/lit/ - Literature

Interesting. Thank you.

Speciation involves reproductive isolation of groups within the original population and accumulation of genetic differences between the two groups. So basically, a mutation will appear, like having three eyes, this individual will reproduce and some kids will also have three eyes and so on, at some point there will be a lot of three eyes beings at the particular geographic location where it occurred, then other mutations will happen, like having six arms, etc, and with time they will be incapable of reproducing? Africans and European couples tend to have more daughters than male sex, that's already a sign that we were separating.

>>21039520
>just from a-priori argumentation
The same is true of refutation of all empirical work, see Hume. Get over it. Read Russell, then Popper, then Kuhn, then Lakatos, then Feyerabend.

Read more dickhead, especially on epistemology of empirical work.

This is not even mentioning Darwin’s unoriginality and all of the suspicious historical circumstances surrounding his theory. Greek philosophers such as Empedocles and Anaximander had proposed evolution long before Darwin, but their ideas were rightly rejected because of the essentialist metaphysics of Plato and Aristotle. Darwin simply repackaged their ideas so that the British Empire could have a philosophical justification for its colonial project. Remember he was writing in the time of Cecil Rhodes and the various British secret societies which aimed at Anglo world domination. Darwin’s theory was convenient for them because it allowed them to “scientifically” classify non-Anglo races and the working classes as subhuman and justify their genocidal and eugenicist project as being “in the course of nature” and unchangeable.

>>21039548
Please give arguments. I’m not interested in name dropping.

>>21039556
If you're not familiar with the names and their meaning AND THEIR FIELD SPECIFYING CANON STANDARD ARGUMENTS you're too fucking new to post here.

>>21039546
This doesn’t address the argument. Any time a new species evolves from a previous species, it will die out because it will be unable to produce fertile offspring with the species of its parents. This is the definition of species; you can’t escape it because it’s a-priori. Only variation within species is therefore possible.

>>21039565
>[definitions are a-priori]
Read Aristotle until you get it.

>>21039563
Whether I’m familiar or not is totally irrelevant. Only arguments are relevant. If you’re proposing me to read those individuals because of their arguments, you’re proving my own point. However if you’re proposing me to read them as “authorities” I reject such proposals. An appeal to authority can only provide a weak probabilistic case for accepting a view. A probabilistic argument is ALWAYS weaker than a demonstrative one, which I have provided. Hence I have the upper hand over your appeal to authority until you respond with a demonstrative objection of your own.

>>21039586
>Only arguments are relevant.
And yet you've failed to read six relevant canon arguments.

Go top yourself. I recommend panadol overdose so it takes you 28 days to die and your nurses hate you.

>>21039520
I've always held the notion that males, rather than females, should be the gatekeepers of reproduction

>>21039520
Species are just a social construct. Evolution is more real than species are.

>>21039581
Appeals to authority can only give probable reasons for accepting a view. If the authorities say X, then (in vacuo) X is more likely to be true than not. However, probable arguments are always weaker than demonstrative ones; for, if somebody offers a demonstrative objection to X, it does no good to say that the authorities maintain X. In the same way that a man who shows you the way to Athens has given you more reason to believe him than a man who merely infers the way based on probabilities, so a demonstrative argument is always stronger than a probable one. Now, in certain cases, if we are unacquainted with the matter at hand, or if we believe our intellectual powers are too weak to judge correctly, we may still defer to authorities even in the face of a demonstrative argument. However, in such cases we should admit ourselves to be laymen, and not presume to even comment upon the issue, until we have procured enough understanding to judge the authorities on their arguments, rather than their arguments on their authority.

>>21039550
Then Franz Boas came around and destroyed the concept of racial classification based on ulterior motives as well

>>21039605
By the objective rules of debate, I am winning, for I have offered a demonstrative argument, and you have responded with an appeal to authority, which is merely a probable argument and therefore weaker.

>>21039620
>[I don't read]
Go read cunt.

>>21039642
You read but you don’t think.

>>21039619
The argument doesn’t rest on essentialism, though I am a Platonist.

>>21039647
What a surprise, you don't do either

Yeah evolution is so easily debunked.
I am amazed how atheists have turned genes into the new god. Make me laff when they say their dad was a fish too.
Guess which theory is true according to them:
theory 1 : humans descent from humans, which is verified at every human birth
theory 2: humans transition from a fish, then a monkey, yet it was never observed and fishes today dont transition into monkeys and monkeys today dont transition into humans, just trust me bro. Btw, humans still transition into trannies, that's completely natural and scientific :^)

face it, atheism-scientism is a religion too, and the whole religion replacement was a power grab by atheists. Atheists make Darwin their new guru. But like all gurus, Darwin is an atheist duplicitous bitch.
the only difference between Darwin and Lamarck is that Darwin made up a theory about a population and Lamarck made up a theory about an individual.
Now here is the thing. in order to work with ''a population'', you need to use statistics. and statistics dont lead to proofs and even less to truths.
Darwin's theory is not falsifiable and atheists are gaga about this, even though in public they say falsifiability is awesome.
In fact, the atheist concept of a ''a population'' is not even well defined. At best you they come up with a fuzzy definition.
So with darwin theory you get no predictive claims and when you try to get numbers out of it, you only get few stats about a population and if the theory fails, the atheists will say the numerical results are just statistical artifacts, no big deal. In fact ''truth'' is not even defined in statistics. So whatever atheists come up with with their stats, they can't say it's the truth.

>>21039670
I have demonstrated my ability to think by producing a refutation of Darwin, which I have not seen anybody else propose. Even if the argument fails, it is better to think for oneself and fail than rely on the thoughts of others. As Plato says, knowledge is justified true belief; hence a man who has the right opinion but has not investigated the matter deeply with his own mind and cannot offer a cogent justification for it which he understands does not possess knowledge. If my opinion is false, then I too do not have knowledge, but at least I have attempted to arrive at it. This is not an indictment of reading, for in reading one may grasp the arguments of the author by thinking them through on his own, so that the author is merely a prompt for the reader’s discovery, giving him guidance as it were. But as you are unwilling to argue for the positions you claim to have learned from your extensive reading, it argues a lack of understanding on your part. By itself this is not objectionable, but when coupled with a dogmatism and hostility that berates others for not adopting the views of a particular authority that you claim has said the final word on the matter, it becomes vicious. You are like a schoolboy who attempts to intimidate others by talking of his father. Your father may be a tough man, but it doesn’t mean you are.

>>21039695
>by producing a refutation of Darwin
Which is incapable of relating to any canon works on epistemology of science.
>producing a refutation which fails to refute.

GJ!

>>21039520
Charles wasn't even the first to come up with this idea. I can't remember the name but someone did a book on this showing that a Scottish writer said what Darwin said 100 years before him but no one took notice.

You are not considering that in a chain of reproductions, every individual may be sexually compatible with its own parents, but incompatible with a far removed ancestor. There is no reason to suppose that sexual compatibility is transitive. An argument which categorizes every living thing as a species and defines a species as a community of sexually compatible organisms, while arguing that speciation is impossible because the species barrier can never be crossed in one generation, assumes the truth of its conclusions in its premises.

>>21039708
The more intelligent and educated the man, the less faith he has in authorities. Words such as “expert”, “canon”, and “credential” begin to mean less and less to him. During his intellectual childhood, he views the authorities as mysterious, awe-inspiring figures, operating on a level inaccessible to him. He is stumped by jargon, and sees this as proof of his inferiority. Then, little by little, as he rises closer to their level, he sees them in their naked fallibility, much the same as him. This is intellectual adulthood: to eschew the childlike awe of one’s parents (the authorities) and see them for the flawed people they are, whereupon one can pursue one’s own course in life, instead of always looking to the parents for guidance.

>>21039738
>Bland unsupported statement
>Ignoring prior art
Keep going son, I want to be at your funeral drinking scotch.

I won't make claims regarding OP's intelligence. His post speaks for itself.
How can OP state that the organism B1 of Species B is unable to reproduce with anyone from Species A, when his own mother has debunked this nonsense by reproducing with a chimp?

>>21039520
>Doesn't understand a simple theory
>"It's easy to refute it"
And this is why philosophy had it's ass beaten by Skepticism more than 2k years ago
You're the equivalent of housewives getting horoscopes

>>21039727
The species must be crossed in one generation, as my thought experiment demonstrates.

Assume species B evolved from species A.

Take any individual from species B (we’ll call it B_last) and ask “who was its mother?” iteratively.

On this chain of maternal lineage, there will be a fixed number of individuals from the same species, and then one breaking point, when a female of species A gave birth to the first individual of species B, called B1.

Your transitivity objection doesn’t work here, because a species is defined by the members being able to interbreed. If B1 is able to interbreed with his mother’s species, then B1 is the same species as his mother. If B1 is the same species as his mother, then B1’s mother is the same species as B_last (for it is not possible for an individual to belong to two different species) and that means we have not iterated far enough to reach the breaking point. This is a contradiction though because in our thought experiment we assumed that B1 was the breaking point. Hence evolutionary narrative is false.

>>21039520
>The evolutionary narrative implies as a matter of logical necessity that an individual from one species at one time gave birth to an individual from another species.
One sentence in and you out yourself as a retard. You need to hide it further in. Ideally, second to last sentence. Occasionally people will jump down to the last sentence before reading the post, and you don't want to give away your hand if they do decide to do that.

>>21039667
The argument rests on there being a clear point (explicitly B1) where the offspring of one species is of a different species. That's not how species as a classification system work. They're a social construct which don't perfectly line up with reality (in that there are individual organisms more or less different than each other, some of which cannot interbreed, and for the convenience of humans we treat these as distinct groups).

Shit on Darwin all you like but you don't understand evolution, and you're treating the philosophy you have studied like a hammer and everything else you encounter (evolution) as a nail. Most unwise of you, go read more.

>>21039834
Even if species is a social construct, it is nevertheless rigidly defined, so we may make objective conclusions about it. Money is a social construct, but from the definition of money we can deduce that £20 is worth more than £10 purely a-priori.
I admit the argument rests on the idea that one individual cannot belong to two different species. I looked this up online and could not find any biologist talking about one individual belonging to more than 1 species. However if there is such a thing, and an example is produced, I will consider my argument to have been refuted.

>>21039520
you're unironically retarded

>>21039839
>I LOOKED THIS UP ONLINE
Thank you for your autorefutation. Please never post. Proof of your suicide would be appreciated. Live link.

>>21039844
That has no bearing on the question at hand. My argument is logically airtight, and the only way to refute it is to show that one individual can belong to two separate species (because then B1 could belong to species A and species B). Until you do so, I am ahead in the debate.

>>21039834
>species
Species is just a vague category we group things in because it makes life easier, it's not Schrødinger's holy biology Batman

>>21039780
>Your transitivity objection doesn’t work here, because a species is defined by the members being able to interbreed.
Exactly, your argument is tautological. You have shown that your conclusion follows from your definition of species but never proved that your definition of species was a valid way of categorizing organisms. Sexually compatibility is mechanistic and precedes the species distinction.

>>21039849
First of all, that isn’t true. As Plato has masterfully shown, the Forms are not mere social constructs, they are in fact a higher reality than sense experience, for it is only through them that sense experience can even be intelligible. I’ve been leaving this uncontested the whole thread because the argument doesn’t rely upon essentialism, but I must now rebut this pernicious error.

>>21039847
>My argument is logically airtight
And also completely detached from the real world or any actual application. Which is why no one takes you seriously

>>21039852
I admit it: if an animal can belong to two separate species then my argument is refuted, because B1 could then belong to species A and species B simultaneously. But before posting this thread I googled “can an animal belong to two different species at once” and found nothing of the kind. So until an example is produced of an animal belonging to two different species at once, I have no reason to believe in such a being.

>>21039855
Platonism was an Ancient Greek mystery cult that used a basic knowledge of geometry to posit a metaphysical dogma. Even at Plato's time no one but his disciples took it seriously.

>>21039857
>I have no reason to believe in such a being
What you believe doesn't matter. You can sit jerking off and playing word games, just as people have for Millennia while getting nowhere, but what you can actually provide real world evidence for is all that really matters

>>21039873
Exactly, so provide evidence of an animal which belongs to two different species at once. If you do so, I will admit that my argument has failed.
>>21039858
Plato proved virtually all of his own doctrines in his own day, but now after Godel nobody has an excuse not to be a Platonist anymore. Godel has shown that the human intellect reaches out to a third realm of truth that actually exists independent of human creation. This follows from his first incompleteness theorem, which proves that mathematical truth is beyond mere syntactical definitions, as empiricists in the past like AJ Ayer had believed. No, when doing mathematics, the human mind leaves the realm of sense-experience, which is forever changing, and charges upwards, freed from bodily vice, into the realm of the Forms, where it interacts with mathematical objects directly. How beautiful! How amazing a doctrine! But you would rather ossify the human soul and restrict it to a mere bag of atoms, unable to comprehend truth, cut off from reality, totally absorbed in its own subjective sense impressions which mean nothing.

>>21039520
uhhh you're a nigger and that's not even a theory

>>21039520
Cute argument, but individual B1 does not exist. Deny incrementalism all you want, but species are not discrete, they're continuous.
"Species" is a poorly defined term and is only useful to us as an abstract way to categorize animals, there's no clear cut dividing line for what belongs to one species and what does not.
In your example, individual A1 and individual B10000 will be noticeably different, but individual B1, however you decide that the species has stopped being A and is now B, will be almost indistinguishable from it's predecessor and from B2. Look at pic related, which exact pixel stops being blue and starts being pink?

>>21039520
Speciation generally occurs in an entire population i.e a pod of whales migrates to colder, waters. Over time they might select for say a thicker adipose layer. Specimen A.1 with such a trait will still be capable of breeding with the original variant. Traits accumulate and voila- you have the origin of species.

>>21039520
1) not a literature topic
2) You're retarded in many ways

>>21039983
I don’t expect you to have read the whole thread, but as I’ve already said to others making the same argument as you: yes, I freely admit that my argument rests on the transitivity of species-identity. Or in other words, it rests on the assumption that one animal cannot belong to two different species at the same time. If it could, then yes, B1 would simply be a part of species A and species B simultaneously. He would be able to produce fertile offspring with species A and he would be able to do the same with species B, thus serving as a bridge between the two species. So now the question is only if such a two-species animal really does exist in empirical reality. Has there ever been observed an animal belonging to two separate species at once, such that it could produce fertile offspring with both of them even though they cannot do it with each other? If the answer is yes, and such an example can be produced, then I freely admit my argument fails in its current form.
So that’s where the discussion currently is in my mind. Is there a double-species animal in empirical reality or not? If not, then although I understand it’s a necessity to posit such animals to make your theory consistent, it’s still extremely problematic for your theory to predict such entities even though we’ve never seen one.

>>21040149
Again, the name "species" is not biologically meaningful. When you look at evolution at a level as zoomed-in as this every individual has the possibility to usher an entirely new species. You, your mother and your father have noticeable genetic differences from each other. If you happen to carry a mutation that is very advantageous to survival and reproduction then maybe in 100000 years there will be species of humans entirely distinct from our current variety of humans and you will have been the individual B1 for that species, but this is a line entirely impossible to draw right now. For all intents and purposes, you're a 21st century human and entirely genetically compatible with all other 21st century humans, even if you end up being the root for a new species.
To answer your question, there are species that can cross-breed and produce fertile offspring. For objective examples, ctrl-f "fertile" in the following page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genetic_hybrids
For a subjective example, consider dog breeds. While they are all generally considered to be the same species and can interbreed, they have huge phenotypical differences from each other.

>>21040212
I am operating under the definition of species that says the members of a species must be able to produce fertile offspring. If two animals can produce fertile offspring, they’re of the same species. This is crucial for my argument. Any definition of species that includes phenotypic considerations is irrelevant to my argument, which takes as an assumption that species = the ability to produce fertile offspring.
Now as you say, if I’m B1 then in 10,000 years (or whatever) there will arise a new species which I could produce fertile offspring with. But I could also produce fertile offspring with modern humans, so I would belong to two species. I would be this double-species animal that I’m asking you to give me an example of. I didn’t ask for an example of a hybrid, I asked for an example of an animal which belongs to two separate species — in other words, it can produce fertile offspring with them both even though they cannot do so with each other. I hope you realise why such an animal is necessary for the consistency of your theory from the argument I’ve laid out.

>>21039520
okay now refute Mendel's laws

>>21040256
An animal from species A breeds with species B producing hybrid AB. If AB is fertile, then the animal from A can breed with both species A and species B, and produce fertile offspring with both. The answer to your question is that by this logic the animals from species A and species B who bred together belong to both species at the same time.
This is why the "produces fertile offspring" definition of species is not used anymore. Right now there is no real scientific definition for "species"

>>21040292
In such a case they would all be of the same species because they can all breed together and produce fertile offspring. What I am asking for is an animal which belongs both to species A and to species B when species A and species B are not identical. In that case the animal would be able to breed with species A and species B but species A and species B would not be able to breed with each other. If such an animal exists (and it well may) then I admit it, my argument has failed. Pic related I asked for the left and you gave me the right.

>>21039520
Your definition of species is outdated and thus your argument is irrelevant

>>21040337
Don’t call it species then, call it “gargarhajaja”. It’s still the same argument.

>>21040344
ye but then it's not species. it's just your retarded premise driving you in autism-fueled circles

>>21040325
By your definition of species this is impossible, if species X can breed with species A and produce fertile offspring species X and species A are the same. There's an inherent contradiction in what you're asking.
I cannot answer if such a thing exists off the top of my head. I don't believe I've heard of any such examples. In general this is a very difficult field of science to find experiments for, as it is generally regarded as unethical to try to crossbreed different species.

The only proof against evolution is a spider’s web. How the fuck do they do it?

>>21040344
ok, the definition of gargarhajaja is not "a group of organisms that can't reproduce with other groups of organisms", that's what your entire argument is built on.
this is an outdated and irrelevant definition of gargarhajaja and you just outed yourself as a humanist.
biologists are much more insane and they instinctively know that a gargarhajaja is not only a synthetic classification of organisms that humans made up, but also that it's mostly meaningless and is only a tool to make biology more reasonable.

>>21040374
beta sheet protein ass crystals

>>21039520
>Now, the definition of a species is the ability of its members to produce fertile offspring.
This is a rough-and-ready definition. Most taxonomists and biologists do not rely upon it. Plus you overlook the possibility that mother A producer of B1 could also be producer of B2, meaning that all new species are derived from incestuous pairs.

>>21040390
B1 and B2 don’t have to perform incest. They can just reproduce with other organisms and a couple generations later those mutations will be in many organisms, so that when they reproduce the mutations will be phenotypic. This is probably how blue eyes evolved. The recessive trait was in various organisms after a few generations so that when it was no longer harmfully incestual, it would be possible to have a child with blue eyes. And maybe these humans were considered special and had lots of children so the gene kept proliferating. One mutation does not change the species. But if the groups are separated for a while, they will accumulate mutations until they can no longer breed. This takes a huge amount of time though

>>21039983
>but species are not discrete, they're continuous.
You're just admitting that species do not exist, which is what OP's argument was (which is a main presupposition of evolutionism). Evolution does not make sense if there are not actual taxonomic categories with which to frame it. If you admit those taxonomic categories do not exist (which is the same as saying they are purely invented by human minds) then there is nothing which actually evolves, because there is virtually no reference point for what constitutes X going to Y (which is what all change, ie evolution, implies).

>>21040403
>They can just reproduce with other organisms
They can't because they are only genetically compatible with other Bs. Which means that per the argument B1 is only sexually compatible with B2. OP's argument is under the assumption, which is fair enough, that the definition of a new species (even if this is not a common or official definition) is that the members of a species can only breed with other members of the same and produce fertile offspring. This obviously contradicts the common convention because there are real taxonomic examples which violate this rule, so we are reframing it a bit to be ideal, where every species division is strictly sexually incompatible. In which case the production of incestuous pairs (due to some common deformity in the mother/father coupling) would basically resolve the issue.

>>21040275
cant be replicated on humans in a lab

>>21040407
not the one you're replying to but:
>>but species are not discrete, they're continuous.
>You're just admitting that species do not exist
Species can exist without being discrete. They're just snapshots of a gradient that changes over a much longer period of time. You can see which pixels are clearly pink and which are blue at the opposite ends (i.e. given enough time to diverge), but it had go through many changes before it got to that point. In order to have some meaningful classification, they draw a line. The fact that the line itself is permeable doesn't change that species do exist, it simply means that given enough time and selective pressures, one species can emerge from another.

Perhaps to clarify terms, species are both discrete and continuous. Discrete in a specific point in time, continuous in a series of multiple points in time. OP's problem is just from forcing a specific definition and drawing out an argument from there.

A species is a time-dependent concept. We are the same species as humans that lived 40,000 years ago. We are still the same species (though behaviorally different) as humans that lived 200,000 years ago. Before that? Well, it trails off.

But the humans that lived 200,000 years ago? There is no hard break. They are the same species as the humans that lived 300,000 years ago. Do you understand how this works?

Also, your definition of species is completely wrong. You probably heard something like it in third grade and never bothered to follow up.

>>21040373
>>21040359
>>21040370
My argument proves this disjunctive statement:
Either
1) Evolution beyond the limit of fertile interbreeding is impossible. (Ie. it is impossible for one species to evolve into another species based on the traditional definition of species as concerning the ability of its members to produce fertile offspring).
2) There are animals which belong to more than one species traditionally defined. (Ie. There are animals which can interbreed with two separate species which themselves cannot interbreed with each other).
Of course you’re going to choose the second option (you have to choose one of them) in which case I ask you to provide me an example of an animal which belongs to two different species (traditionally defined), ie. an animal which can produce fertile offspring with two different species which themselves cannot produce fertile offspring with each other. If you have no such examples, then your theory makes a prediction for which there is no evidence.

>>21039520
Species is just a classification. You are like someone harping over the fact that nobody can name a specific point when blue becomes red on the color spectrum

>>21040635
>gargarhajaja traditionally defined
found your problem. you are trying to disprove the existence of a natural phenomenon using manmade terms and simplifications, which is an a priori fucking stupid statement to make.
also
>animals
do you realise that plants, bacteria, archeans, fungi and the convuted mess that is Protista are alive and undergo evoloution as well?

>>21040407

They do exist but with like most things in biology they are rather arbitrary. These days species are usually differentiated based on their genes. But sometimes they aren’t. For instance birds should really belong into reptiles but they have their own class anyway.

The field of biology hasn’t evolved that much from ‘the horse is as everyone sees’, believe it or not. Sure we try to neatly classify everything into its own nice drawer but sometimes we find something like the platypus that completely breaks what we thought we knew.

>>21040749
Last time trying to explain myself.

Forget "species" and all that. Just think of it in terms of set theory.

Define set A and set B as containing members which are able to produce fertile offspring with each other.

There are now two options:
1) A and B are disjoint. Ie. they share no elements.
2) A and B are not disjoint. Ie. they share some elements.

If it's (1), then set A could never evolve into set B because as soon as an element from set A gives birth to an element in set B, it will be in set B all alone, unable to produce fertile offspring with anything else, unless by extreme luck another set B element happens to come about in the same area at the same time.

However, if it's (2) then I am asking you to produce a real-world example of an element in the set A ∩ B. That is, an animal which is in both of the sets; that is, an animal which can produce fertile offspring with two different sets, even though the unique elements within those sets cannot produce fertile offspring with each other.

Do you see now? There are only 2 options. So either reject evolution or provide an example of the latter kind. If you do not have such an example, why do you not have one, given how essential it is for your theory? If you are positing the existence of such an animal without evidence, merely to make your theory consistent, then surely you must admit you have a huge gap in your theory.

>>21039520
Your thesis rests on the 18th century definition of species. You should actually read up on different definitions of species first

>>21040894
Stop arguing
semantics please. Oh how I tire of semitic antics

>>21040894
it's gargarhajaja retard

>>21040894
Speciation occurs in a population over time thus the only relevant examples of A and B would be in members of that population over extremely long periods of time. This means the relevant set possibly never exists at one time and we shouldn’t necessarily expect it to exist now. However, that such a population could exist is expected with a mechanistic understanding of biology.

>>21040972
On the contrary, evolutionary theory would predict that loads of those kinds of animals which "bridge" two different sets should exist at any given time. There's no reason that being in set A ∩ B would be evolutionarily disadvantageous in any way, so why would all such animals die out? If there are no such animals known to man, it is a massive failure of prediction on the part of evolutionary theory. However, if they do exist, and you can provide an example, I admit my argument has failed.

>>21040894
You are attempting to refute a material, scientific idea (evolution) using a philosophical argument. I have to concur with the anon earlier ITT >>21039834 in that you are trying to apply these concepts where they do not belong. It is no more possible to disprove evolution using a strict linguistic interpretation of the word "species" than it is to refute a book's ideas by analyzing the chemical makeup of its paper.

Don't be a fool, anon. Your energy would be much better served studying as opposed to dragging yourself into a nonsensical argument online.

>>21041012
>There's no reason that being in set A ∩ B would be evolutionarily disadvantageous in any way
Things don’t simply exist because they are not evolutionarily disadvantageous.
Also: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species

>>21041012
Darwin rights about this issue in Origin of Species Chapter 6 Difficulties On Theory under the question
> “firstly, who, if species have descended from other species by insensible fine graduations, do we not everywhere see in unbearable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?”

i think most creatures are actually of multiple species. we evolved alongside parasites/viruses that eventually were so codependent they became part of the creature

>>21041012
Because they got outcompeted by the species they evolved into. There wouldn't be much of a point to evolution if the next form is not superior to the current for, would there?
(Of course, exceptions exist when the species are separated geographically.)

>>21039520
>any species-bridging mutation is necessarily going to be evolutionarily disadvantageous
No, that’s stupid.
>this can be deduced simply from the definition of species
You can’t derive a posteriori facts from a priori statements, retard.
>Hence it is impossible (or at least extremely unlikely) for one species to evolve into another
Also extremely retarded, we see species evolving into another constantly. You need to be over 18 to post here, you foetus.
>inb4: y-y-you are ad homie not an argument
Those weren’t arguments, you simply made moronic statements with no backing which I’m making fun of now
>The evolutionary narrative implies as a matter of logical necessity that an individual from one species at one time gave birth to an individual from another species
No, idiot, you are confusing evolution with taxonomy. You would realise that if your basic education weren’t in a shithole like the USA.
>Incrementalism doesn’t save you here, for we can simply perform a thought-exercise
Any “thought experiment” you idiots can come up with have no bearing on physical reality. That’s why all ontological arguments are laughable.
>Now, the definition of a species is the ability of its members to produce fertile offspring
No you idiot, that’s not the definition of species. Again you would know that if you were educated at all and not a moron with grade school knowledge of biology.

The ability to use commas correctly doesn’t make you smart, in fact you are extremely stupid, as I can guess you have achieved nothing at all for whatever 16-19 years of life you have.

>Take any Spanish speaker and ask “what language did his parents speak?" over and over again. If Spanish derived from Latin, we will eventually get to a pair of Latin speakers giving birth to an individual who speaks Spanish. We can designate this individual “Sp1” because he’s the first individual to speak Spanish. Now, the definition of a language community is the ability of its members to understand each other and no one else. If Sp1’s parents were from the Latin-speaker community, and Sp1 is the first instance of a Spanish speaker, then it logically follows that Sp1 WILL HAVE NOBODY TO TALK WITH.

>an individual from one species gave birth to an individual from another species
Uhm sweaty, have you never played Pokémon?

>>21039565
Sorry man this is just a retarded word game

op left?

>>21039520
Interesting. Thank you.

>>21039520
>(as per the definition of species)
that is not the definition of species. Your argument, unlike darwin's, is the actual a priori argumentation because you presume that hybrids can't exist.

>>21039883
>two species at once
Humans. Mind and body.

>>21039520
Totally wrong, but nice attempt. Look up "ring species". For a short, specific example, there are a bunch of lizards of species whatever and subspecies A, B, and C. A lives to the west, C to the east, and B in between. A and B can reproduce, B and C can reproduce, but A and C cannot reproduce. Are A and C different species? Who knows? Doesn't matter.

In your example, B1 will still be able to reproduce with other members of species A. This notion of "species" is shorthand for substantial genetic drift that two animals cannot produce fertile offspring. And it general it works (a pumpkin cannot produce offspring, fertile or otherwise, with a horse), but it does not speak to the gradual, intermingling process of speciation as subspecies drift enough to become infertile with each other.

You also forget that incest is rampant in the animal kingdom, so even if B1 couldn't reproduce with A (this is hypothetical; it's hard to imagine such a sudden genetic shift that would suddenly render offspring infertile to close family, and if this ever happens I'm sure it's incredibly rare), it could still reproduce with its siblings. So yeah, totally wrong on all points. I recommend you read up on "speciation" instead of trying to draw logical conclusions from categorical labels as if genetics is that simple. We don't use genetics to differentiate species if we can go without it (bacteria, fungi, and other annoying small things tend to give the most trouble) for a reason. (Though we rely on it more and more for taxonomy to decide where things go on the "tree" of species.) The actual delineation of species is murky as fuck and not nearly so neat as labeling things "B1, son of A". There are also some biologists that subscribe to the theory that there is only one species: DNA. Next time you have the temptation to "refute" complicated processes you know nothing about, try reading up on the topic first.

>>21039670
My dude, he is 100% correct that you don't know how to think for yourself. Namedropping to try to weasel out of a proper argument is for cretins and midwits.

>>21039780
>The species must be crossed in one generation, as my thought experiment demonstrates.
Assumes. Your thought experiment assumes, it does not demonstrate. Once again, ring species, which are merely a single example of a larger issue with your assumptions.

>>21039565
>This is the definition of species
No it isn't
>>21039520
>This argument is one of the strongest proofs against evolutionary theory, and I’ve never even heard anybody else use it.
No it isn't

>>21039780
Speciation isn't a switch that flips you mongol, you absolute buffoon

>>21040325
>>21040292
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lonicera_fly

>>21040894
Evolution does not act on an individual you muppet

>>21040325
Irony. I could have killed this thread from the beginning with >>21043704 but got to it after you'd been arguing your points for a long time. The biggest problem by far is that you're assuming the definition of "species" in your head (which has been used academically though not much) is anything more than a convenient conceit that any biologist will tell you is full of fuckhuge holes.

>>21040374
Drugs and perseverance.

>>21040407
>Evolution does not make sense if there are not actual taxonomic categories with which to frame it.
A million times "NO". Species are convenient human nomenclature. Genetic drift is not.

>>21040894
Your example is completely worthless because populations are not frozen sets. They are big groups of individuals that experience genetic drift as some members die and new ones are born. You're also assuming a "B" exists in advance. What a completely bizarre logical framework: new species emerge chaotically and gradually over many generations; they are not predestined, hybrids exist, and species are made up things for human convenience anyway with no sharp lines between what constitutes a separate species vs a mere subspecies. Here, do the most basic bitch middle school research and realize there is no universally agreed upon, objective definition of a species:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species#Definition

>>21041475
This is wonderful and I love it.

>>21039565
>it will die out because it will be unable to produce fertile offspring with the species of its parents.
Not true, you've had this explained on your /sci/ thread

>>21039780
>and then one breaking point, when a female of species A gave birth to the first individual of species B, called B1
There's no breaking point you retarded baboon. It's all gradual.

>>21040407
>Evolution does not make sense if there are not actual taxonomic categories with which to frame it.
They exist and they are "individuals". Since it's too chaotic to work with them we use species which are a discrete entity when analysing one specific short-term time period. You even have populations as an in-between but they tow the line between being too hard to accurately study with genetics for periods of time longer than 2000 years and basically impossible to study through the fossil record. So "species" is more convenient.

>>21039520
That’s the dumbest thing I’ve read all week.

You know tigers and lions can mate? :D

What a pathetic argument.
You are trying to argue that the definition of species means that any mutation causes it to be another species entirely (purely by definition of the word) and therefore it cannot reproduce with another organism.
This is not the case. Argument refuted. Go away you literal autist.

>>21039692
I'd add to this that there's not currently an agreed upon scientific definition of "species". There used to be, but the necessity of that definition itself disproves the theories of evolution.

>>21044727
The definition of species is a group of organisms which can reproduce amongst themselves.

Is the above statement correct?

>I have never encountered this anti-evolutionary argument before, therefore I'm smart
You haven't encountered it before because it's retarded. Reality is not based in language, it's the other way around. Words we use to describe the world are always approximate. You whole argument is based upon an arbitrary interpretation of the word 'species'. Replace 'species' with any synonym, like 'genetic cluster', and the argument falls apart.

>>21044756
I used to work with insect experts and basically you'd have to write an entire paper detailing multiple sets of characteristics (including DNA) to justify why one set of creatures is a species or sub-species. It's alot more involved than a simple definition nowadays.

>>21039632
>objective rules of debate
In what "object" are these rules embedded?

>>21045087
Your skull after I bash you with them