|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: What i can't understand about evolution.... | |||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi again Peg
im sorry but i dont understand what is meant by daughter population. This is "evo-speak" for the result of speciation. Speciation is where a "parent population" (the group of organisms that share hereditary traits through reproduction) divides into two (or more) "daughter populations" that inhabit different ecologies and where gene flow between the two "daughter populations" is blocked when they are isolated by reproductive behavior or physical obstacles. In the graphic of Pelycodus above the two branches are "daughter populations" while the trunk is the "parent population" Enjoy. 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) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
and hi again, Peg,
the earlier apes (gorillas/monkeys etc) are still here today, but the evolved species (hominoids/neanderthal ect) have become extinct No, the "earlier apes" are NOT still here today. There are no fossils from the apes (gorillas/monkeys etc) that are still here today. Nor do any of the fossils from the times of evolved species (hominids/neanderthal etc), and that have become extinct million years ago, match modern apes. What is here today are species that have evolved from the same common ancestors. This is one version of the human phylogeny: This is another phylogeny As noted, there is some disagreement between the two (and these are not the only ones), however the overall pattern is similar. There is also genetic evidence for the pattern of spreading human populations:
quote: The earlier hominids that lived were eliminated by competition with the surviving hominids, Homo sapiens, while the remaining apes stayed in an ecosystem that did not have human competition, evolving over time, generation by generation, into the apes we see and know today. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : clrty 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) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hey Peg,
it seems that evolution is working its way down, then it gets stuck in the mud when it comes to how the life that they are examining, actually came into existence in the first place. That would be true if the only purpose of evolution were to explain the origin of life. It isn't. Evolution is about explaining the relationships between living organisms, the relationship extends into the past. We only need to go as far back as establishing a common ancestor between species "A" and species "B" to determine whether their relationship is due to descent from a common ancestor. For humans and chimpanzees we do not need to know about the origin of life, only the common "parent" population for the two "daughter" populations. When it comes to explaining the diversity of ALL life, then in practical terms we only need to get to the first floor - the first living species - to then determine whether all life actually is related to one common ancestor or not. The fundamental difference between creation and evolution is that creation needs origins. Biology is concerned with the top floor - the life we know today. Evolution only needs to look at the development of changing hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation. Rarely does this get down to the first floor, instead it is concentrated on the top floor, with excursions into lower floors via the fossil record and genetic relationships. Enjoy. 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) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
hi Peg,
so this is based on an assumption, not evidence. No, it is an assumption based on evidence. The evidence is that both chimps and man have similar types of hair when young, and that the hair covers the bodies of both in the same general density. Thus it is logical to assume that a common ancestor would have the same pattern rather than have each species evolve it independently.
Im wondering how many other aspects of evolution are based on conjecture, and how much really can be based on actual evidence? It depends on whether you mean that science is all based on wild guesses with no evidence, or whether you mean that some educated guesses are engaged in as well as documentation of the facts. What is not fossilized cannot be based on fact - it is missing. Fossils, however, are not conjectures. The ages of rocks and other items that can be dated by various means are not conjecture. Obviously when an "artistic rendering" is used, it is conjecture, but it is informed conjecture - informed by knowledge of the way bodies work, muscles, skin etc. Enjoy. 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) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
RADZ are there any current/living species where this is seen to occur? Humans and apes. Otherwise I'm not sure what you mean. There are several species of mammals that have lower levels of hairiness, whales, elephants, pigs, mole rats, for instance. Loss of a feature, where the loss does not inhibit survival and breeding (or where it enhances survival and breeding) is not a problem in evolution, there are many examples ... some we call vestigial. Does that help? 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) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
hey Peg,
Does it mean that the crocodile is perfectly adapted to its environment No, it means that their basic ecosystem has not changed significantly.
some creatures have not evolved such as crocodiles They have not changed significantly, but they are different. So are sharks and coelacanths. Enjoy. 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) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Just a quick check
Coelacanths:
Order: Coelacanthiformes quote: One genus in one family has two living species, neither of which are represented in the fossil record. They disappeared from the fossil record at the end of the Cretaceous, and have only been found recently since then (no intermediates). Also see http://www.dinofish.com/esp DINOFISH.COM - Weird Bodies Frozen in Time Sharks:
Superorder: Selachimorpha quote: I believe that "”" marks extinct orders. They have no gaps in the fossil record from the Ordovician to the last fossils and to living specimens. I would have to look further to see how old the current living species are, but I don't think they extend to the fossil record. Crocodiles
Family: Crocodylidae quote: The four chamber heart is unusual, and there is some evidence that crocs "devolved" from a warm-blooded ancestor, adapting the heart for diving and staying underwater while becoming coldblooded again (another example of the lack of direction in evolution). See Adelaidean -- Crocodile evolution no heart-warmer
quote: Again, I would have to look further to see how old the current living species are, but I don't think they extend to the fossil record. Enjoy. ps - this could be a good place to ask about sharks:http://www.brighthub.com/science/medical/articles/7196.aspx Edited by RAZD, : added ps 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) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Peg, Peg, Peg.
there have been many scientific frauds in the recent past that show that some will go to extraordinary lengths for evolution No No No. There have been many frauds in the past by unscrupulous PEOPLE. ALL of them have been exposed by scientists looking for the truth. Stop reading those creationist sites that are frauds and hoaxes. Not one fraud\hoax has been exposed by creationists. Not one. Meanwhile many creationist sites continue to show stuff like man-dino footprints and other hogwash that are frauds\hoaxes, and they continue to do so after the fact they are FAKE has been demonstrated. Do you want to go down the list?
Nebraska Man - all newspaper hype, the original scientist determined it was a pig.
Piltdown Man - hoax perpetuated ON science, exposed by science. Glen Rose Man - fraud perpetuated by Carl Baugh, exposed by science. Baugh (a creationist) continues to present it in his "museum" perpetuating his hoax to gullible people. China bird ancestor "fossils" - perpetuated by people looking to make money, exposed by science. Not ONE of these is necessary in ANY WAY for evolution. 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) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Tell you what, why don't you propose a thread to enumerate frauds, misrepresentations and significant mistakes for evolution versus those for creation, and we'll keep a count of each. In fact, if someone proposes such a thread I'll promote it as quickly as I can, I think it would be illuminating. We'd have to list almost every existing YEC creationist website. (I say "almost" for scientific tentativity, as I am not aware of any that stick to the truth, but it is possible ...) Certainly Carl Baugh (his degree is a hoax, it doesn't exist) and Kent Hovind (convicted of fraud, his degree is a fraud from a paper mill) and the "creation museum" (showing adam and eve and a vegetarian TRex) Then there is Harun Yahah (a muslim creationist, who also happens to be a convicted extortionist and anal rapist of underage women) - he puts Hovind to shame. Is this a good start?
Message 1 Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : added new post link Edited by RAZD, : . Edited by AdminNosy, : update the link to the new topic 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) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hey Peg, back again,'
there have been many scientific frauds in the recent past that show that some will go to extraordinary lengths for evolution Now is your chance to list all the ones you can find, and we will see who is hoaxing who eh?
Scientific vs Creationist Frauds and Hoaxes So bring out the Haeckel, sound the alarm on Icons of Evolution, expose the sham of archeopteryx, and whatever else you feel qualifies as fraudulent behavior or hoaxes perpetuated on the public. Be sure to list your sources. Enjoy. 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) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
yes. but perpetuated by creationist sites.
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) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hey Peg,
Except that in the years following the drought, finches with smaller beaks again began to dominate the population. In the science Journal Nature 1987 a Peter Grant and graduate student Lisle Gibbs wrote that they had seen “a reversal in the direction of selection.” So it seems the finch's were not becoming a new species at all but rather the population was being affected by the climate changes. Except that the Grants said that this kind of development could result in speciation if it continued for 200 years. The fact that it did not continue does not invalidate their conclusion. This is, btw, an excellent example of the response of evolution to the environment, and directly shows that there is no "direction" to evolution other than to adapt to the ecology around the organism.
these finche's were studied in the 70's by Peter and Rosemary Grant who discovered that after a year of drought, finches that had slightly bigger beaks survived better than those with smaller beaks. these findings were assumed to be significant apparently because the size and shape of the beaks is a primary way of determining the 13 species of finches. Not really. It is one of several morphological differences that field naturalists can use to distinguish between species, it doesn't cause speciation on it's own. See Just a moment..."Genetics and the origin of bird species," by Peter & Rosemary Grant quote: Note that they find the largest factor separating the different species is mating behavior, specifically song, not beak size. Note that they also used genetic studies of the different populations to determine population separation and hybrid mixing. For a review of the terms allopatric and sympatric see: Allopatric speciation - Wikipedia
quote: Sympatry - Wikipedia
quote: So when they say that "The sympatric phase of the speciation process is established after an allopatric period of ecological divergence" they are talking about changes within the population/s after geographic separation has caused reproductive isolation, and behavioral pre-mating change, to then cause post-mating isolation. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : clrty Edited by RAZD, : added 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) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Welcome to the fray Capt Stormfield,
The appearance of an imperfect replicator. Subject to natural selection ...
(First post here, will review the quoting technique, etc. before saying much more.) ... as you are new here, some posting tips: type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quotes are easy or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:
quote: also check out (help) links on any formating questions when in the reply window. For other formating tips see Posting Tips If you use the message reply buttons (there's one at the bottom right of each message):... your message is linked to the one you are replying to (adds clarity). You can also look at the way a post is formated with the "peek" button next to it. Go to Proposed New Topics to post new topics. Enjoy. 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) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
It's simple, Buz
Would you mind elaborating on the difference in the imperfect replicator and the perfect replicator ... A perfect replicator would not evolve, it would always be the same.
... relative to the abiogenesis of life, ... The imperfect replicator make similar copies with variations, and the ones that are better at replicating become more prevalent. Ones that are protected by a membrane are more likely to survive and keep reproducing. There's a youtube video upthread that shows this process, from Message 268:
quote: ... and relative to how the transition event from abiogenesis to biogenesis is observed? When does a system of replicating molecules inside a membrane structure become life? What is the definition of life? Enjoy. 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) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi again Peg
there have been many scientific frauds in the recent past that show that some will go to extraordinary lengths for evolution You're wanted on the Scientific vs Creationist Frauds and Hoaxes thread Enjoy. 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) • • •
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024