepresenting it) is
that speciation REQUIRES the extinction of the parent species. His
question is based on a false, and knowingly dishonest on his part,
parameter, therefore all the question requires is an eye-roll and a
low muttered "Idiot" on the part of people that has actually looked at
these issues much past the dusty bible on our shelves.
raven1
wrote:
>It's often said
By whom?
>that one of the consequences of speciation is that the
>newly evolved species causes the extinction of the parent species. I'm
>not sure why that's so or the logic of Darwinianism that would require
>it. Is there some fixed limit on the number of species that can exist
>at the same time? Can someone explain this to me?
Yes: your initial premise is wrong.
Tronscend
"Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> skrev i melding
news:qqs9m6purlfrabrhf...@4ax.com...
Yeah, well .... I'm glad we don't have them here, then.
T
Apostate
>On Feb 22, 7:19 pm, Apostate <Apost...@yeehaw.org.invalid> wrote:
>> On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 15:38:26 -0800 (PST), Pill <b...@billconner.com> wrote:
>> >It's often said that one of the consequences of speciation is that the
>> >newly evolved species causes the extinction of the parent species.
>>
>> If that's often said, it's often said by fuckwits who haven't studied any biology.
>
>Now *that's a respponse!
>
>Did you note his very revealing reply? "Since there are few (if any)
>biologists posting here, your observations about them are irrelevant."
Pill knows in his heart that my piss is too valuable for me to waste it in a pissing
contest with him. He probably *doesn't* know that I've studied with, attended seminars
given and attended by, done lab research under, TA'd for, drunk beer and eaten pizza with,
helped grade exams with, exchanged faux-aggressive banter with while entering and exiting
elevators, a number of biologists beyond his counting skills, if the quality of intellect
displayed in his postings here is indicative. There's a fair chance I'd know about it, if
his thesis sentence were true, among biologists. So the thing that's irrelevant is his
fuckwitted supposition that exposure to biologists *in a.a.* has any bearing on anyone's
knowledge of the topic other than his own.
That said, how would Pill know how many biologists post here? From the number who append
", Biologist (yeah, that's right, I'm smart)" to their .sigs or From: lines? There are
obviously a large number of posters whose understanding of the subject matter is
sufficiently beyond his own to warrant their tutoring him, if he weren't invincibly
ignorant in addition to being a stubbornly dishonest twit.
>
>Since that's obviously the case and he knows it, why is he posting his
>biology question to alt.atheism and only to a.a.? Quite obviously
>he's a LYING troll who gets the responses he desrves - at least from
>me and you!
>
>Budikka
--
Apostate alt.atheist #1931 I've found it!
BAAWA Knife AND SMASHer freelance Minion #'e'
EAC Deputy Director in Charge of Getting Paid,
Department of Redundancy Department
"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure
and the intelligent are full of doubt." -- Bertrand Russell
"Mr. Worf, set phasers on "Fuck You" and fire at will."
-- Doc Smartass
"Nature has a dark sense of humor, but life is certainly
one of the things it laughs at."
-- Rinaldo of Capadoccia
e-mail to %mynick%periodaaperiod%myAA#%@gee!mail!dottedcommie
Apostate
Got it in one.
Merkuns "don't believe in" evolution in numbers paralleling their viewing of "Who Wants To
Be A Fifth-Grader American Idiot?" They, as though with one mind, blame atheists for
biology's having found a loophole in scripture's needing an Alpha Male to make humans,
and it pisses them off mightily that (they think) we think their mothers were monkeys.
It would be kinda cute, if they didn't vote.
Bob Casanova
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Bill
<b...@billconner.com>:
>It's often said that one of the consequences of speciation is that the
>newly evolved species causes the extinction of the parent species.
It's a semantic and "bookkeeping" issue. IIRC when a new
species develops that coexists with an existing species,
usually due to some sort of barrier separating the two
variants, even if the existing species is completely
unchanged it's still considered to be a "new" species and
the "old" species is considered to no longer exist.
Note that I could be mistaken about the details; I'm not a
biologist.
I've added talk.origins to the distribution list since s.s
isn't the right venue; speciation has nothing to do with
investigation of claims of the paranormal.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
John Baker
wrote:
>It's often said that one of the consequences of speciation is that the
>newly evolved species causes the extinction of the parent species. I'm
>not sure why that's so or the logic of Darwinianism that would require
>it. Is there some fixed limit on the number of species that can exist
>at the same time? Can someone explain this to me?
It may be often said by people who don't understand evolution, but it
isn't often said by biologists.
There is nothing in the ToE that requires the extinction of a parent
species when a new one appears.
>
>Bill
Don Kresch
scrawled in blood:
>On Feb 22, 8:44 pm, Don Kresch <spamca...@spamcatch.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 18:30:15 -0800 (PST), Bill <b...@billconner.com>
>> scrawled in blood:
>>
>> >On Feb 22, 7:54 pm, Don Kresch <spamca...@spamcatch.com> wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 15:38:26 -0800 (PST), Bill <b...@billconner.com>
>> >> scrawled in blood:
>>
>> >> >It's often said that one of the consequences of speciation is that the
>> >> >newly evolved species causes the extinction of the parent species.
>>
>> >> Who says that?
>>
>> >From Wikipedia: "Extinction of a species (or replacement by a daughter
>> >species) plays a key role in the punctuated equilibrium hypothesis of
>> >Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge."
>>
>> Now reconcile that with your question. Hint: you can't. What
>> you asked and what you quoted from wikipedia are two different things.
>>
>
>My reply was to the question, "Who says that?".
Yes, and your reply doesn't address the question.
Now please: address the question.
Don
aa#51, Knight of BAAWA, Jedi Slackmaster
Praise "Bob" or burn in slacklessness trying not to.
Bill
The Wikipedia cite was good enough ...
Bill
Don Kresch
scrawled in blood:
No, it wasn't. Since you clearly know that you're naught but a
coward and a liar, you're dismissed.
Bill
The Wikipedia cite was good enough ...
Bill
zamboni30...@yahooonspam.com
>It's often said that one of the consequences of speciation is that the
>newly evolved species causes the extinction of the parent species. I'm
>not sure why that's so or the logic of Darwinianism that would require
>it. Is there some fixed limit on the number of species that can exist
>at the same time? Can someone explain this to me?
>
>Bill
No. Nobody who believes in evolution would believe that.
It couldn't be true... otherwise we would have only ONE constantly
evolving species in existence. A straight line from first life to
modern humans. No other life forms. No plants. No other animals. What
would we eat? Each other?
No. Species evolve. Sometimes the precursor continues, sometimes they
evolve in a different direction and coexist, sometimes they go extinct
because they just don't have a biological niche anymore.
--
zamboni30000
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
Why is the imbecile asking this in an atheist newsgroup?
Because it is nothing to do with atheism or vice versa.
If he were really interested he would ask on talk.origins where
Christians who work in the biological sciences would explain it.
But he's not - these ignorant, stupid questions are meant to be
"silver bullets" which he thinks can't be answered.
Don Kresch
scrawled in blood:
No, it wasn't. Since you clearly know that you're naught but a
coward and a liar, you're dismissed.