|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 168 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
Well that's alright then, so long as you don't tie macroevolution to speciation, since if you can't identify if it's a new species you can't say macroevolution has taken place. What is it with creationists and all/some/none? The fact that in some cases we cannot identify a species as new does not mean, as you assumed, that we cannot identify species as new in all cases. Logic fail. Edited by JonF, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Well that's alright then, so long as you don't tie macroevolution to speciation, since if you can't identify if it's a new species you can't say macroevolution has taken place. Wrong. As long as two daughter populations are functionally isolated they can evolve separately, reacting to different ecologies and having mutations that are not shared with the other population and different selection pressures on those mutations, leading to different long term evolution (anagenesis) within each of the two populations. What matters is the functional isolation for long term diversification. There can be interweaving of the two populations, but then each one brings different traits to the table which a single population would not have. This too is macroevolution.
I gave an example of two animals of the same species that can't/don't interbreed, and an example of two animals of different species that can/do interbreed. And what matters is whether the populations are functionally isolated so that they evolve independently to increase biodiversity. The greenish warblers for instance:
quote: Is there genetic isolation between P. t. plumbeitarsus and P. t. viridianus? There certainly is behavioral and trait differences that affect breeding - mating song and coloration - so even if occasional hybrids occur they are rare and do not affect the functional isolation of these populations ... especially now that P. t. plumbeitarsus is isolated geographically from P. t. obscuratus on the other side of the ring because of habitat destruction in China/Tibet. Does it matter to evolution what we call these breeding populations, whether we identify them as varieties within one species or identify them as two or more species? No. Our names do not affect their breeding behavior. As I said before we have names for all breeding populations, and that is so we can discuss them without confusing one with the other.
Actually I have elsewhere shown how we can infer that all cats, from tabby to tiger, are part of the one kind; and this is based on the fact that different species and genera of cats can and do interbreed. Perhaps we are actually on firmer biological ground talking about kinds rather than species. Fat chance. What you are identifying as a "kind" is the Felidae clade:
quote: ... or would that be the Feliformia clade ... And supposedly you make a similar claim for the Canidae clade:
quote: ... or would that be the Caniformia clade? ... or would that be the Carnivora clade? And what do you do about Amphicyonidae ("bear-dogs") and Hemicyoninae ("dog-bears")? Inquiring minds want to know. Enjoyby 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
Actually I have elsewhere shown how we can infer that all cats, from tabby to tiger, are part of the one kind; and this is based on the fact that different species and genera of cats can and do interbreed. Perhaps we are actually on firmer biological ground talking about kinds rather than species. But not all the "cats" kind can interbreed or do. So some of them in there are not of one kind. Or do I misunderstand you.Which are the two (or more) kinds of cat that are included in "from tabby to tiger"?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9489 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
CRR writes: Well that's alright then, so long as you don't tie macroevolution to speciation, since if you can't identify if it's a new species you can't say macroevolution has taken place. Macroevolution is tied to speciation because macroevolution simply means that evolution has 'created' a new species - as we define them. The fact that you have difficulty understanding that evolution is a continuous, linear event, not the singular one of popping new critters into life isn't science's problem, it's yours. You would look at an African and an Asian elephant and say they're the same kind, science says they're not even the same genus. Elephas maximus (Asian elephants), Loxodonta africana (African savanna elephants) and Loxodonta cyclotis (African Forest Elephant). They're obviously related but now so distantly that they can't interbreed. (Well one cross was successful in that a baby was born in the 1970s in a zoo, but it died quickly.)
I gave an example of two animals of the same species that can't/don't interbreed, and an example of two animals of different species that can/do interbreed. As for kinds, well, we know them when we see them; just like you do with species. (sarcasm, in case you missed it) In the case of the elephant 'you only know it when you see it' when you start measuring things. The ToE predicts that closely related species will appear similar, sometimes so similar that that they can cross with varying success. The point at which we call it a speciation is not something nature concerns itself with, it's only our human need to put things into neat categories that creates the problem of which category to put them in. You will find fuzziness at the edges of most modern species because they're recent speciations - that is how evolution works, all organisms are changing from generation to generation, it's only with massive hindsight that well can say roughly where a split actually happened - and then there can be battles abouts it. Biology is not mathematics.
Actually I have elsewhere shown how we can infer that all cats, from tabby to tiger, are part of the one kind; and this is based on the fact that different species and genera of cats can and do interbreed. Perhaps we are actually on firmer biological ground talking about kinds rather than species. No shit Sherlock - 'you have elsewhere shown' indeed, like no-one had noticed. See above. Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London. "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
CRR writes: Well that's alright then, so long as you don't tie macroevolution to speciation, since if you can't identify if it's a new species you can't say macroevolution has taken place. The problem is that you deny examples where we can define them as separate species, such as humans and chimps.
As for kinds, well, we know them when we see them; just like you do with species. (sarcasm, in case you missed it) We define species as a population that is evolving together. How do you define "kinds"?
Actually I have elsewhere shown how we can infer that all cats, from tabby to tiger, are part of the one kind; and this is based on the fact that different species and genera of cats can and do interbreed. Perhaps we are actually on firmer biological ground talking about kinds rather than species. Just because they can interbreed does not mean that they are interbreeding. Again, species are defined as an interbreeding population that is evolving together. If there is no interbreeding then they are not evolving together. When you see genetic divergence between the populations then that is evidence for and the definition of speciation. Edited by Taq, : No reason given. Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2243 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
I'm always quite puzzled when creationists think that defining species exactly somehow is "a problem for evolution". I'm always quite puzzled when evolutionists think that defining kinds exactly somehow is "a problem for creationism".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2243 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
What is it with creationists and all/some/none? The fact that in some cases we cannot identify a species as new does not mean, as you assumed, that we cannot identify species as new in all cases. Logic fail. I think that is a logic fail. Just what are you trying to say there?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2243 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
But not all the "cats" kind can interbreed or do. So some of them in there are not of one kind. Or do I misunderstand you. Yes you do misunderstand me. I have never said that the ability to interbreed is the ONLY criteria for defining the bounds of a kind. However the ability to interbreed is strong evidence that they are members of the same kind. Dogs are all one species but not all of the "dog" species can interbreed or do so. Morphology and genetics can also be used to infer kinds where there is no evidence of interebreeding. I think there is one outlier in the cats but otherwise they can all be linked by a chain of hybrids that crosses species and genera boundaries. So if two animals in different genera can interbreed and do so in the wild does that mean they are actually the same species? Perhaps we should just agree with Darwin that species is not a valid concept in biology.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2243 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
Tangle writes: You would look at an African and an Asian elephant and say they're the same kind, science says they're not even the same genus. Elephas maximus (Asian elephants), Loxodonta africana (African savanna elephants) and Loxodonta cyclotis (African Forest Elephant). They're obviously related but now so distantly that they can't interbreed. I think you have just managed to conclude that they are all the same kind and that in this case the kind includes more than one genera. In other cases a kind could include a single species. As with dogs and cats, being in the same kind does not automatically mean different members can interbreed. Nor does it mean there must be a chain of hybridization linking members. All it means is that they are descended from the same created kind.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7
|
CRR writes: I'm always quite puzzled when evolutionists think that defining kinds exactly somehow is "a problem for creationism". Creationists claim that a species can not evolve past the "kind" barrier. Evolutionists make no claims about a hard species barrier that a population can not go beyond. That's the difference. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the creationists to define what this barrier is.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7
|
CRR writes: I think you have just managed to conclude that they are all the same kind and that in this case the kind includes more than one genera. In other cases a kind could include a single species. Then how do determine if two species belong to the same kind or not?
As with dogs and cats, being in the same kind does not automatically mean different members can interbreed. Nor does it mean there must be a chain of hybridization linking members. All it means is that they are descended from the same created kind. So how do you determine if two species share a common ancestor?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5930 Joined: Member Rating: 5.8 |
All of which is what evolution also says, except for your stilted terminology.
Speciation occurs, species diverge further away over time eventually becoming too genetically different to be able to interbreed, but they are still members of the same clade (what you call a "kind"). So evolution is no different from what you describe. So what's the difference supposed to be?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9489 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
CRR writes: I think you have just managed to conclude that they are all the same kind and that in this case the kind includes more than one genera. In other cases a kind could include a single species. The taxonomy of organisms shows the inter-relationship of species in a logical and highly structured way. All your 'kind' description does is lump species together in an arbitrary way. 'If it's got a trunk' it's an elephant kind. If you creationists got off your knees and did some work on this 'kind' nonsense you'd create taxonomies and cladograms that eventually produce something almost identical to those we have now. The reason is that biological structures, DNA relatedness and behaviours force you to do it - you can't do it any other way. Is a tapir an elephant kind? How would you know?
How about an anteater?
Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London. "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2243 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
What is a kind and how do we find them?
Each original kind is one of the original created groups of organisms which could reproduce with others in the group but not outside the group; and their descendants, which may today be classified into different species or higher taxonomic groups. Hence the original kinds would have truly earned the modern biological definition of species. Each kind was provided with a gene pool which allowed variation and adaptation to different environments. Each kind could split into two or more distinct subgroups which can then diverge within the limits of the original gene pool including by loss of genetic information. These subgroups can become reproductively isolated and can then be called new species. Genetic variability is at its maximum in the original created kind and variability is reduced in each of the new subgroups. The more variability available the more easily a population can split into subgroups and this reduces with each partitioning of the population. Hence the rate of new species formation is expected to reduce over time. Today the members of a kind will be a clade rooted on the original created kind, but the original kinds are not rooted in a further common ancestor. The biological discipline of systematics was developed to discover natural groupings of organisms, such as species. Baraminology is a systematic method that attempts to determine to which kind each modern species belongs. Some methods within baraminology are hybridization and baraminic distance method. Some term used in baraminology are;1. The monobaramin is a group of organisms that share continuity, either genetic or phenetic. 2. The apobaramin is a group of organisms that is discontinuous with everything else. Creationists have long used bats as an example of animals that are unrelated to any other mammals. Since we don’t know how many kinds (baramins) of bats God created, baraminologists refer to the bats as an apobaramin. 3. The holobaramin is roughly what we call the ‘Genesis kind’. Technically, it simply combines the definitions of monobaramin and apobaramin. A holobaramin contains a complete set of organisms that share continuity among themselves but are discontinuous with all other organisms. Because these definitions are not mutually exclusive, they form the basis of the baraminological method of successive approximation.As an example look at A baraminology tutorial with examples from the grasses by Todd Charles Wood.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined:
|
Started reading it till I came to:
CRR writes: How do you measure genetic information to know whether it was a loss or a gain? Please quantify.
...by loss of genetic information...
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024