Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 76 (8908 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-23-2019 5:50 AM
22 online now:
AZPaul3, caffeine, frako (3 members, 19 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WeloTemo
Post Volume:
Total: 851,885 Year: 6,921/19,786 Month: 1,462/1,581 Week: 284/393 Day: 8/99 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23456
...
23NextFF
Author Topic:   Dogs will be Dogs will be ???
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19842
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.9


Message 1 of 331 (438702)
12-05-2007 8:00 PM


Time for a little definition of what macroevolution is.
A common creationist argument is that evolution does not show that a sufficient level of change can be demonstrated to have occurred in the fossil record, and that thousands of years of breeding of dogs has not produced something that is not a dog:
"The fossil record shows variations of all sorts of things but will time turn a dog kind into something that we would say is clearly not a dog?"
Beretta, Message 7

There are several issues involved in this question. One is just how much change is necessary to convince a creationist that large scale change has occurred. Another is whether macroevolution is defined by large scale change.

A final one is determining what you really means by "something that is not a dog" as "something" is not a very well defined scientific term. Do you mean when will a dog become a new species that is not a part of the wolf species (which we take as the basal dog from which all others have descended)? Or that it will become something that is as different from a wolf as say a domestic cat is from a fox?

To answer these questions let's do a little comparative anatomy:

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

Where the standard for comparison of features is the extremes of variation within the dog varieties from the wolf, and that have been artificially bred by humans over the last several thousands of years

Dog
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog
Domain: Eukaryota
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Carnivora
Family: Canidae
Genus: Canis
Species: C. lupus
Subspecies: C. l. familiaris

Wolf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf
Domain: Eukaryota
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Carnivora
Family: Canidae
Genus: Canis
Species: C. lupus

The question will be whether the difference in the traits between the cat and the red fox is MORE or LESS than the maximum differences found in varieties of dogs from the wolf. We'll call this factor "deltaFactor" with these categories:

  +3 = much more difference between cat and fox than between dog and wolf
+2 = more difference between cat and fox than between dog and wolf
+1 = a little more difference between cat and fox than between dog and wolf
0 = no difference between cat and fox than between dog and wolf
-1 = a little less difference between cat and fox than between dog and wolf
-2 = less difference between cat and fox than between dog and wolf
-3 = much less difference between cat and fox than between dog and wolf

Trait House Cat Red Fox deltaFactor
Nose small small -2
Whiskers long long -2
Tooth size small small -3
Tooth type carnassial pair canine +1
Tongue keratin hooks standard +2
food carnivorous carnivorous -3
Snout small/short small/long -3
Eyes 2 2 0
Eye pupils slitted slitted 0
Eye color several gold/yellow 0
Ears 2 2 0
Ear shape Pointed Pointed -3
Ear size small small -3
Ear control good good -3
Head size small small -3
Neck short short -3
body size small small -3
legs 4 4 0
leg/body length short short -3
paws 4 4 0
claws 5x4 5x4 0
Claws retractable not +3
Tail long long -3
Fur short to long long -2
Fur type straight straight -3
....

(subtotal) -36
(average so far) -1.44

Those are most of the visible differences. Feel free to add to the list with whatever comes to mind. In a lot of the -3 cases the needle is pegged at much much less difference between cat and fox than between the extreme varieties of dog and wolf.

When we compare the skeletons, we can match bone for bone from cat to fox to dog to wolf, but we see much more variation in size and proportions between dog and wolf than between cat and fox. There are no bones that are special to cats or foxes or dogs. This can be counted as a -3 x number of bones.

For additional comparisons see:

Cat skeleton
Red Fox skeleton
Dog skeleton
Wolf skeleton

When we compare internal organs, we can match organ for organ from cat to fox to dog, but we see much more variation in size and proportions between dog and wolf than between cat and fox. There are no organs that are special to cats or foxes or dogs. This can be counted as a -3 x number of organs.

Conclusion: from feature to feature to feature, a cat is more similar to a red fox than some dogs are like wolves.

The dog is in the species C. lupus
The wolf is in the species C. lupus

The taxon level where dogs and wolves are related is in the C. lupis species.

The dog is in the genus Canis
The wolf is also in the genus Canis

The fox is in the species V. vulpes
The fox is in the genus Vulpes

The taxon level where dogs, wolves and foxes are related is in the Canidae family

The cat is in the species F. silvestris
The cat is in the genus Felis
The domestic cat is in the Felidae family

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

By biological evolution standards this means that there is greater macroevolutionary 'distance' between cats and foxes than between foxes and dogs and much more macroevolutionary 'distance' between cats and foxes than there is between dogs and wolves, and certainly much more than exists within the dog species, yet not much difference is involved.

Conclusion: "large scale change" (amount of difference) is not a measure of macroevolution ... as used by evolutionary biologists. If you want to discuss what macroevolution really is in biology you can go to MACROevolution vs MICROevolution - what is it?.

Back to the original quote:

"The fossil record shows variations of all sorts of things but will time turn a dog kind into something that we would say is clearly not a dog? "
Beretta, Message 7

So what would you like this to become?

Would a horse be enough? Would you dispute that a horse is clearly not a dog?

So the questions that creationists must answer are:

(1) If your definition of macroevolution is different from evolutionary biology what is it?
(2) Why do you think it is a valid definition?
(3) How much change is necessary?
(4) Why isn't the difference between cat and fox a valid criteria?

We'll start with those - and see what turns up.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : changed dog/dog to dog/wolf for clarity

Edited by RAZD, : changed dog/dog to dog/wolf for clarity

Edited by RAZD, : " & clarity

Edited by RAZD, : late night repair work

Edited by RAZD, : more corrections

Edited by RAZD, : added thread link

Edited by RAZD, : clarity.

Edited by RAZD, : .

Edited by RAZD, : title spling


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)

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Taz, posted 12-08-2007 10:45 AM RAZD has responded
 Message 19 by ThreeDogs, posted 01-09-2008 10:29 AM RAZD has responded
 Message 72 by randman, posted 06-01-2008 11:27 PM RAZD has responded
 Message 266 by RAZD, posted 02-25-2012 9:24 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 2 of 331 (439328)
12-08-2007 10:22 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
  
Taz
Member (Idle past 1430 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 3 of 331 (439338)
12-08-2007 10:45 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
12-05-2007 8:00 PM


Re: Time for a little definition of what macroevolution is.
I'd like to point out that physical characteristics are not the only things that define a species and prevent it from mating with other species. Take tarantulas, for example. There are thousands of identified species of tarantulas. While some of these can cross breed with one another and produce sterile offsprings, most of these can't cross breed at all. Yet, they look virtually identical to each other.

This is one reason we cannot say that a species overall have not changed over the thousands or millions of years simply by looking at historical or fossil record. While the physical changes may be minute enough to not be obviously noticed, we cannot say about the molecular and chemical changes that occurred.

I know this is a little side tracked, but I think it is important to keep in mind, especially for creationists, that differences in appearance are not the only ways species are distinct from one another.


Owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have occasionally used the academic jargon generator to produce phrases that even I don't fully understand. The jargons are not meant to offend anyone or to insult anyone's intelligence!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 12-05-2007 8:00 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by RAZD, posted 12-08-2007 12:15 PM Taz has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19842
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.9


Message 4 of 331 (439354)
12-08-2007 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Taz
12-08-2007 10:45 AM


Re: Time for a little definition of what macroevolution is.
I'd like to point out that physical characteristics are not the only things that define a species ...

The point of this thread is to show that the physical characteristics that creationists use to define "large scale change" are not that different from species to species.

Compared to the difference between a fox and a domestic cat, which are different "kinds" in any creationist classification I've seen, the changes that we see in dogs represents "large scale change" ... due to evolution under artificial selection.

The question has always been what do creationists define as "large scale change" ... other than using it as a smokescreen to hide their denial behind.

I know this is a little side tracked, but I think it is important to keep in mind, especially for creationists, that differences in appearance are not the only ways species are distinct from one another.

The creationist will just say that is microevolution, and that what they want is evidence that macroevolution occurs.

When you show them macroevolution occurring (in say the foram fossil record) they just say that doesn't show "real" macroevolution because it doesn't show "large scale change" occurring in species.

This thread is to define what "large scale change" means in reality and then see how it is shown in the fossil record.

It's for Beretta, TheWay, SomeoneWhoCares, and any creationist in denial of reality.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : .


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 3 by Taz, posted 12-08-2007 10:45 AM Taz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Taz, posted 12-08-2007 12:30 PM RAZD has responded
 Message 46 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 02-06-2008 11:12 PM RAZD has responded

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 1430 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 5 of 331 (439360)
12-08-2007 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by RAZD
12-08-2007 12:15 PM


Re: Time for a little definition of what macroevolution is.
RAZD writes:

This thread is to define what "large scale change" means in reality and then see how it is shown in the fossil record.


In that case, I'd also like to know how they define "large scale change". Would the different species of tarantulas that look almost identical to each other but are completely reproductively isolated from each other large scale enough? Or are we talking about a tarantula morphing into a bird?

Content hidden. I'm not sure this is on-topic enough.

Edited by Taz, : No reason given.


Owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have occasionally used the academic jargon generator to produce phrases that even I don't fully understand. The jargons are not meant to offend anyone or to insult anyone's intelligence!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by RAZD, posted 12-08-2007 12:15 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by RAZD, posted 12-08-2007 12:46 PM Taz has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19842
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.9


Message 6 of 331 (439362)
12-08-2007 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Taz
12-08-2007 12:30 PM


bump for beretta ... or other creationists
The purpose is to get a creationist definition of what "large scale change" is -- it is their criteria.

From Beretta again (Message 199):

Except with evolutionists -they have faith that evolution (large scale) has occurred despite the lack of evidence. Take RAZD's foraminifera for example - they remain foraminifera, that much is obvious but to him that is a pure example of evolution at its most obvious. How foraminifera could get the genetic info to change into something else with new and complex genetic information is what interests us that don't share the evolutionist's faith.I want to see foraminifera start to turn into something that does not just look like a type of foraminifera.

Notwithstanding the fact that the study in question only looked at foraminifera, and so it would exclude any evidence of forams that became non-forams, the problem for Beretta and others is that this does represent macroevolution as used in evolutionary biology by evolutionary biologists. Here's the excerpt from my post in question (Message 181):

In the interim I'll point out the evidence of Foraminifera:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foraminifera

quote:
The Foraminifera, ("Hole Bearers") or forams for short, are a large group of amoeboid protists with reticulating pseudopods, fine strands of cytoplasm that branch and merge to form a dynamic net.[1] They typically produce a test, or shell, which can have either one or multiple chambers, some becoming quite elaborate in structure.[2] About 275,000 species are recognized, both living and fossil. They are usually less than 1 mm in size, but some are much larger, and the largest recorded specimen reached 19 cm.
Scientific classification
Domain: Eukaryota
(unranked): Rhizaria
Phylum: Foraminifera
Orders:
Allogromiida
Carterinida
Fusulinida - extinct
Globigerinida
Involutinida - extinct
Lagenida
Miliolida
Robertinida
Rotaliida
Silicoloculinida
Spirillinida
Textulariida
incertae sedis
- Xenophyophorea
- Reticulomyxa

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/foram_article3.html

quote:
"There's a nifty passage in Darwin in which he describes the fossil record as a library. The library has only a few books, and each book has only a few chapters. The chapters have only a few words, and the words are missing letters.

"Well, in this case, we've got a relatively complete library. The 'books' are in excellent shape. You can see every page, every word."

As he spoke, Arnold showed a series of photographs, taken through a microscope, depicting the evolutionary change wrought on a single foraminiferan species.

"This is the same organism, as it existed through 500,000 years," Arnold said. "We've got hundreds of examples like this, complete life and evolutionary histories for dozens of species."

Counting both living and extinct animals, about 330 species of planktonic forams have been classified so far, Arnold said. After thorough examinations of marine sediments collected from around the world, micropaleontologists now suspect these are just about all the free-floating forams that ever existed. "We've literally seen hundreds of speciation events," Arnold added.

Adherents of Darwin's theory of gradualism, in which new species slowly branch off from original stock, should be delighted by what the FSU researchers have found. The foram record clearly reveals a robust, highly branched evolutionary tree, complete with Darwin's predicted "dead ends" -- varieties that lead nowhere -- and a profusion of variability in sizes and body shapes. Moreover, transitional forms between species are readily apparent, making it relatively easy to track ancestor species to their descendants.


We are not talking about a single species, but the origin of new species and then additional branching into more new species, the formation of genus and family - if not order - levels of the taxonomic tree of relationships between the different species of forams.

This is macroevolution - according to evolutionary biology - the formation of branches in the taxonomic classifications. This is but a small sample of the evidence that the tree of life is due to evolution.

You notice that Beretta did not argue with the record of change in hereditary traits in the population from generation to generation, nor with the evidence that speciation had occurred numerous times, nor with the evidence that branching above the level of speciation was also recorded in the foram fossil record. No, what Beretta did was to say that it is not enough change to satisfy him, or words to that effect. The fact that the change shown meets the criteria of macroevolution used by evolutionary biologists is irrelevant, for they just pull out the half-truth mixed with lie - that dogs will always be dogs, and forams will always be forams, and they will never become "something else" (which is undefined).

So the question for creationists is: how much change is needed to satisfy you?

If there is less "large scale change" between a cat and a red fox than there is between breeds of dog and a wolf, then how can "large scale change" be used to measure whether macroevolution has or has not occurred?

Denial of every piece of evidence only goes so far. "Something else" is not a scientific metric.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : added another quote


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Taz, posted 12-08-2007 12:30 PM Taz has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Beretta, posted 12-13-2007 10:01 AM RAZD has responded

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 1430 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 7 of 331 (439901)
12-10-2007 8:07 PM


Bump...
I think this topic shouldn't have to go quietly into the night...
  
Beretta
Member (Idle past 3736 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 8 of 331 (440460)
12-13-2007 10:01 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by RAZD
12-08-2007 12:46 PM


Re: bump for beretta ... or other creationists
The purpose is to get a creationist definition of what "large scale change" is -- it is their criteria.

Dinosaur to bird perhaps. Assumption that it happened is not the same as evidence. A bird such as archeopteryx has fully-formed wings -how did anything convert from no wings to wings with each step surviving better than the preceding step? Where are all the transitions that show us that this did in fact happen? Why are we missing all those intermediates that help prove the case for wings being coded for in something that had no previous information for wings? Natural selection selects - and there is only a certain range of variability beyond which an animal cannot go. Fruit fly experiments over decades never produced nothing but fruit flies and more dysfunctional fruit flies showing adverse effects produced by mutation.So much zapping -so much mutation, nothing new.

this does represent macroevolution as used in evolutionary biology by evolutionary biologists

You assume forams came from non-forams but how? Don't you have something heading for a foram? Showing how it changed is not the same as showing how it came to be in the first place.What if the first one was created and produced varieties of its own kind according to the genetic information available? What can you show an ID proponent to indicate where these things came from? Believing that it happened is a plausible story -it needs some kind of solid proof.It needs a mechanism that produces new information.

The fact that the change shown meets the criteria of macroevolution used by evolutionary biologists is irrelevant

It is not just me that is not satisfied -no ID proponent is satisfied as far as I know. It is truelly difficult for me to understand why evolutionists are quite happy with the degree of visible change that satisfies an evolutionist. They speak of mammals turning into whales and dinosaurs turning into birds but even assuming an incomplete fossil record, there is too much missing between these things to convince me that new complex organs arrived by mutation and random directionless mutation at that.

So the question for creationists is: how much change is needed to satisfy you?

I'd like a leg changing into a wing to show that genetic wing information could conceivably arise by random mutation in a creature that had no wings.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by RAZD, posted 12-08-2007 12:46 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by JB1740, posted 12-13-2007 11:07 AM Beretta has not yet responded
 Message 10 by RAZD, posted 12-13-2007 5:21 PM Beretta has responded

  
JB1740
Member (Idle past 4083 days)
Posts: 132
From: Washington, DC, US
Joined: 11-20-2007


Message 9 of 331 (440475)
12-13-2007 11:07 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Beretta
12-13-2007 10:01 AM


Re: bump for beretta ... or other creationists
Dinosaur to bird perhaps. Assumption that it happened is not the same as evidence. A bird such as archeopteryx has fully-formed wings -how did anything convert from no wings to wings with each step surviving better than the preceding step? Where are all the transitions that show us that this did in fact happen? Why are we missing all those intermediates that help prove the case for wings being coded for in something that had no previous information for wings?

Oh for crying out loud. Look at the damn fossil record and stop getting your information from creationist web sites. Below is a list of some anatomical features that the most birdlike dinosaurs share with primitive birds (it comes from the University of California at Berkeley Museum website):

1. Pubis (one of the three bones making up the vertebrate pelvis) shifted from an anterior to a more posterior orientation (see Saurischia), and bearing a small distal "boot".
2. Elongated arms and forelimbs and clawed manus (hands).
3. Large orbits (eye openings in the skull).
4. Flexible wrist with a semi-lunate carpal (wrist bone).
5. Hollow, thin-walled bones.
6. 3-fingered opposable grasping manus (hand), 4-toed pes (foot); but supported by 3 main toes.
7. Reduced, posteriorly stiffened tail.
8. Elongated metatarsals (bones of the feet between the ankle and toes).
9. S-shaped curved neck.
10. Erect, digitgrade (ankle held well off the ground) stance with feet postitioned directly below the body.
11. Similar eggshell microstructure.
12. Teeth with a constriction between the root and the crown.
13. Functional basis for wing power stroke present in arms and pectoral girdle (during motion, the arms were swung down and forward, then up and backwards, describing a "figure-eight" when viewed laterally).
14. Expanded pneumatic sinuses in the skull.
15. Five or more vertebrae incorporated into the sacrum (hip).
16. Straplike scapula (shoulder blade).
17. Clavicles (collarbone) fused to form a furcula (wishbone).
18. Hingelike ankle joint, with movement mostly restricted to the fore-aft plane.
19. Secondary bony palate (nostrils open posteriorly in throat).
20. Feathers (I edited this because it was out of date...the jury is now in on this one)

These features didn't just pop into bird-like dinosaurs from no-where. We watch the development of these characters across the fossil record, some starting within dinosaurs and some starting before. Is the record imperfect...sure, but for a good number of the points above we have a very clear detailed series that illustrates the development. And there are other points not relevant to the above list but that exist within the fossil record and are relevant to bird evolution, like the reduction of the hand from three functional fingers down into one (we see this happen in dinosaurs--yes in a series of species with increasingly reduced hands). Not only that, but we have dinosaurs with non-functional wings. This continued repetition of false statements like "we're missing all these transitions from no-wings to wings" is akin to saying "all sediments were laid down in water." They're just plain false statements. They're as accurate as saying the American Civil War never happened.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Beretta, posted 12-13-2007 10:01 AM Beretta has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19842
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.9


Message 10 of 331 (440565)
12-13-2007 5:21 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Beretta
12-13-2007 10:01 AM


Thanks Beretta
Thanks for replying Beretta.

Dinosaur to bird perhaps. Assumption that it happened is not the same as evidence. A bird such as archeopteryx has fully-formed wings -how did anything convert from no wings to wings with each step surviving better than the preceding step?

First of it is not a matter of "surviving better" but just of surviving and breeding. The evidence shows a clear development of increasingly bird like characteristics in one branch of dinosaurs, dinosaurs that have feathers covering their bodies even though they have no long feathers on their arms, and then dinosaurs with longer and longer feathers on their arms (and legs) until the point is reached where the dinosaur can fly. Plenty of intermediate fossils are now known that demonstrate this transition from non-flight to flight.

In each case they also show fully formed individuals capable of surviving and reproducing with other members of their species (the other intermediates that are similarly developed for increasing ability to jump, glide, fly. Just as "fully formed" as archaeopteryx is even thought "archy" shows clear differences to modern birds, birds that show further development by the same process of change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation.

See the list of similarities of features for non-flight dinosaur ancestors to "archy" provided by JB1740 in Message 9.

Why are we missing all those intermediates that help prove the case for wings being coded for in something that had no previous information for wings?

Because what you think happened is not what happened. The difference between non-flight wing and flight wing is very little. The non-flight wing only need provide a minor net advantage to the individuals for survival and reproduction, and being able to make a "glide/jump" a little further to catch prey or escape a predator is that advantage.

You assume forams came from non-forams but how? Don't you have something heading for a foram?

Forams are a Phylum in taxonomy.

http://www.msu.edu/%7Enixonjos/armadillo/taxonomy.html

quote:
Major Taxonomic Levels
. . Kingdom
. . . Phylum
. . . . Class
. . . . . Order
. . . . . . Family
. . . . . . . Genus
. . . . . . . . Species
Note: There are many subdivisions of the seven main taxonomic levels, such as Subphylum, Subclass, Infraclass, and so on. You may see many of these other sublevel taxa listed in the taxonomic tree of an organism.

"Macroevolution" - as defined and used in the science of evolutionary biology - is the accumulation of differences between groups above the level of species, differences that result from evolution within each species ("microevolution") in a different direction from other species. That means there is a lot of room for macroevolution between species and phylum and still be within foraminifera. For example, humans are in the phylum Chordata the group of animals that have a spinal chord, and which includes fish, but not worms.

.What if the first one was created and produced varieties of its own kind according to the genetic information available?

Then there would be no ancestors of forams.

It is not just me that is not satisfied -no ID proponent is satisfied as far as I know.

Ignorance of how evolution works does not make their opinion valid. Ignorance of what macroevolution really is and how it occurs does not make creationist or ID concepts valid, real or even worth considering. If they are using a definition that is different from the one above then they are not talking about the same macroevolution, they are discussing macroevolutionC and not macroevolutionE.

They speak of mammals turning into whales ...

But whales are still mammals.

... and dinosaurs turning into birds ...

And birds are still dinosaurs.

I'd like a leg changing into a wing to show that genetic wing information could conceivably arise by random mutation in a creature that had no wings.

What we have with the evolution of birds is the forelimb evolving into a feather covered forelimb and then into a wing that develops further once flight is achieved, but it is still a forelimb, it still has the bones, muscles and ligaments etc of forelimbs.

... even assuming an incomplete fossil record, there is too much missing between these things to convince me that new complex organs arrived by mutation and random directionless mutation at that.

That would be because you are neglecting natural selection, a mechanism that is not random.

Would you care to walk through an example of such a transition? One that shows the development of a unique feature that did not exist before?

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : .

Edited by RAZD, : “ = "
” = "


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 8 by Beretta, posted 12-13-2007 10:01 AM Beretta has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Beretta, posted 12-16-2007 10:55 AM RAZD has responded

  
Beretta
Member (Idle past 3736 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 11 of 331 (441075)
12-16-2007 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by RAZD
12-13-2007 5:21 PM


Example
Would you care to walk through an example of such a transition? One that shows the development of a unique feature that did not exist before?

Love to see it...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by RAZD, posted 12-13-2007 5:21 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by RAZD, posted 12-16-2007 2:04 PM Beretta has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19842
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.9


Message 12 of 331 (441136)
12-16-2007 2:04 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Beretta
12-16-2007 10:55 AM


Re: Example - Part 1: comparison of dog and eohippus skeletons
Thank you again for your response Beretta

Love to see it...

The starting point is a comparison of these two skeletons}

http://www.wsu.edu:8000/~crd/skeldog.html

quote:

Click to enlarge

Dog Skeleton, by Cheryl R. Dhein, Washington State University


and (sorry it's so dark, but I wanted the same general "pose" for the skeletons)

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9029542/dawn-horse

quote:

Click to enlarge

"dawn horse." Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 16-Dec-07


This establishes the basis for showing an example of the development of a unique feature that did not exist before. We have to start before the feature existed eh?

We don't need to worry about the skull and some other minor differences, because what I want to focus on is the legs and feet and how similar they are in size, proportion and position, with the foot showing splayed toes in the formation of a "paw" in both cases.

These animals wold be about the same size and weight and they would have similar walking, running and jumping ability, based on their similar skeletons.

Would you agree that these skeletons are similar in those features.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : .

Edited by RAZD, : changed links, flipped eohippus

Edited by RAZD, : sp subtitle

Edited by RAZD, : .


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 11 by Beretta, posted 12-16-2007 10:55 AM Beretta has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Beretta, posted 12-17-2007 1:12 AM RAZD has responded

  
Beretta
Member (Idle past 3736 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 13 of 331 (441302)
12-17-2007 1:12 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by RAZD
12-16-2007 2:04 PM


Re: Example - Part 1: comparison of dog and eohippus skeletion
Eohippus/dog similarities?
Argument from homology -predarwinian biologists called these structural similarites 'homologies' and attributed them to a common archetype or design. Darwin attributed them to inheritance from a common ancestor.
How do we determine which is correct???
This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by RAZD, posted 12-16-2007 2:04 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by RAZD, posted 12-17-2007 10:45 PM Beretta has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19842
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.9


Message 14 of 331 (441526)
12-17-2007 10:45 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Beretta
12-17-2007 1:12 AM


Re: Example - Part 1: comparison of dog and eohippus skeletons
Eohippus/dog similarities?

Yes, but only the general similarities we can see from these pictures are needed here -- size, general pose and proportions of bones, shape of the legs, shape of the feet.

There are a lot of differences that scientist studying the actual skeletons of the fossils would see that we can't, like the teeth or the claws:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html

quote:
This famous little equid was once known by the lovely name "Eohippus", meaning "dawn horse". Some Hyracotherium traits to notice:

  • 4 toes on each front foot, 3 on hind feet. Vestiges of 1st (& 2nd, behind) toes still present. Hyracotherium walked on pads; its feet were like a dog's padded feet, except with small "hoofies" on each toe instead of claws.
  • So there were differences as well as similarities.

    Argument from homology -predarwinian biologists called these structural similarites 'homologies' and attributed them to a common archetype or design. Darwin attributed them to inheritance from a common ancestor.
    How do we determine which is correct???

    We still call them homologies, and having a common ancestor also means they have a common archetype or design - the ancestor. Concepts are not necessarily contradictory.

    Enjoy.

    Edited by RAZD, : sp

    Edited by RAZD, : No reason given.

    Edited by RAZD, : .


    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 13 by Beretta, posted 12-17-2007 1:12 AM Beretta has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 15 by Beretta, posted 12-18-2007 1:13 AM RAZD has responded

      
    Beretta
    Member (Idle past 3736 days)
    Posts: 422
    From: South Africa
    Joined: 10-29-2007


    Message 15 of 331 (441547)
    12-18-2007 1:13 AM
    Reply to: Message 14 by RAZD
    12-17-2007 10:45 PM


    Re: Example - Part 1: comparison of dog and eohippus skeletion
    having a common ancestor also means they have a common archetype or design - the ancestor

    But where did the commonly designed ancestor come from? Was it designed or did it evolve from a random primitive unicellular organism?

    Concepts are not necessarily contradictory.

    The way I see it they are totally contradictory.Did the complexity of the genome come from intelligence or randomly, following chemical and physical laws only?


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 14 by RAZD, posted 12-17-2007 10:45 PM RAZD has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 16 by RAZD, posted 12-18-2007 2:14 AM Beretta has not yet responded
     Message 33 by RAZD, posted 01-19-2008 11:03 AM Beretta has responded

      
    1
    23456
    ...
    23NextFF
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.0 Beta
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019