Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Ring Species!!
harry
Member (Idle past 5468 days)
Posts: 59
Joined: 03-15-2009


Message 31 of 50 (503769)
03-21-2009 11:03 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Tanypteryx
03-21-2009 10:30 PM


Re: Tools
He's Hijacking my beautiful thread
I was trying to compile a reference list of all ring species

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Tanypteryx, posted 03-21-2009 10:30 PM Tanypteryx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-23-2009 1:41 PM harry has not replied

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


Message 32 of 50 (503774)
03-22-2009 1:46 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Sky-Writing
03-21-2009 10:11 PM


Sky leave this thread
You have not been able to see the topic of the thread. Post here again and you will be suspended.
Others: do not reply again to Sky's messages or you may be suspended too.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Sky-Writing, posted 03-21-2009 10:11 PM Sky-Writing has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 33 of 50 (503787)
03-22-2009 8:28 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Sky-Writing
03-21-2009 10:19 PM


Re: Tools
-Sky- writes:
My first answer, without any study of the situation, would be attitude. Behavior has the most profound and active effect on species differentiation. It could be any number of factors that would change whether a bird needed to be aggressive or passive. had an easy life or hard...etc.
This is a bit ironic - your first on-topic comments in this thread came just after posting yet another off-topic message that was apparently the final straw. We try to keep threads focused on the topic here.
It is fairly common for people to come here with something they want to talk about, but they often introduce it in the wrong thread. What you apparently most want to talk about would be fine in threads where it is on-topic, and if you can't find a satisfactory thread then simply propose a new one over at [forum=-25].

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Sky-Writing, posted 03-21-2009 10:19 PM Sky-Writing has not replied

  
CosmicChimp
Member
Posts: 311
From: Muenchen Bayern Deutschland
Joined: 06-15-2007


Message 34 of 50 (503917)
03-23-2009 12:47 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Sky-Writing
03-21-2009 4:58 PM


The Juxtaposed, Conflicting and Contradicting Ideas of -Sky-
-Sky-,
You're getting into an argument of definition concerning the word "species." Even for the sake of helpful communication, you need to stick to a proper definition of the word species. This "muddies the water" and obfuscates the issue under examination. I'd almost say this shows your true purposes on this thread and other places. But for me that's a side issue.
-Sky- writes:
No. That's an example of variation within the species. Likely you could accomplish the same results in 1 to 10 years of handpicking out certain characteristics.
With that statement, the subsequent statement and then parts of your posts elsewhere, I can see that you accept the idea that individual organisms are different; they vary. They can even be made to vary by man (or other forces of nature). Why though, do you say "immutable" then later in your post? How can you justify your juxtaposing that members of a species are all different and then say that the species is immutable? Your group of varied individuals cannot monitor their own degree of variation. Nor can they themselves steer their own variation towards containment/non-differentiation. I assume you observe some other steering force at play where noone other than your own kind can see it.
You also imply that all of the specie members of a ring of species, are part of the same species. Again this is a definition problem. You're also simply replacing the existing scientific limits placed upon the scenario (geographic barrier/ring, and definition for species etc.) for study and understanding; to be some other purposeless boundary of your creation. Although I would go so far as to claim that your motivations are not purposeless, but rather designed to stymie a meaningful inquiry into biology.
-Sky- writes:
Basically, "The species is immutable" could be modified to "Each type of animal is immutable and vibrant due to an amazing amount of variation inherent in each animal grouping."
Why should each type of animal be tagged immutable? Do you not believe that an ancestral group of animal types are the "starting point" for the variation that you see? What I see takes a further logical step; in that, each and every group is an "ancestral starting point." Some of these will not become the ancestors to very many others, but some will become the ancestral group of even further great ancestral groups.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Sky-Writing, posted 03-21-2009 4:58 PM Sky-Writing has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Sky-Writing, posted 03-23-2009 2:36 PM CosmicChimp has seen this message but not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 35 of 50 (503922)
03-23-2009 1:41 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by harry
03-21-2009 11:03 PM


Re: Tools
He's Hijacking my beautiful thread
I was trying to compile a reference list of all ring species
He's Hijacking my beautiful thread
I was trying to compile a reference list of all ring species
Members of the Brassica genus show some very odd patterns of interbreeding potential.
They don't, so far as I know, form a geographical ring, but they're still of some interest.
See the SkepticWiki article on species for further information.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by harry, posted 03-21-2009 11:03 PM harry has not replied

  
Sky-Writing
Member (Idle past 5151 days)
Posts: 162
From: Milwaukee, WI, United States
Joined: 03-12-2009


Message 36 of 50 (503924)
03-23-2009 2:36 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by CosmicChimp
03-23-2009 12:47 PM


Re: The Juxtaposed, Conflicting and Contradicting Ideas of -Sky-
Your group of varied individuals cannot monitor their own degree of variation.
We don't agree.
Edited by -Sky-, : Sorry, I'm not supposed to talk.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by CosmicChimp, posted 03-23-2009 12:47 PM CosmicChimp has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Admin, posted 03-23-2009 3:23 PM Sky-Writing has not replied
 Message 38 by RAZD, posted 03-23-2009 6:59 PM Sky-Writing has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 37 of 50 (503929)
03-23-2009 3:23 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Sky-Writing
03-23-2009 2:36 PM


Re: The Juxtaposed, Conflicting and Contradicting Ideas of -Sky-
-Sky- writes:
Sorry, I'm not supposed to talk.
Not in this thread, no, but here you are anyway. We could ban you from the [forum=-5] forum. Is that what you what?
I've only read a few of your posts, and it looks like you can post substantively and on-topic when the mood strikes you, so I offer you a deal: for as long as you stay in the mood I won't ban you from this forum.
So you can resume posting in this thread (unless AdminNosy has objections), all we ask is that you follow the Forum Guidelines. Nobody's perfect here, we're not asking for perfection, all we want is for people to by and large stay on topic, and to show a sincere interest in helping the discussion move forward.
I think one of the continuing problems this discussion board faces with some Christians is that when they encounter what they see as atheistic science they abandon any pretense of civility and begin treating the rules of discussion and the discussion itself with scorn and disdain.
So okay, you thumb your nose at the big bad atheists (you may be surprised to discover, by the way, that most evolutionists are not atheists) and get banned, and if that's what you're going for then it won't be hard to achieve. But if you're sincerely interested in discussion then you'll be here a long time.
You may resume posting to this thread.
Edited by Admin, : Grammar.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Sky-Writing, posted 03-23-2009 2:36 PM Sky-Writing has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 38 of 50 (503980)
03-23-2009 6:59 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Sky-Writing
03-23-2009 2:36 PM


Re: The Juxtaposed, Conflicting and Contradicting Ideas of -Sky-
Hi -Sky-
Your group of varied individuals cannot monitor their own degree of variation.
We don't agree.
Perhaps you would like to discuss it here: "Macro" vs "Micro" genetic "kind" mechanism?
quote:
IF the concept of "kinds" is correct, THEN there must be mechanism(s) in the DNA that allows "micro"evolution but prevents "macro"evolution? ... what is the built-in biological mechanism that prevents this from happening? Where is it located? Why hasn't it been found?
Seems like what you want to talk about. I note that this thread is at 242 posts and not one creationist or IDist has been able to demonstrate any built-in or genetic limitation on what can or cannot evolve.
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 36 by Sky-Writing, posted 03-23-2009 2:36 PM Sky-Writing has not replied

  
lehtv
Junior Member (Idle past 5194 days)
Posts: 5
From: Edinburgh, UK
Joined: 05-17-2009


Message 39 of 50 (509206)
05-19-2009 11:55 AM


I didn't see anyone mention this, but one of the best known ring species are gulls of the genus Larus. Ring species - Wikipedia

  
drpepperandmilk
Junior Member (Idle past 5271 days)
Posts: 4
Joined: 08-19-2009


Message 40 of 50 (520121)
08-19-2009 1:26 PM


How are ring species evidence for upward change?
I'd like to know how the variation observed in ring species demonstrates the potential of MACRO changes, i.e. new major structures. The lack of ability/inclination in the converging groups to breed seems to indicate that significant information from a finite gene pool was lost, not gained.

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Coyote, posted 08-19-2009 2:16 PM drpepperandmilk has replied
 Message 42 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-19-2009 2:32 PM drpepperandmilk has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 41 of 50 (520131)
08-19-2009 2:16 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by drpepperandmilk
08-19-2009 1:26 PM


Re: How are ring species evidence for upward change?
I'd like to know how the variation observed in ring species demonstrates the potential of MACRO changes, i.e. new major structures. The lack of ability/inclination in the converging groups to breed seems to indicate that significant information from a finite gene pool was lost, not gained.
Welcome to the forum!
Two points:
1) Your post seems to rely on the "devolution" belief, related probably to "the fall." That has not been confirmed by science; the opposite is in fact what the evidence shows.
2) Information is most often changed in relation to an environment. There is no requirement for "new major structures" for either ring species, speciation, or "macro-evolution" (a term most often used by creationists rather than scientists).
That change often separates two groups or populations, as can be seen from one end of a ring species to the other. There we have two species with all of the transitionals still in place to be studied. Simply cut that ring at any one point and we clearly have two species, each free to go its separate way and gradually grow more distinct from each other.
There is nothing that has been discovered in biology that prevents those two groups from evolving significantly from one another, including one or more of them evolving what you might call major structures not shared by the other. (The concept of "kinds," with no changes beyond some arbitrary boundary, is a religious belief, not a scientific principle.)

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by drpepperandmilk, posted 08-19-2009 1:26 PM drpepperandmilk has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by drpepperandmilk, posted 08-19-2009 5:40 PM Coyote has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 42 of 50 (520133)
08-19-2009 2:32 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by drpepperandmilk
08-19-2009 1:26 PM


Re: How are ring species evidence for upward change?
I'd like to know how the variation observed in ring species demonstrates the potential of MACRO changes, i.e. new major structures.
The short answer is that ring species don't demonstrate that potential, the laws of genetics do. Oh, and the fact that we know that it's happened. Ring species demonstrate incipient speciation.
The lack of ability/inclination in the converging groups to breed seems to indicate that significant information from a finite gene pool was lost, not gained.
No, that is not what it seems to indicate.
Which does it take more information to describe, one species or two species?
A little common sense here, please?
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by drpepperandmilk, posted 08-19-2009 1:26 PM drpepperandmilk has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by drpepperandmilk, posted 08-19-2009 5:23 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
drpepperandmilk
Junior Member (Idle past 5271 days)
Posts: 4
Joined: 08-19-2009


Message 43 of 50 (520165)
08-19-2009 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Dr Adequate
08-19-2009 2:32 PM


Re: How are ring species evidence for upward change?
ring species don't demonstrate that potential, the laws of genetics do
Mendel’s? How so?
and the fact that we know that it's happened.
You can’t substantiate a claim by saying you simply know something happened.
Which does it take more information to describe, one species or two species?
The sum of information I’m talking about is the total within each group, not the two end groups added together. Take the Ensatina salamanders in CA. Indeed there was variation from one group to the next in color, size, with the ability to breed with neighboring groups remaining intact, until the end groups lost this tendency and had their opportunities to breed basically cut in half. This is not necessarily a death sentence for the entire new species, but does not seem to be a micro step in a progressive direction. My original question phrased a bit differently: If this (ring species) is an example of how progressive changes occur in biological evolution, how do apparent small steps backward like this add up to big steps forward over time?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-19-2009 2:32 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-19-2009 6:30 PM drpepperandmilk has replied
 Message 47 by RAZD, posted 08-19-2009 9:44 PM drpepperandmilk has not replied

  
drpepperandmilk
Junior Member (Idle past 5271 days)
Posts: 4
Joined: 08-19-2009


Message 44 of 50 (520168)
08-19-2009 5:40 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Coyote
08-19-2009 2:16 PM


Re: How are ring species evidence for upward change?
Thanks for your welcome!
If we are defining species by any amount of visible change, or the more rigid criteria of sexual barriers, then yes, I would say that "ring species" result in new species. But to say this is what adds up to large scale descent from single cells to the vast array of life that we observe on earth now doesn’t make sense based on what we know and have observed.
the opposite [of devolution] is in fact what the evidence shows...
There is nothing that has been discovered in biology that prevents those two groups from evolving significantly from one another, including one or more of them evolving what you might call major structures not shared by the other. (The concept of "kinds," with no changes beyond some arbitrary boundary, is a religious belief, not a scientific principle.)
I think the assumption here, which leads to differing interpretation of the evidence, is that this process is naturally limitless and needs something to prevent it from evolving organisms beyond limitation. The arbitrary boundary in original kinds is not known, but I think it’s more reasonable to assume that a definitive boundary (certainly not arbitrary) exists rather that to assume it does not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Coyote, posted 08-19-2009 2:16 PM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-19-2009 6:18 PM drpepperandmilk has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 45 of 50 (520183)
08-19-2009 6:18 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by drpepperandmilk
08-19-2009 5:40 PM


Re: How are ring species evidence for upward change?
If we are defining species by any amount of visible change, or the more rigid criteria of sexual barriers, then yes, I would say that "ring species" result in new species. But to say this is what adds up to large scale descent from single cells to the vast array of life that we observe on earth now doesn’t make sense based on what we know and have observed.
Based on what you know and have observed, possibly. But without wishing to be rude, may I point out that biologists, who know and have observed more biology than you have, have come to quite the opposite conclusion.
I think the assumption here, which leads to differing interpretation of the evidence, is that this process is naturally limitless and needs something to prevent it from evolving organisms beyond limitation. The arbitrary boundary in original kinds is not known, but I think it’s more reasonable to assume that a definitive boundary (certainly not arbitrary) exists rather that to assume it does not.
But the laws of genetics show us that there is no such boundary. The "assumption" that you believe to be reasonable is known, for certain, to be false.
What you personally think is "reasonable" is not evidence for anything one way or the other. The facts of genetics, by contrast, are.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by drpepperandmilk, posted 08-19-2009 5:40 PM drpepperandmilk has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024