Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,911 Year: 4,168/9,624 Month: 1,039/974 Week: 366/286 Day: 9/13 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Supporting life aboard the ark
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1497 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 5 of 32 (38845)
05-03-2003 3:57 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Mangetout
05-02-2003 9:34 AM


Ultimately I think the problem is that creationists fail to recognize that any system of taxa is inherently approximate; the boundaries between "adjacent" taxa tend to be fuzzy. A lot of the time it's lingusitic - we call some animals "cats" but that doesn't mean that they have some unique cat nature that separates them from their close non-cat cousins.
Lingusitically I don't think we really have the leeway anymore to make up a radical new name for an incipent species radically different from its ancestors. In that sense, the creationists are right - we'll never see a cat give rise to non-cats simply because in our langauge, cats could never change enough that we would stop calling them cats.
It's a problem with our words, not biology. This makes it almost impossible to communicate, and I'm sure I've failed right here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Mangetout, posted 05-02-2003 9:34 AM Mangetout has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1497 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 13 of 32 (39043)
05-05-2003 10:29 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Mangetout
05-05-2003 7:56 PM


Re: Actual cases of new genera and higher
Indeed; had there been human observers at the time when the split between chordates and [whatever else there was], they would almost certainly have classified the new organism Somethingia Chordata - i.e. they would have viewed it as a speciation event, even though it looks from here like a branch at phylum level.
The current thought, as I understand it, is that chordates are decended from an invertebrate species that, as juveniles, have a primitive spinal cord which they then lose as adults. This is an example of Neoteny, I understand - the phenomenon where adult members of one species posess traits that are found only in the juveniles of a closely related species. (Certain human characteristics display the same neoteny to chimp juveniles.)
This, if a creationist had been observing the event along with the scientist, he or she would have likely countered "Not speciation at all, but rather a degenerate form of this invertebrate. It stubbornly refuses to become an adult." Or something similar. I think this example shows how creationist demands for evidence of new taxa is a kind of loaded question.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Mangetout, posted 05-05-2003 7:56 PM Mangetout has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1497 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 16 of 32 (39084)
05-06-2003 1:41 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Mangetout
05-06-2003 5:49 AM


there seems to be no good reason why humans also wouldn't survive, clinging to large pieces of floating debris (until they could get to one of these floating island ecosystems).
Or, say, humans in boats? Clearly boat technology would have been available to the antidiluveans. Surely some communities would have been coastal, with a large amount of fishing. Even if it was a very, very sudden flood somebody might have been out fishing that very night.
I'd give better odds on the survival of a few men or one man in a small boat than on the seaworthyness of one huge ark anyway.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Mangetout, posted 05-06-2003 5:49 AM Mangetout has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024