Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Dogs will be Dogs will be ???
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 166 of 331 (475337)
07-15-2008 10:07 AM
Reply to: Message 163 by AlphaOmegakid
07-14-2008 6:26 PM


Hi, AlphaOmegakid.
I have got to stop making side comments on my messages.
I'm very glad that you've done your research on the physical dimensions of Hyracotherium/Eohippus.
I'm a little disappointed, however, that you decided to ignore all of the important parts of my message in order to respond only to the part that gave you a rub. It's become apparent to me that you only respond when you are attacked personally, and not when your argument is being challenged. I will refrain from attacking you personally, and I apologize if I've offended you.
There was another part in my message that was actually a clear refutation of your argument, but, for some reason, you decided to ignore that part.
Recap:
AOkid, msg #154, writes:
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 bold part is the summary of the argument you made.
bluegenes, msg #155, 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.
Bluegenes rebuts with donkeys and zebras, which are more like modern horses than fossil horses, yet can't interbreed with horses.
Bluejay, msg #159 writes:
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.
Bluejay points this out to you. How could all the different fossil species of horse be conspecific with the modern horse, when animals that are virtually identical skeletally to the modern horse are clearly different species?
AOkid, msg #163 writes:
...
AOkid ignores it.
-----
An addition to my argument:
AOkid, msg #154, writes:
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.
This was the entire point of RAZD's argument: dog breed evolved via "microevolution." Therefore, if the difference between the two most divergent dogs is equal to or greater than the difference between any two horses adjacent to each other in that outdated, linear evolution model, then the jump between those two horses is also microevolution, and thus, acceptable to creationists.
If each step in the evolution of the horse is equal to or less than the difference between dog breeds, than each step is acceptable as microevolution. If each step is acceptable, then there is nothing stopping the entire process from going forward via "microevolution," and "macroevolution" is no more than "microevolution" happening over a longer period of time.

Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 07-14-2008 6:26 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 07-16-2008 9:31 AM Blue Jay has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 167 of 331 (475338)
07-15-2008 10:28 AM
Reply to: Message 164 by AlphaOmegakid
07-15-2008 8:55 AM


It's Just a Flippin' Word!!
AlphaOmegakid writes:
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.
This entire argument is called a "strawman argument," as I mentioned in Message #162. It has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the veracity or validity of ToE. What the hell difference does it make whether the word "species" means anything in particular? What the hell difference does it make whether the word "macroevolution" means anything in particular (I don't know any biologists who use this word anymore, anyway). ToE doesn't require any discreet categories to work (that's why the term "clade" is more and more being used to replace the hierarchical Linnaean terminology).
The fact that we're having trouble pinpointing an easy definition should be an indication to you that there isn't an easy definition, which rather indicates less "baraminization" and more "random variation."

Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 07-15-2008 8:55 AM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 168 of 331 (475344)
07-15-2008 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 165 by AlphaOmegakid
07-15-2008 9:11 AM


Yes, horses have hooves. Have you ever considered that the other creatures, that look vastly different from a horse, just may not be horses.
Yes, that was kind of my point. So we have a series of intermediate forms between something that definitely isn't a horse and something that definitely is.
Could it be possible that you are forcing the evolution theory into the fossil record of these creatures.
No forcing is required. We predicted intermediate forms, intermediate forms we got.
The new theories on this have many branches and many required unfound transitionals. Just maybe, could they be unrelated in the first place?
There are always "unfound transitionals", this is because the fossil record does not contain every animal that ever lived, and because we've only looked at a fraction of it anyway. There are, however, plenty enough to confirm horse evolution.
The evolutionist perpective of linear progression of slow gradual horse evolution has all but been abandoned today for the "branch bush" theory ...
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.
What you have been taught by creationists about this subject is certainly inaccurate. It seems to have arisen by misunderstanding a fairly trivial point of the paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould.
Certainly there is a bush, as evolutionists have always maintained. Tree of Life, remember? It's one of those things we've been banging on about for the last century-and-a-half.
And there is, naturally, a line that you can draw on any bush leading from its trunk to the tip of one of its twigs. This would be the line of descent of (in this case) Equus.
Stephen Jay Gould's point was that if we just show this line of descent, we are to some extent concealing how evolutionists think that evolution works, as exemplified by the fossil record of horses and by the one diagram in the Origin of Species:
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 07-15-2008 9:11 AM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 169 of 331 (475348)
07-15-2008 11:29 AM
Reply to: Message 164 by AlphaOmegakid
07-15-2008 8:55 AM


Species
AOkid writes:
There are 13 different definitions/explanations of what a species is.
I tried to explain to you the underlying reason why it's difficult to define when two groups have become separate species (further up the thread) using the horse/donkey example, and explaining that because mules are nearly always sterile, it's virtually impossible that the two "species" could exchange genetic information in the wild, but they're only just at that point of complete speciation.
It's because what you call "macroevolution" is a constant, ongoing process that there will always be problems in defining species by reproductive isolation.
Let's get topical, and bring RAZD's dogs into the subject. One group of modern wild mammals that we could compare them to is the big "roarer" cats. Lions, tigers and leopards can produce offspring with each other in captivity, but with high rates of infertility, and they are not known to reproduce in the wild. That indicates that they are further from a common ancestor than the dogs because they have greater reproductive isolation, but it's by no means complete.
There are different species or sub-species of all three "types" of cat to complicate things, as well. If none are known to reproduce in the wild, that means they are all diverging genetically, but no-one can quantify a degree of genetic difference that defines species.
Your complaint at ambiguity is because the ambiguity is real. But your attempt to use it as an argument against "macroevolution" is just amusing and perhaps slightly pathetic, because the ambiguity is caused by the constant and ongoing process of speciation/macroevolution.
You are pointing out a human phenomenon (our problem in classifying things) that is the product of us trying to get a fix on an ever transitional, evolutionary, biological world.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 07-15-2008 8:55 AM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 170 of 331 (475352)
07-15-2008 12:00 PM


How many micros equal a macro?
To those who accept microevolution but rebel in horror at macroevolution, here is a question. I have asked this a number of times, but have yet to receive a suitable answer.
What mechanism prevents a lot of little micros from adding up, over time, to a macro? And how does this mechanism know when to stop the little micros from occurring, lest they add up to that macro.
How do it know?

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-15-2008 1:03 PM Coyote has not replied
 Message 173 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 07-15-2008 2:08 PM Coyote has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 171 of 331 (475358)
07-15-2008 12:47 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by AlphaOmegakid
07-15-2008 8:55 AM


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)
Yes. That's an argument for evolution. It's in the Origin of Species.
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.
No you can't. You cannot, for example, pick a definition of "species" that makes a tiger the same species as a hummingbird.
The definition of macro evolution is dependent on the definition of species.
Macroevolution depends crucially on the fact that there are no sharp lines between species, which are merely human methods of classification.
The inability of creationists to come up with one hard-and-fast definition of species rather proves our point.
If you guys wish to claim that one species can't turn into another, please come up with one "unequivocal" definition of species. According to the theory of evolution, there can be no definition such that the relation "is the same species as" is transitive, and hence "species" cannot be an equivalence class.
Your call.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 07-15-2008 8:55 AM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 07-15-2008 4:37 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 172 of 331 (475362)
07-15-2008 1:03 PM
Reply to: Message 170 by Coyote
07-15-2008 12:00 PM


Re: How many micros equal a macro?
To those who accept microevolution but rebel in horror at macroevolution, here is a question. I have asked this a number of times, but have yet to receive a suitable answer.
Apparently, this is because creationists feel that it's up to us to define the imaginary lines of demarcation that they wish to impose on nature.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by Coyote, posted 07-15-2008 12:00 PM Coyote has not replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2875 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 173 of 331 (475374)
07-15-2008 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 170 by Coyote
07-15-2008 12:00 PM


Re: How many micros equal a macro?
Coyote writes:
To those who accept microevolution but rebel in horror at macroevolution, here is a question. I have asked this a number of times, but have yet to receive a suitable answer.
What mechanism prevents a lot of little micros from adding up, over time, to a macro? And how does this mechanism know when to stop the little micros from occurring, lest they add up to that macro.
How do it know?
That's a really good question. I will try to dress my answer up nicely so that you might think it is "suitable".
The answer lay in the concept of genetic capacity. There is a limit to any genome. Now science is very young here, but you will see this term used widely in the literature. It always reflects a limit within the genome.
For instance, in dog evolution, you can get a great dane, but you cannot get a dog the size of brontasaurus. The same applies in the opposite direction, you cannot get a dog the size of an ant. There is a limit on size as well as just about every other feature of the dog.
You can breed cows to produce more milk, but there is a limit to how much milk any cow can produce.
Now to have evolution in the first place you need mutations, drift, and selection. In every documented case of a "beneficial" mutation the genetic capacity for the benefit is existant in the population. That means that if that beneficial trait is selected then certain other traits are lost in the non beneficial populations. Over time, genetic capacity is diminished and not increased.
That is exactly what we see in dog evolution, as well as every other observable evolution. We see chihuahuas that wouldn't make it a week in the wild. We also see thoroughbreds that have substantial other medical issues because they have lost their capacity to fight those diseases.
We see the gentic capacity of certain traits selected from a population, but we never see the genetic capacity of the entire genome increased. That is what is needed to produce the type of evolution from bacteria to man. Simple genetic capacities increasing over time. But we do not see this in nature. What we see in nature is degradation and stasis. We don't see the gradual increasing of genetic capacities. But we do see big imaginations.
The example I like to use is that is you take a miniature poodle and breed it with a wolf type dog. You can eventually breed it back similar to the wolf type dog. But if you take two miniature poodles, and continue to breed them, you will never get back to a wolf type dog. The genetic capacity has been lost and limited.
Now since most of you believe that horses evolved from eohippus then it should be easy to present evidence of actual beneficial mutations within horses. Any takers???

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by Coyote, posted 07-15-2008 12:00 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by bluegenes, posted 07-15-2008 4:48 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied
 Message 177 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-15-2008 6:33 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied
 Message 184 by Coyote, posted 07-16-2008 11:50 AM AlphaOmegakid has not replied
 Message 185 by Coragyps, posted 07-16-2008 12:08 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2875 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 174 of 331 (475400)
07-15-2008 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by Dr Adequate
07-15-2008 12:47 PM


the DR writes:
Macroevolution depends crucially on the fact that there are no sharp lines between species, which are merely human methods of classification.
The inability of creationists to come up with one hard-and-fast definition of species rather proves our point.
If you guys wish to claim that one species can't turn into another, please come up with one "unequivocal" definition of species.
According to the theory of evolution, there can be no definition such that the relation "is the same species as" is transitive, and hence "species" cannot be an equivalence class.
I will try to do my best to decipher this....
I'm afraid you are very wrong about macro evolution "depending crucially on the fact that there are no sharp lines between species." Actually the opposite is true. Macro evolution is defined by the clear distinction of species.
And yes we have to rely on the human mind for these classification systems. Unless of course you want to let the chimps design one for us.
Now creationists do use scientific terms. They are not opposed to science in any way. However, they are opposed to some logic used by some scientists. Creationists don't oppose speciation. In fact they agree with it. They just believe that one "kind" of an animal doesn't evolve into another "kind". They believe there is a limiting capacity to the genome that was designed by the designer. That's what we see in nature.
I'm afraid even I can't decipher the last sentence. Maybe I'll ask my dog!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-15-2008 12:47 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-15-2008 5:40 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied
 Message 182 by bluescat48, posted 07-16-2008 11:14 AM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 175 of 331 (475401)
07-15-2008 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by AlphaOmegakid
07-15-2008 2:08 PM


Re: How many micros equal a macro?
AOkid writes:
The answer lay in the concept of genetic capacity. There is a limit to any genome. Now science is very young here, but you will see this term used widely in the literature. It always reflects a limit within the genome.
The phrase "genetic capacity" refers to the present capacity of existing genomes, not to any limitations on change through time. For example, an individual man may have the genetic capacity to reach a height of 6' 2" given the perfect diet and lifestyle while growing up. Another 5'11" and another 6'5" etc.
It's got nothing to do with what the capacities of their descendents can potentially be.
The same thing applies if you're referring to population groups. The capacity of existing canines is not the potential capacity of their descendents.
For instance, in dog evolution, you can get a great dane, but you cannot get a dog the size of brontasaurus.
That relates to the question you're being asked. With enough time and enough mutations, why not?
There is a limit on size as well as just about every other feature of the dog.
You could have said the same looking at the original wolf population. But how would you have decided the limit to what might be achieved? The great dane is much larger than the largest individual that you would have been looking at. The fastest dogs, much faster than the fastest, and the dogs with the best sense of smell, better than the best smellers, etc.
You're deciding the future limits to recombination, mutation and artificial selection (dog breeding) without explaining why, just as you do with natural selection.
In every documented case of a "beneficial" mutation the genetic capacity for the benefit is existant in the population.
A new mutation is new capacity, by definition.
That means that if that beneficial trait is selected then certain other traits are lost in the non beneficial populations. Over time, genetic capacity is diminished and not increased.
It certainly isn't! A population group going through a bottleneck would decrease its total genetic diversity. Coming out of a bottleneck, it will increase it. But it does not require a bottleneck to fix a beneficial mutation across the group.
That is exactly what we see in dog evolution, as well as every other observable evolution. We see chihuahuas that wouldn't make it a week in the wild. We also see thoroughbreds that have substantial other medical issues because they have lost their capacity to fight those diseases.
I suspect that individual breeds of dogs have less diversity than wild wolves, but that dogs as a whole have more. The breeds that wouldn't survive in the wild do not happen in the normal evolutionary process, by definition. Some would survive, certainly (Dingos did).
We see the gentic capacity of certain traits selected from a population, but we never see the genetic capacity of the entire genome increased.
Mutations and recombination increase diversity in the genome of a species over time. All dogs, incidentally, may have descended from a very small number of wolves.
We don't see the gradual increasing of genetic capacities. But we do see big imaginations.
Evolution would be more about the change in the genetic capacities of a population group than their increase, when you think about it.
But if you take two miniature poodles, and continue to breed them, you will never get back to a wolf type dog. The genetic capacity has been lost and limited.
Really? Is that a standard creationist claim? It might take a few hundred generations, but I'm sure it could be done.
Now since most of you believe that horses evolved from eohippus then it should be easy to present evidence of actual beneficial mutations within horses. Any takers???
I thought you were supposed to be answering the "how many micros make a macro" question. You haven't.
But since you ask, I'll give you the whole batch of mutations that went into building up their supposedly irreducibly complex mammalian blood clotting system, the evolution and increasing complexity/capacity of which you can read about here.
Each individual mutation required would have been micro-evolution, but together, they certainly add up to macro.
Edited by bluegenes, : typo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 07-15-2008 2:08 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 176 of 331 (475408)
07-15-2008 5:40 PM
Reply to: Message 174 by AlphaOmegakid
07-15-2008 4:37 PM


I'm afraid you are very wrong about macro evolution "depending crucially on the fact that there are no sharp lines between species."
Good news, your fears are unfounded, I am absolutely right.
Sheesh, what's with you guys?
If evolutionists argued like creationists, we'd go around saying stuff like: "Creationists believe that the earth was cremated in six ways by a dog".
I don't ask you right now to agree with our point of view, but couldn't you make the tiniest effort to find out what it is?
Actually the opposite is true. Macro evolution is defined by the clear distinction of species.
Wrong. It depends crucially on the fact that there is no such thing.
Now creationists do use scientific terms.
And one day they may learn what they mean.
Creationists don't oppose speciation. In fact they agree with it.
Apart from all the creationists who pretend that it's impossible.
They just believe that one "kind" of an animal doesn't evolve into another "kind". They believe there is a limiting capacity to the genome that was designed by the designer.
But are unable to agree amongst themselves where it lies.
Can you even give us your own opinion as to where this "limit" lies?
That's what we see in nature.
No, hence all the intermediate forms.
I'm afraid even I can't decipher the last sentence.
Sorry, I do tend to lapse into mathematical jargon. More on this later.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 07-15-2008 4:37 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 177 of 331 (475413)
07-15-2008 6:33 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by AlphaOmegakid
07-15-2008 2:08 PM


Re: How many micros equal a macro?
Now to have evolution in the first place you need mutations, drift, and selection. In every documented case of a "beneficial" mutation the genetic capacity for the benefit is existant in the population. That means that if that beneficial trait is selected then certain other traits are lost in the non beneficial populations. Over time, genetic capacity is diminished and not increased ... We see the gentic capacity of certain traits selected from a population, but we never see the genetic capacity of the entire genome increased.
If this meant anything, it would be wrong.
Sheesh, what do you think a mutation is, even?
You seem to be jumbling up several different creationist mistakes about genetics into one big mess.
Now science is very young here ...
Translation: creationists have been making vague noises like this for decades, but it still makes no sense.
The example I like to use is that is you take a miniature poodle and breed it with a wolf type dog. You can eventually breed it back similar to the wolf type dog. But if you take two miniature poodles, and continue to breed them, you will never get back to a wolf type dog.
I presume that your favorite "example" is something you've made up, since I know of no such experiment. I also know that every mutation is capable of reversion.
Now since most of you believe that horses evolved from eohippus then it should be easy to present evidence of actual beneficial mutations within horses. Any takers???
Yes. Observe the changes in the lineage evident in the fossil record.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 07-15-2008 2:08 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 178 of 331 (475432)
07-15-2008 8:47 PM


Anyone want to talk about the topic?
In Message 153 I restated what the topic is. Not one post since has addressed the thesis.
Simply put, the variety we see in dogs shows the minimum limits of evolution within a species.
Simply put, when we see less variation between species than we see within dogs, then we KNOW that this amount of variation is possible by normal evolution.
Simply put, it is just a process of stepping through the fossil evidence to show that, among many other possible examples we could use, horses can be descended from eohippus (Hyracotherium).
Simply put, this kind of demonstration SHOULD be sufficient to demonstrate that "macroevolution" is nothing special.
Simply put, this is what this thread is about: demonstrating macroevolution step by step.
Enjoy.

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by Wounded King, posted 07-16-2008 6:15 AM RAZD has replied
 Message 180 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 07-16-2008 9:18 AM RAZD has replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 179 of 331 (475467)
07-16-2008 6:15 AM
Reply to: Message 178 by RAZD
07-15-2008 8:47 PM


Re: Anyone want to talk about the topic?
Do you think there is enough morphological data for you to do a comparison between Hyracotherium and modern equids the way you did between the housecat and red fox?
I have to say that my main problem with your approach is its heavy reliance on morphology over genetics. What you really seem to be arguing is that given time we could evolve one species to look like the other while staying within the boundaries of morphological variation seen between dogs and wolves.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by RAZD, posted 07-15-2008 8:47 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by RAZD, posted 07-16-2008 8:30 PM Wounded King has not replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2875 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 180 of 331 (475472)
07-16-2008 9:18 AM
Reply to: Message 178 by RAZD
07-15-2008 8:47 PM


Re: Anyone want to talk about the topic?
RAZD writes:
Simply put, the variety we see in dogs shows the minimum limits of evolution within a species.
Simply put, when we see less variation between species than we see within dogs, then we KNOW that this amount of variation is possible by normal evolution.
Simply put, you have a category error. You are confusing variety in the genome with macro evolution which involves the addition of substantial amounts of information to the genome. Yes wide varieties can happen in microevolution through different alleles and recombination. But dogs won't grow wings or lay eggs.
This is the macro evolution you are talking about in bacteria to man evolution. This requires beneficial mutations to be selected by nature and prior genetic traits to be elliminated from the populations. For instance with dogs, you don't see one dog being born with two toes or one toe/hoove and it being beneficial. If we did, then I might agree with you. If we have seen any evidence of beneficial mutations in horses that have been or potentially are being naturally selected then I think you would have an argument. But we don't observe this. Unless of course you can provide some evidence of this.
RAZD writes:
Simply put, it is just a process of stepping through the fossil evidence to show that, among many other possible examples we could use, horses can be descended from eohippus (Hyracotherium).
Simply put, you have differing fossils at different levels geologically, and vastly different locations geographically, and with this you have alot of imagination.
RAZD writes:
Simply put, this kind of demonstration SHOULD be sufficient to demonstrate that "macroevolution" is nothing special.
Simply put, this demonstration is probably sufficient for you and many other who have been trained with this type of reasoning. This demonstration shows very little about macro evolution. Even if I did agree with you here, you would still start with a creature that looks pretty much like a horse (miniature) and you will end with a creature that looks pretty much like a horse (gigantic.
However that is not what macroevolution is about. Macro evolution is about polygenic morphologies suddenly appearing in the fossil record. For instance hooves. A hoove is probably not created with one allele of one gene. A hoove is most likely a poly genic morphology, just as a toe is. There must be multiple (thousands maybe) of mutations to create such a thing. There also may be completely new genes relative to the toes. (the average gene is greater that 1000 bases) So the evidence that needs to be shown is how such morphologies can be genetically created in the first place. Maybe if you could show one beneficial mutation in the horse family for instance that has or is being naturally selected.
The imagination of morphologies will eventually be overturned by genetic evidence.(my prediction). Just this month in Science magazine, there is an article that examined 32 kilobases (just a fraction) from 169 bird species. What this study showed is that vastly morphologically different species are often more closely related than similar morphological species. ("A Phylogeneic Study of Birds Reveals Their Evolutionary History")
The bottom line is that morphologies are not necessarily an accurate indicator of genetic ancestry.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by RAZD, posted 07-15-2008 8:47 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by rueh, posted 07-16-2008 11:49 AM AlphaOmegakid has replied
 Message 186 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-16-2008 3:46 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied
 Message 189 by bluegenes, posted 07-16-2008 4:58 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied
 Message 193 by RAZD, posted 07-16-2008 9:21 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024