Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 108 (8806 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-17-2017 9:02 AM
276 online now:
jar, JonF, PaulK, RAZD (4 members, 272 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Post Volume:
Total: 824,415 Year: 29,021/21,208 Month: 1,087/1,847 Week: 10/452 Day: 10/115 Hour: 0/5

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
78
9
10111213Next
Author Topic:   Evolution is True Because Life Needs It
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 121 of 188 (653879)
02-25-2012 6:55 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by Panda
02-23-2012 11:54 AM


Re: Prompt for Portillo...
quote:
I'll ask again...
Do you accept that this:

could evolve into this:


?

Yes, I think so. Variation within a kind is what I would call it.

If a bunch of cats were left in a harsh climate for some reason they could have a gene that allows them to adapt that was already present in their DNA. Although i'm not really sure how it works. The envioronment would have to suit atleast some to pass on a dominant gene that lets them survive. I guess it's all about location and the felines that are located there?

Extinction is possible too.

I'm not talking so much about - (macro) as I am (micro) - for a lack of better terms.

Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Panda, posted 02-23-2012 11:54 AM Panda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by RAZD, posted 02-25-2012 9:06 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded
 Message 124 by Panda, posted 02-25-2012 2:04 PM Chuck77 has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19322
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 122 of 188 (653886)
02-25-2012 9:06 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by Chuck77
02-25-2012 6:55 AM


Re: Prompt for Portillo...
Hi Chuck77

quote:
I'll ask again...
Do you accept that this:

could evolve into this:


?

Yes, I think so. ...

Would you expect one to become exactly like the other, or through convergent evolution to have similar behavior and appearance, as we see with the sugar glider (australian marsupial) and the flying squirrel (north american placental)?

... Variation within a kind is what I would call it.

From Dogs will be Dogs will be ???:

quote:
Red Fox
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_fox
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Carnivora
Family: Canidae
Genus: Vulpes
Species: V. vulpes

House Cat
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_cat
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Carnivora
Family: Felidae
Genus: Felis
Species: F. silvestris
Subspecies: F. s. catus

The taxon level where cats and foxes (and dogs and wolves) are related is in the Order Carnivora.


Do you mean that they are the same kind? If so, you're being very kind. If these critters are of the same kind then all carnivora are also one kind, yes?

I'm not talking so much about - (macro) as I am (micro) - for a lack of better terms.

Can you tell me what (you think) happens in macroevolution that is not included in microevolution?

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Chuck77, posted 02-25-2012 6:55 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 16340
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 123 of 188 (653891)
02-25-2012 9:21 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by Invader Scooch
02-25-2012 3:16 AM


Who are you responding to?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Invader Scooch, posted 02-25-2012 3:16 AM Invader Scooch has not yet responded

    
Panda
Member (Idle past 1329 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 124 of 188 (653923)
02-25-2012 2:04 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by Chuck77
02-25-2012 6:55 AM


Dogs is dogs
And to ask you the same initial question I asked Portillo...

Do you accept that this:


evolved into this:

?

If I were you
And I wish that I were you
All the things I'd do
To make myself turn blue

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Chuck77, posted 02-25-2012 6:55 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

  
Portillo
Member (Idle past 1777 days)
Posts: 258
Joined: 11-14-2010


Message 125 of 188 (657902)
04-01-2012 12:47 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by Panda
02-22-2012 12:57 PM


Re: Prompt for Portillo...

Im not sure about those specific examples, but if a fox is part of the canine family and the cat is part of the feline family, then the answer is no.

Edited by Portillo, : No reason given.


And the conspiracy was strong, for the people increased continually - 2 Samuel 15:12

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Panda, posted 02-22-2012 12:57 PM Panda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by Panda, posted 04-01-2012 6:43 AM Portillo has not yet responded
 Message 128 by Chuck77, posted 04-01-2012 6:57 AM Portillo has not yet responded
 Message 130 by Chuck77, posted 04-01-2012 4:36 PM Portillo has not yet responded

  
Portillo
Member (Idle past 1777 days)
Posts: 258
Joined: 11-14-2010


Message 126 of 188 (657903)
04-01-2012 1:39 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by Percy
02-22-2012 11:21 AM


How do you know all dogs are the same kind? How do you know that each dog breed, and the wolf, is not a separate kind? If your answer is that they are all mutually interfertile then I guess we finally have a definition of kind.

Thats true, with few exceptions, animals can breed with each other if they are part of the same species. Thats why with the cat, you can get ligers and leopons. With the horse, you can get zonkeys and zorses. Change and variation within a fundamentally stable species.

Given mutation, how does one run out of variation?

Living fossils are a perfect example. Coelacanths lived 300 million years ago and were thought to be extinct. When they were found in modern times, they were more or less exactly the same. The fossil record is filled with animals that have stayed the same for hundreds of millions of years. Why is it that living fossils like the cockroach and horseshoe crab stayed the same, while concurrently, there was a mammalian ancestor that was evolving into a whale, porpoise, seal, polar bear, bat, monkey, cat, pig, opossum and cattle?

Heres an example of the almost infinite change and variation possible within a species. Theres an orchestra with a conducter. They have beautiful instruments and are talented musicians. A scientist has discovered that this orchestra with 100 musicians and a conductor, can play 2 distinct symphonies a day, 5 days a week, 50 weeks a year, for millions of years, and never have to play the same symphony twice. The variation and potential is almost infinite. But after a few million of years, the conductor gets bored with soundwaves and decides to evolve. What do they have to do to evolve into ultraviolet waves, infrared waves or x-rays? They have to have a mutation. The conductor then starts moving his musicians around, destroys a few instruments, throws a few rocks and rearranges the orchestra. Well guess what happened? A radical change and a drastic mutation.

Edited by Portillo, : No reason given.


And the conspiracy was strong, for the people increased continually - 2 Samuel 15:12

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Percy, posted 02-22-2012 11:21 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by Percy, posted 04-01-2012 7:51 AM Portillo has not yet responded

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 1329 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 127 of 188 (657932)
04-01-2012 6:43 AM
Reply to: Message 125 by Portillo
04-01-2012 12:47 AM


Re: Prompt for Portillo...
Portillo writes:

Im not sure about those specific examples, but if a fox is part of the canine family and the cat is part of the feline family, then the answer is no.


But could a cat evolve into an animal that looks exactly like a fox?

Tradition and heritage are all dead people's baggage. Stop carrying it!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by Portillo, posted 04-01-2012 12:47 AM Portillo has not yet responded

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 128 of 188 (657933)
04-01-2012 6:57 AM
Reply to: Message 125 by Portillo
04-01-2012 12:47 AM


Re: Prompt for Portillo...
Hi Portillo. Classifications to me is not the barrier stopping the animals from evolving into one another. The classes really don't matter in the grand scheme of things I dont think.

What's to say that feline and canine can't be merged into one class based on similiar features and genetics? Just because they are classed differently doesn't mean a cat can't evolve into a fox or vice versa. Maybe they actually are the same "kind" just classed seperatly.

That's why I think it's a good start to try and see if we can define what a "kind" is. It's going to be broader possibly (in a sense) than the current classifications I think.

Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by Portillo, posted 04-01-2012 12:47 AM Portillo has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by bluescat48, posted 04-01-2012 9:26 PM Chuck77 has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 16340
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.4


(1)
Message 129 of 188 (657943)
04-01-2012 7:51 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by Portillo
04-01-2012 1:39 AM


Portillo writes:

How do you know all dogs are the same kind? How do you know that each dog breed, and the wolf, is not a separate kind? If your answer is that they are all mutually interfertile then I guess we finally have a definition of kind.

Thats true, with few exceptions, animals can breed with each other if they are part of the same species. Thats why with the cat, you can get ligers and leopons. With the horse, you can get zonkeys and zorses. Change and variation within a fundamentally stable species.

I was wondering how creationists like yourself know when different species are members of the same kind, so I asked whether mutual fertility were the criteria. Your answer is a bit confusing. When you labeled ligers, leopons, zonkeys and zorses as "Change and variation within a fundamentally stable species" did you mean to say "a fundamentally stable *kind*?"

Living fossils are a perfect example. Coelacanths lived 300 million years ago and were thought to be extinct. When they were found in modern times, they were more or less exactly the same.

Except that modern coelacanths are not "more or less exactly the same" as coelacanths 300 million years ago. Coelacanth is an order, not a species, here's the full classification:

KingdomAnamilia
PhylumChordata
ClassOsteichthyes (bony fishes)
OrderCoelacanthini
FamilySarcopterygii
GenusLatimeria
Specieschalumnae

It is the order coelacanth that has survived for 300 million years, not the species. There is no such thing as a species of coelacanth. If you want to claim that the order coelacanthini is the same thing as a kind then you contradict your earlier claim that kind means mutually interfertile.

There is only one species of modern coelacanth, the Latimeria chalumnae. Fossil coelacanths are of different species, genera and families. We haven't even found any fossil coelacanths in the same genus as the modern coelacanth, see the section on the fossil record in the Widipedia article on the coelacanth.

Given mutation, how does one run out of variation?

The fossil record is filled with animals that have stayed the same for hundreds of millions of years.

Well, if you apply the same criteria you used for the coelacanth and the horseshoe crab (which was either thinking that "looks pretty much the same" means "is the same," or trusting creationist websites, or both) then I guess you're right. But if you instead apply the criteria you earlier defined for kind, mutual interfertility, then this is dead wrong and the fossil record contains no examples of animals that have stayed the same for hundreds of millions of years. If you check out the Wikipedia article on Horseshoe Crabs and the Wikipedia article on Xiphosura (order that includes the modern horseshoe crab), then you'll find that all existing species of horseshoe crab reside in a biological family (Limulidae) that didn't even exist hundreds of millions of years ago.

Why is it that living fossils like the cockroach and horseshoe crab stayed the same, while concurrently, there was a mammalian ancestor that was evolving into a whale, porpoise, seal, polar bear, bat, monkey, cat, pig, opossum and cattle?

Evolution reacts to environmental change, which includes the local climate, terrain and all other life. Species in environments with little change (much more common in the ocean than on land) will change little in comparison to species living in changing environments. And as your examples of the coelacanth and horseshoe crab make clear, even creatures that have experienced relative stability in their environments undergo considerable change after millions of years, even though their appearance might seem little affected.

So living fossils are not examples of species running out of variation. DNA's biggest enemy is imperfect copying. Millions of generations mean millions and millions and millions of mutations, and as a species underlying DNA changes even species in a stable environment will change.

Of course, the irony is that although DNA's biggest enemy is imperfect copying, it is life's biggest friend because without the plasticity provided by mutational change life could not adapt to the inevitably changing circumstances of our planet.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Portillo, posted 04-01-2012 1:39 AM Portillo has not yet responded

    
Chuck77
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 130 of 188 (657993)
04-01-2012 4:36 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by Portillo
04-01-2012 12:47 AM


Re: Prompt for Portillo...
Portillo I wanted to add something to my comment. I don't believe it was God who catagorized the classifications. So there is room for wiggle room IMO. But one thing that you or I can't do (IMO) is say that certain animals cannot "change over" into other classifications that were classified by scientists that developed the classifications themselves.

Its not consistent with our position. If advocates for evolution are responsible for the classifications themselves then we cannot apply our own limits to them when arguing for what can evolve into what. Do you see what I mean?

I'm not arguing against what your saying just clarifying it. That's why I think there needs to be a broader yet more precise definition of kinds and the classifications can be viewed in not such a strict manner.

Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by Portillo, posted 04-01-2012 12:47 AM Portillo has not yet responded

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 1806 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 131 of 188 (658031)
04-01-2012 9:26 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by Chuck77
04-01-2012 6:57 AM


Re: Prompt for Portillo...
What's to say that feline and canine can't be merged into one class based on similiar features and genetics? Just because they are classed differently doesn't mean a cat can't evolve into a fox or vice versa. Maybe they actually are the same "kind" just classed seperatly.

The point is that the similarities end with the order, Carnivora, the 2 families differentiated into the progenitors of the current families. Each genus within the family differs in the same manner and the individual species the same way. They are merges at the order level and that is where the similarity ends. At the class level they are merged with all other mammals. Percy point this out in his chart of the coelacanth.


There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008


This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Chuck77, posted 04-01-2012 6:57 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

    
barnes
Junior Member (Idle past 1848 days)
Posts: 19
Joined: 08-20-2012


Message 132 of 188 (670887)
08-20-2012 6:01 PM


Evolution problem
Im sure we can all agree life is more complex than a 350 Chevy engine. My proposal to the evolutionist, take a 350 Chevy put it on an engine dino run it up to peak performance rpm and rebuild it in to a Duramax diesel the hole time never missing a beat. You boys get that one done and we can talk.
Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by Coragyps, posted 08-20-2012 6:09 PM barnes has responded
 Message 135 by Admin, posted 08-20-2012 6:49 PM barnes has responded

    
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5299
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


(2)
Message 133 of 188 (670888)
08-20-2012 6:09 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by barnes
08-20-2012 6:01 PM


Re: Evolution problem
Hello, barnes! Welcome to EvC!

When was the last time you saw a 350 Chevy engine, or even a 287, that had children? Grandchildren? Did you get the long-form birth certificate if you met those kids?

Find me a engine that reproduces and yes, we can talk.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by barnes, posted 08-20-2012 6:01 PM barnes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by barnes, posted 08-20-2012 6:48 PM Coragyps has not yet responded

    
barnes
Junior Member (Idle past 1848 days)
Posts: 19
Joined: 08-20-2012


Message 134 of 188 (670891)
08-20-2012 6:48 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by Coragyps
08-20-2012 6:09 PM


Re: Evolution problem
Thank you for the hello.Chevy reproducre engine everyday, and some with imperfections, they tend to break and get fixed under warranty. Never seen one break and turn into a Ford.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Coragyps, posted 08-20-2012 6:09 PM Coragyps has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by barnes, posted 08-20-2012 7:01 PM barnes has not yet responded

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12536
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 135 of 188 (670892)
08-20-2012 6:49 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by barnes
08-20-2012 6:01 PM


Re: Evolution problem
Please don't post identical off-topic messages to different threads. If you'd like to propose a new thread then you can do that over at the Proposed New Topics forum.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by barnes, posted 08-20-2012 6:01 PM barnes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by barnes, posted 08-20-2012 7:06 PM Admin has responded

    
Prev1
...
78
9
10111213Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017