|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,915 Year: 4,172/9,624 Month: 1,043/974 Week: 2/368 Day: 2/11 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Dogs will be Dogs will be ??? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Wait ... we had a topic?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RickJB Member (Idle past 5021 days) Posts: 917 From: London, UK Joined: |
I denfinitely carry some responsibility for the topic drift.
Apologies.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
In Message 1 we have the initial thesis:
quote: We then looked at ancestral horse fossils, specifically eohippus (Hyracotherium), to see how similar it is to modern dogs in Message 12:
quote: And this has been repeated in Message 42quote: In Message 43 Beretta concedes that it is less:
quote: Since then we have been trying to move from eohippus to mesohippus on the same basis. Here is some additional information on Mesohippus: Requested Page Not Found (404)
quote:Compared to: (Eohippus), versus Wolf compared to dog: And that is where we have been stuck for the last 100 posts or so. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : . by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AlphaOmegakid Member (Idle past 2906 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
Hi, RAZD,
I'm going to jump in here even though I've read about 1/3 rd of this thread. It appears to me you are arguing that observable dog evolution is far broader than the changes within the horse evolution. However to me it looks like you are confirming the creationist point of view rather than refuting it. Dog evolution is undeniably microevolution. The many dog breeds are the same species. Dogs also can interbreed with wolves, indicating common ancestry and possibly that they are actually the same species. The question is not how much a given genome can change under microevolution. (creationists agree with microevolution) The question is the ablility of your horse to interbreed with other horses during it's era. You see all scientists have is the bones. When they see slight changes in those bones, then they declare a new species. However, there is no real test for species. There is not even a non-equivocating definition of what a species is. So scientist have many horse species, when in reality they may be just different "breeds" of horses all coming from one horse ancestor. Just like the dogs/wolves/foxes??.....??? We have just as much variation in horse breeds today as we do in dog breeds. Miniatures to Clydesdales. They vary widely. The question is not the skeletal variations, the question is genetic reproduction.Is it truly macroevolution or is it just a different type of horse. The other problem you have is you are assuming the three toed horse evolved into the one toed horse of today. There is alot of evidence that refutes that. Edited by AlphaOmegakid, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2508 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
AlphaOmegakid writes: We have just as much variation in horse breeds today as we do in dog breeds. Miniatures to Clydesdales. They vary widely. The question is not the skeletal variations, the question is genetic reproduction.Is it truly macroevolution or is it just a different type of horse. We also have donkeys and zebras. While horses and donkeys can produce mules, the mules are only very rarely fertile, meaning that horses and donkeys would effectively be different species in the wild, and would not exchange genetic information. So, we are witnessing the end of an equine speciation event when we look at those two groups. We can see groups of mammals at various stages of divergence, as we would expect in an evolutionary world.
There is not even a non-equivocating definition of what a species is. "Clearly defined" might be better than "non-equivocating". Of course there isn't. That's because of divergence. In many closely related but distinctive groups, there's not a point where we can say for sure that they would not interbreed in the wild.
So scientist have many horse species, when in reality they may be just different "breeds" of horses all coming from one horse ancestor. Just like the dogs/wolves/foxes??.....??? Foxes? I think they're a clearly separate species, not a "breed" of wolf. Same with jackals.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AlphaOmegakid Member (Idle past 2906 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
RAZD
You do realize that Eohippus is about 8"inches tall and maybe 12" long. It was smaller than most chihuahuas. It was never the size of a "fox terrier" as your textbook may say. It actually is half that size.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AlphaOmegakid Member (Idle past 2906 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
bluejeans writes: We also have donkeys and zebras. While horses and donkeys can produce mules, the mules are only very rarely fertile, meaning that horses and donkeys would effectively be different species in the wild, and would not exchange genetic information. So, we are witnessing the end of an equine speciation event when we look at those two groups. We can see groups of mammals at various stages of divergence, as we would expect in an evolutionary world. Yes, but creationist agree with evolution. Infact they require it. They just don't agree with one common ancestor. They see many common ancestors. Zorses an Zeedonks are well within the creationists framework. They have a common ancestor from the "horse kind".
bluejeans writes: "Clearly defined" might be better than "non-equivocating". Of course there isn't. That's because of divergence. In many closely related but distinctive groups, there's not a point where we can say for sure that they would not interbreed in the wild. Either way, biological evolutionary science is one of the few sciences that allows such "broad" definition with no boundaries. Therefore there is no falsification of the theory, because the definition of the theory allows equivocation. I personnaly reject theories that are based on faulty logical reasoning. But heh, that's just my way of reasoning.
bluejeans writes: Foxes? I think they're a clearly separate species, not a "breed" of wolf. Same with jackals. I would tend to agree with you here. That's why I used the ?? after the word fox. However there is some evidence of hybridization even though it hasn't been studied to my knowledge. Canid hybrid - Wikipedia
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
There is not even a non-equivocating definition of what a species is. What's wrong with the Biological Species Concept?
We have just as much variation in horse breeds today as we do in dog breeds. Miniatures to Clydesdales. All of which have hooves.
The other problem you have is you are assuming the three toed horse evolved into the one toed horse of today. There is alot of evidence that refutes that. Really? You want to mention any of it? Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2728 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, AlphaOmegakid.
AOkid writes: Yes, but creationist agree with evolution. Infact they require it. They just don't agree with one common ancestor. They see many common ancestors. Zorses an Zeedonks are well within the creationists framework. They have a common ancestor from the "horse kind". You are arguing that fossil horses like Pliohippus and others might just be "breeds" of horse, while simultaneously acknowledging that zebras, which are much more similar to modern horses than Pliohippus, are distinct from horses. Meanwhile, RAZD and Bluegenes are suggesting that the animals that more closely resemble one another are more closely related, and that Pliohippus is therefore less closely related to Equus equus than the zebra. Which of these two ideas makes more sense?
AOkid writes: Either way, biological evolutionary science is one of the few sciences that allows such "broad" definition with no boundaries. Therefore there is no falsification of the theory, because the definition of the theory allows equivocation. I personnaly reject theories that are based on faulty logical reasoning. But heh, that's just my way of reasoning. Don't get me started on equivocation, man: ToE has nothing on ID in this regard. The problem isn't that evolution allows a broad definition with no boundaries, but that you're confusing ToE with natural history. The Theory of Evolution is only a description of the mechanism by which things evolve, whereas natural history is the documentation of how that mechanism has been reared its ugly head throughout the history of life. A different set of conditions a hundred million years ago would produce an entirely different natural history, while still conforming to ToE.
AOkid writes: There is alot of evidence that refutes that. Your missuse of the words "refute" and "falsify" is really starting to piss me off. -----
AOkid, msg #156, writes: You do realize that Eohippus is about 8"inches tall and maybe 12" long. It was smaller than most chihuahuas. It was never the size of a "fox terrier" as your textbook may say. It actually is half that size. Actually, Eohippus is 24" inches long, which makes it twice the size you say it is, which was "half the size RAZD says it is." Which, ironically, means that RAZD was right. Edited by Bluejay, : Consistency in reference fossil. Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Yes, but creationist agree with evolution. Infact they require it. Then they should probably spend less time pretending that it doesn't happen.
Either way, biological evolutionary science is one of the few sciences that allows such "broad" definition with no boundaries. I have noticed creationists using the word "species" now and then too.
Therefore there is no falsification of the theory, because the definition of the theory allows equivocation. I don't know what this is meant to mean --- do you? --- but the reason there's no falsification of the theory is 'cos it's true, not because of your inability to define species.
I personnaly reject theories that are based on faulty logical reasoning. Not noticeably, you don't. You seem rather to revel in them, in fact.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2508 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
AOkid writes: Therefore there is no falsification of the theory, because the definition of the theory allows equivocation. I personnaly reject theories that are based on faulty logical reasoning. But heh, that's just my way of reasoning. I don't know where the creationists myth that the theory of evolution cannot be falsified comes from. All you would need is something like elephant fossils in the Precambrian, and the theory is buggered, because it cannot explain that. Theories are explanations of the observations and evidence, and it is easy to think of things that would blow the ToE sky high! But none have been discovered yet, which is odd, unless...... I hope you're not confusing an emotional attachment to superstition with "logical reasoning".
Zorses an Zeedonks are well within the creationists framework. They have a common ancestor from the "horse kind". Then why not all mammals from a common ancestor of the mammal kind? And as there are fossils with both mammal and reptile features, why not...err.... all quadrupeds from a quadruped kind. And so on.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2728 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Here I am, tackily responding to the same message twice again. Oh, well.
AOkid writes: Either way, biological evolutionary science is one of the few sciences that allows such "broad" definition with no boundaries. Therefore there is no falsification of the theory, because the definition of the theory allows equivocation. Your complaint here is, what? That things aren't easy to organize into discreet categories? The entire gist of the ToE is change, variation and diversity: what the hell did you expect? Any theory that fundamentally predicts diversity and variation should also predict trouble with categorizing, indexing, defining and identifying. That much should make sense to anybody. Also note that ToE does not require usage of organizational categories in any particular way: the terms "species," "phylum," "family," "subclass," etc., are just for our convenience in trying to organize and communicate information with each other. So, if your argument is that ToE can't decide on a single definition of the word "species," your argument amounts to a strawman. Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AlphaOmegakid Member (Idle past 2906 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
bluejay writes: Actually, Eohippus is 24" inches long, which makes it twice the size you say it is, which was "half the size RAZD says it is." Which, ironically, means that RAZD was right. Do you see the 20 cm. That's approximately 8". I don't know too many mid-sized dogs that are 8" tall do you? from wiki... Hyracotherium - Wikipedia
Hyracotherium averaged only 2 feet (60 cm) in length and averaged 8 to 9 inches (20 cm) high at the shoulder. The length stated is over three times the height. Proportionally this is not correct. The length includes a fully extended neck and fully extended long tail. The actual body size was about 50% loger than the shoulder height. Which I correctly stated as about 12" or 30 cm. Do you see the .4 mm lenth? That's about 14" long. I was a couple short maybe.
In elementary level textbooks, Hyracotherium is commonly described as being "the size of a small Fox Terrier", which is actually about twice the size of the Hyracotherium. This arcane analogy was so curious that Stephen Jay Gould wrote an essay about it ("The Case of the Creeping Fox Terrier Clone"), in which he concluded that Henry Fairfield Osborn had so described it in a widely distributed pamphlet, Osborn being a keen fox hunter who made a natural association between horses and the dogs that accompany them. source from the above wiki page. Edited by Admin, : Rerender to be mobile friendly.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AlphaOmegakid Member (Idle past 2906 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
the Dr writes:
There is not even a non-equivocating definition of what a species is.
What's wrong with the Biological Species Concept? Maybe you should ask these people...
"... I was much struck how entirely vague and arbitrary is the distinction between species and varieties" Darwin 1859 (p. 48)[42] "No term is more difficult to define than "species," and on no point are zoologists more divided than as to what should be understood by this word". Nicholson (1872) p. 20[43] "Of late, the futility of attempts to find a universally valid criterion for distinguishing species has come to be fairly generally, if reluctantly, recognized" Dobzhansky (1937) p.310 [10] "The concept of a species is a concession to our linguistic habits and neurological mechanisms" Haldane (1956) [33] "The species problem is the long-standing failure of biologists to agree on how we should identify species and how we should define the word 'species'." Hey (2001) [37] "First, the species problem is not primarily an empirical one, but it is rather fraught with philosophical questions that require-but cannot be settled by-empirical evidence." Pigliucci (2003) [36] "An important aspect of any species definition whether in neontology or palaeontology is that any statement that particular individuals (or fragmentary specimens) belong to a certain species is an hypothesis (not a fact)"[44] from... Species concept - Wikipedia Please note, that I am not quotemining here. These quotes address the problem that the quoter was arguing about. I also used a supposedly non-biased source.
wiki writes: Definitions of speciesSee also: Species problem The question of how best to define "species" is one that has occupied biologists for centuries, and the debate itself has become known as the species problem. One definition that is widely used is that a species is a group of actually or potentially interbreeding populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups.[4] Here is what is listed under the definition of species....
The definition of a species given above is derived from the behavioral biologist Ernst Mayr, and is somewhat unrealistic. Since it assumes sexual reproduction, it leaves the term undefined for a large class of organisms that reproduce asexually. Biologists frequently do not know whether two morphologically similar groups of organisms are "potentially" capable of interbreeding. Further, there is considerable variation in the degree to which hybridization may succeed under natural and experimental conditions, or even in the degree to which some organisms use sexual reproduction between individuals to breed. Consequently, several lines of thought in the definition of species exist: from... Species - Wikipedia There are 13 different definitions/explanations of what a species is. So you can pick and choose whichever you like, depending on what you want to demonstrate. That's called "loose logic" or equivocation. The definition of macro evolution is dependent on the definition of species. So evidence of macro evolution can be interpreted without limit, because there is no limit on the definition of species. But if you want to follow this logic, that's OK with me. Please note, I am not trying to get off topic, i am just answering your question.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AlphaOmegakid Member (Idle past 2906 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
the Dr writes:
We have just as much variation in horse breeds today as we do in dog breeds. Miniatures to Clydesdales. All of which have hooves. Yes, horses have hooves. Have you ever considered that the other creatures, that look vastly different from a horse, just may not be horses. They may not be ancestors to horses. They may just be another creature that has no evolutionary history related to modern day horses. Could it be possible that you are forcing the evolution theory into the fossil record of these creatures. The evolutionist perpective of linear progression of slow gradual horse evolution has all but been abandoned today for the "branch bush" theory. The new theories on this have many branches and many required unfound transitionals. Just maybe, could they be unrelated in the first place? What you were most likely taught in schools about this linear progression has been declared by science to be erroneous. Couldn't the "branching bush" theory be just as erroneous.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024