|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,765 Year: 4,022/9,624 Month: 893/974 Week: 220/286 Day: 27/109 Hour: 3/2 |
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evolution. We Have The Fossils. We Win. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
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. 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2268 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
You can also see more here (scroll down to figure 4.2), which also includes copelemur as well as pelycodus.
As I have pointed out before the variations shown in that diagram are way less than the variations in dogs which are all regarded as one species. This is poor evidence of speciation.
That would be Drs. Tony Arnold (Ph.D., Harvard) and Bill Parker (Ph.D., Chicago)
Again, as previously pointed out, those are simply divisions of convenience and not real speciation events. All that can be said is that the fossils appear to vary gradually over time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2268 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
What are "higher" animals?
Probably the same thing as Darwin meant.
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Probably the same thing as Darwin meant. Doesn't really answer the question does it? What makes one animal "higher" than another -- is it standing on a mountain? In your words. Curiously I though Victorian attitudes were just a bit passe ... 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2268 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
Animals of relatively advanced or developed characteristics, such as mammals and other vertebrates. [Oxford dictionary]
... although the actual level of complexity is very hard to define or measure accurately in biology, with properties such as gene content, the number of cell types or morphology all being used to assess an organism's complexity. [Wikipedia] Higher animals have specialised tissues and organs that contribute to the proper functioning of the whole animal [CRR]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5949 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Whiskey-Tango-Foxtrot-Over?
The appleation, "higher animal", dates back to around the turn of the century, which is to say around 1900. Like, with Mark Twain. Are you fucking kidding us???
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2268 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
Earlier, like Charles Darwin, and probably before.
Mind the language.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5949 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3
|
You creationists are always niggling about over the language.
Do you really believe that you can redefine reality out of existence like a fucking lawyer? Scientists create definitions in order to describe what they observe and to describe differences that they see and which they think to be important. Creationists play stupid lawyer games of redefining reality into whatever lie they want to propagate. We need to figure out just what we are talking about. The exact opposite of what any creationist would want.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Higher animals have specialised tissues and organs that contribute to the proper functioning of the whole animal [CRR] Which is higher, a cow or a pig? Aren't trees higher animals?
quote: In modern biology there is no distinction of "higher" and "lower" organisms. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : No reason given. Edited by RAZD, : formatby 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
What you wrote down there is why I think that some unicellular organisms are higher than humans.
You left the parts out where Darwin clarified what he meant by higher animals. Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10073 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
CRR writes: Probably the same thing as Darwin meant. That is a hold over from Victorian and earlier times where the worth of a species was determined by how closely it was related to humans. You can see the same biases in the names for Linnaean taxons, such as Eutherians (i.e. true crown group) and Primates (i.e. first rank, prime). Scientists have since identified this bias and have tried to rid scientific language of those terms, although they are still used to a lesser degree to this day. At the end of the day, all modern organisms are equally distant from the universal common ancestor, so all organisms are equally evolved.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10073 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Aristotle writes: If they're Darwinian-evolutionists then they don't know much about species, as he couldn't even define the term. If evolution is true then there shouldn't be an objective and non-arbitrary division between populations. The very fact that we can't objectively and non-arbitrarily define an absolute line between species is evidence for evolution.
And any changes that did appear in those single-cell organisms cannot be compared to higher animals, which are far more complex. Why?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10073 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
CRR writes: As I have pointed out before the variations shown in that diagram are way less than the variations in dogs which are all regarded as one species. This is poor evidence of speciation. The morphological differences between dog breeds is larger than the differences between humans and chimps, and yet you consider humans and chimps to be separate species.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2268 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
We need to figure out just what we are talking about.
Feel free to contribute to the threads about defining "evolution" and "theory of evolution".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2268 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
Taq writes:
They ARE separate species. They are also separate kinds.
and yet you consider humans and chimps to be separate species.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024