Understanding through Discussion

Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 122 (8773 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-26-2017 6:38 AM
371 online now:
PaulK (1 member, 370 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Tom Larkin
Post Volume:
Total: 814,632 Year: 19,238/21,208 Month: 1,997/3,111 Week: 218/574 Day: 14/46 Hour: 1/0

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   Evolution. We Have The Fossils. We Win.
Posts: 18805
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8

Message 436 of 436 (812402)
06-16-2017 11:19 AM
Reply to: Message 434 by aristotle
06-16-2017 10:45 AM

If they're Darwinian-evolutionists then they don't know much about species, as he couldn't even define the term.

Says the person using "information" as if it was a well defined term used in biology.

If they don't even know exactly what a species is, how can they tell when there are different ones?

Curiously organisms could care less what we call them, what they "care about" is survival and breeding. If they can't breed with another individual, then they don't. You can see this at the top where there is a gap between P.frugivorus and P.jarrovii. The other names are arbitrary speciation tags the scientists use to distinguish which populations they are discussing.

That's why breeding populations are more important than any name we put on them.

That link gives hardly any information about the differences between the supposed species, in the picture of all the varying ones, the all look pretty much the same.

Other than a continual trend in sizes of the breeding population. That is what shows anagenesis, the accumulation of evolutionary change over many generations:

(2) The process of lineal change within species is sometimes called phyletic speciation, or anagenesis.

This is also sometimes called arbitrary speciation in that the place to draw the line between linearly evolved genealogical populations is subjective, and because the definition of species in general is tentative and sometimes arbitrary.

At the top we clearly see a second process that results in multiple species and increases the diversity of life.

(3) The process of divergent speciation, or cladogenesis, involves the division of a parent population into two or more reproductively isolated daughter populations, which then are free to (micro) evolve independently of each other.

The reduction or loss of interbreeding (gene flow, sharing of mutations) between the sub-populations results in different evolutionary responses within the separated sub-populations, each then responds independently to their different ecological challenges and opportunities, and this leads to divergence of hereditary traits between the subpopulations and the frequency of their distributions within the sub-populations.

And any changes that did appear in those single-cell organisms cannot be compared to higher animals, which are far more complex.

What are "higher" animals? Seriously - what makes some animals "higher" other than personal bias?

Again, this is a difference in degree(if that) and not a different type of change: genetic change is genetic change, regardless of the individual involved.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
... 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 434 by aristotle, posted 06-16-2017 10:45 AM aristotle has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017