From: "Robert Comer" 

> Sort of the Bill Clinton book of science definitions.  If you don't like
> people pointing out the unknowns in your science then just change the
> definition of what *is* is.

LOL, but you're right.   I was thinking about this very issue, but I hadn't
come to any way of putting it other than that if they did interbreed
naturally, they weren't that far apart, and if it was because of something
we did, all bets are off.

The 2x and 3x chromosome "new species" aren't new species at all,
usually this kind of mutation has no advantages and quite a few
disadvantages, so if left on their own it would be "selected" out
pretty quickly.

--
Bob Comer


"Gary Britt"  wrote in message
news:437a3ea4{at}w3.nls.net...
> Doesn't this really rely on first *changing* the definition of what a
> species is, and then going aha, if we change the definition then we can
> cook
> the books to prove an observation of trans-species evolution.
>
> When two different species mate, they CANNOT produce offspring or the
> offspring are sterile.  Since that doesn't allow hybrids to work to prove
> trans-species evolution then just change the definition of what a species
> is.
>
> Sort of the Bill Clinton book of science definitions.  If you don't like
> people pointing out the unknowns in your science then just change the
> definition of what *is* is.
>
> Gary
>
> "Robert Comer"  wrote in message
> news:4379fcf3$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>> I'm not really advocating ID here, while I think that's the way
>> everything
>> worked, it's based on my religious beliefs, not science  -- that's not
> what
>> I'm arguing about.
>>
>> > http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html discusses observed
>> > speciation, starting with a discussion of what 'species' means.
>>
>> Hybridizing isn't something I thought about her, and could be a real sign
> of
>> speciation, but, of course, you need two species to crossbreed to begin
>> with. 
>>
>> Most of the rest are muddling be us, but interesting anyway...
>>
>> --
>> Bob Comer
>>
>>
>> "Paul Ranson"  wrote in message
> news:4379f506{at}w3.nls.net...
>> > http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html discusses observed
>> > speciation, starting with a discussion of what 'species' means.
>> >
>> > Contrast the comprehensiveness with
>> > http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/deception.html#TalkOrigins
>> >
>> > What's sad about the ID/creationist advocacy is that there is real
> science
>> > to do in measuring design but they aren't interested in doing it.
> Imagine
>> > we found a lifeform on Mars, a good question to be able to answer would
> be
>> > whether it were natural or artificial. You can expect the answers to
> come
>> > from conventional biology and physics rather than the ID crowd.
>> >
>> > Paul
>> >
>> > "Robert Comer"
 wrote in message
>> > news:4379bb54{at}w3.nls.net...
>> >>> One method is to study animals that have spread over a large
> geographic
>> >>> area (where "large area" means "much
greater than an individual
>> >>> animal
>> >>> travels in their lifetime").
>> >>
>> >> Sorry, that only talks probabilities, not actually
observing evolution
> in
>> >> action.
>> >>
>> >>> Another is to observe lifeforms where generations are
measured in
>> >>> minutes,
>> >>> not years.
>> >>
>> >> We haven't observed something as dramatic as a species
transition at
> even
>> >> that level yet without genetic muddling on our part, and
without that,
>> >> it's still all theory, not fact, and you have to believe it's true.
>> >> (btw, I do believe evolution exists, that's not my argument.)
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Bob Comer
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5