Macroevolution: Its all around us...

Marel, I think the discussion here might be of assistance in your debate.I am focussing on this because it is about the only very narrow part of your post asking for help and because you are about 5 to 10 weeks short of enough time to prepare yourself for this large topic.

Thought provoking never thought about that. I would say that if you were to show a picture of a tiger to a small child he wouldn't say it was from the feline family, he would probably tell you that it's a tiger. I would keep it simple and specify each kind by the first simple answer that pops into your head. If you see a trout the first thing that comes to mind is "fish" but if you see a great white you're going to think "shark".

quote:

---

Thought provoking never thought about that. I would say that if you were to show a picture of a tiger to a small child he wouldn't say it was from the feline family, he would probably tell you that it's a tiger. I would keep it simple and specify each kind by the first simple answer that pops into your head. If you see a trout the first thing that comes to mind is "fish" but if you see a great white you're going to think "shark".

---

Tell me, how does this translate into a classification system that is useful for science?Are we to ignore genertics when deciding relatedness?What about humans and chimpanzees? Are we both "primate kind?"

quote:

---

1. It doesn't. It's not supposed to. Simplicity is the common denominator between us all.

---

Well, if it has no predictive value or a basis in anything other than a simplistic, child's notion of what "kinds" of things are related, then is is simply a fun thing to believe, but nothing more than that.It's a story you tell but is otherwise not useful.So, a child might think that a bat is a bird. Does that mean that bats are bird "kind"?

quote:

---

2. No. Relatedness between species simply states that we have the same Creator

---

So, should we stop using Chimps and other primates in medical testing because we have no way of determining how closely related various species are?Modern science uses these animals in certain experiments precisely because they are so similar to humans genetically and physiologically. We have the exact same broken gene that prevents both humans and chimps from synthesizing our own vitamin C, as well.Are you telling me that none of these factors point to relatedness at all?

quote:

---

3. I already answered that. We are man kind and monkeys are monkey kind

---

So, please explain to me why we should ignore genetics completely when determining relatedness between species.Better yet, can you tell me if you accept the results of DNA paternity tests as accurate?Why or why not?This message has been edited by AdminSchraf, 05-03-2005 10:15 PMThis message has been edited by AdminSchraf, 05-03-2005 10:16 PM

Well if it isn't useful for classifying forms of life, what is it good for? I wasn't aware that 'relatedness' could 'state' anything,
but it certainly implies linkage between living things, by definition.You might interpret the similarities as pointing to a common creator, but science has developed various means for quantifying these similarities (and differences) to come up with objectively determined DEGREES of relatedness. Now that is actually useful - you can now say that organism A is more related to B than to C. So we are no more related to monkey kind than we are to 'algae kind'
or 'bacteria kind'? I am sure we all have some very similar enzymes and other proteins in common, but the number of differences are few between man and monkeys. In fact "Studies indicate that humans and chimps are between 95 and 98.5 percent genetically identical."
So similar, in fact, we probably belong in the same Genus.See:
Chimps Belong on Human Branch of Family Tree, Study SaysYou need to read more outside of your Sunday school assignments.

quote:

---

We are man kind and monkeys are monkey kind

---

Is Homo erectus man kind, monkey kind or Homo erectus kind? What are Australopithecines?

Well, of course it is. Since all animals are decended from one common ancestor, there's only one kind of animal: Animals. Actually it goes back further than that - since all organisms are decended from one common ancestor there's only one kind of organisms: Organisms. That's right; there's just the Organism kind which all organisms are a member of.

Whose head?

I've always been a bit confused about the distinction between micro and macro that you (and others) have made.Can you explain what is your procedure for deciding which of the following animals are micro-evolved varieties of a single kind of animal, and which are distinctly different kinds of animal?Or if any other anti-macro person could explain it to me, for that matter!1. Saddleback pig 2. Tamworth pig 3. Duroc pig 4. Pot-bellied pig 5. wild boar 6. White-lipped peccary 7. Collared peccary 8. Chaccoan peccary 9. Celebes wild boar 10. Pygmy hog 11. Javan pig 12. Bearded pig 13. Phillipine warty pig 14. Babirusa (scary pig) 15. red river hog 16. musk deer [edited by mick to add a few more photos - sorry to those who only got the first few]This message has been edited by mick, 05-04-2005 06:20 PMThis message has been edited by mick, 05-04-2005 06:22 PM

Good one Mick.Now let me see, which of these animals can we use as the 'outgroup' for this little exercise in phylogenetic inference. ?I wonder.......To be fair, I guess we better make sure that old eclipse here knows what an outgroup is..."The distinction between rooted and unrooted trees is very important, but it is also often problematical for non-experts. ...the most common method of cladistic analysis (particularly for sequence data) involves producing an unrooted tree and then rooting the tree using the outgroup. This rooting of the tree then indicates the direction of evolutionary change on the cladogram; and this allows hypotheses of relative character-state polarity (ancestral versus derived) to be produced..."See complete article here:http://www.sasb.org.au/TreeBuild/TreeBuilding3.htmlLet me simplify.Without identifying an obviously dissimilar (= obviously unrelated) organism, relative to the group for which you wish to determine cladistic relationships, you cannot determine degrees of relatedness among the obviously similar organisms within that group.All 'good' phylogenetic trees are 'rooted' in a common ancestor, but in the case of the 'outgroup' selected for a particular analysis, the exact identity of this common ancestor doesn't really matter for the purpose. It is just a reference point that permits mathematical determination of how far each of the other organisms (taxa) have diverged from one another over time.Just my long winded way of saying that Mick's 'outgroup' is obviously the pygmy hippo - only distantly related to pigs at the Order level, Artiodactyla, I believe. Most of the pigs depicted belong to the same species (varying in morphological traits only as a result of selective breeding by humans) and all the peccaries to the same Old-World Genus, Sus, within the family Suidae.

EZscience,SORRY!!!I edited my post to add a few more photos, and now the pygmy hippo is gone. But anybody who read EZScience's post will realize that the outgroup is again at the end of the post, and is now the musk deer.Actually the musk deer is a better outgroup; the phylogenetic position of the hippo is sometimes considered controversial.EZScience, sorry once again for removing the hippo! thanks for your comments. I hope at least you will enjoy the new pictures, which have a much greater diversity of pig-like animals.Anyway, let's see if any opponents of macroevolution can come up with a good way of distinguishing between "variation within kinds" and "variation between kinds" for these magnificent creatures.Mickps. you are wrong about the peccariesThis message has been edited by mick, 05-04-2005 06:31 PM

quote:

---

Well, if it has no predictive value or a basis in anything other than a simplistic, child's notion of what 'kinds' of things are related, then is is simply a fun thing to believe, but nothing more than that.

---

I was speaking metaphorically about commmon knowledge.

quote:

---

It's a story you tell but is otherwise not useful.

---

Metaphors can be useful if you figure it out. It saves a lot of complicated explanation that, other than the point, is usually not necesary.

quote:

---

So, should we stop using Chimps and other primates in medical testing because we have no way of determining how closely related various species are?

---

No. I never even remotely indicated that. Actually I was agreeing that humans and animals, some animals more than others, have similarities but they are not the same species, and until a reptile gives birth to a bird, or a hyrax gives birth to a suvivng mutation that looks like a horse I will not believe evolution. Furthermore I will believe the oldest document until it is proven wrong. That document is the Bible. It is the only document that says the earth is round way before Colombus figured it out.

quote:

---

So, please explain to me why we should ignore genetics completely when determining relatedness between species.

---

You tell me. Someone asked 'Should we ignore'and I said no. Now you're asking 'Why should we'. So if you're asking my opinion, I already gave it to you.

Fabulous Pigs !
Ya gotta love 'em.PS: I was just guessing about the peccaries.
What is the current consensus on their relatedness to the genus Sus ?

Not only a different genus, but a different family - Tayassuidae. Suidae (pigs and hogs) are monophyletic with Tayassuidae (peccaries) at the base of artiodactyla. This arrangement is very well supported by molecular data.Mick

So before we deal with the specifics, lets look at the pattern of reasoning here.Apparently anyone would be wasting their time trying to convince you otherwise because you have already made up your mind !?I ask you then, why do you waste *your* time entering into this debate in the first place?Do you want to avail yourself of an opportunity to preach and, at the same time, avoid the opportunity to actually consider other cogent analyses? Some of us might argue that that has already occurred in a number of cases....
Besides, if your argument is older documents are more reliable, would you rather have a surgeon use a 19th century manual or a 20th century manual when he operates on you ? Actually, Columbus was no where close to the first person to hypothesize a spherical earth. It has to go back to Ptolemy or earlier. Someone help me out here.But I would like to know where in the Bible it says that the earth is round ?
Doesn't sound familiar.You bear the burden of proof - provide us with a 'chapter and verse'.This message has been edited by EZscience, 05-04-2005 10:17 PMThis message has been edited by EZscience, 05-04-2005 10:19 PMThis message has been edited by EZscience, 05-04-2005 10:21 PM