|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Show one complete lineage in evolution | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
The horse series is not a complete lineage - there are all similar types of horses..
Hyracotherium is a "similar type of horse" ? I don't think so. And of course any lineage is going to include ots of similar species - thats how evolution works. If you are just going to declare that the evidence doesn't exist because you refuse to look at it then there is really no room for discussion with you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
Dear SkepticToAll,
Have you decided whether Moeritherium is like an elephant yet? TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
My mother tried to find out her geneology. She got stuck sometime in the mid-1800s and couldn't proceed any further -- there were a lot of names, but no clear relationship between them, and nothing further back in time. Oh my gosh! My mother must have been specially created!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
FliesOnly Member (Idle past 4145 days) Posts: 797 From: Michigan Joined: |
SkepticToAll:
SkepticToAll writes: Where do you draw the "lineage line"?
My point is you can infer Macro evolution but you cannot prove it unless you have a complete lineage.. Obviously a complete lineage does not mean every generation..Why is this so hard for evolutionists to understand? SkepticToAll writes: What about whales? It seems to me that Ambulocetus natans serves as a nice intermediate example between terrestrial and aquatic lineages. Or are you gonna claim that Ambulocetus is just another whale?
The horse series is not a complete lineage - there are all similar types of horses.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Robert Byers Member (Idle past 4368 days) Posts: 640 From: Toronto,canada Joined: |
Excellent question. Truly well articulated and to the heart.
They didn't answer you with evidence did they? THEY CAN'T. Why can not intelligent people who have put thier minds to this subject so unable to present trasitional forms or understand they are failing too?Because your question cuts to the heart of evidence of a theory. And the evidence not being there suggests to thier own conscience the evolution theory is weak and perhaps another wrong idea of the 19th century. There are not transitional fossils between major kinds of animals and none will ever be found. As a creationist I suggest that God created all kinds of animals and then the fall distorted them. Then the flood came but the kinds of animals were still recognized as a kind though distorted by death in the world. After the flood there was speciation but only within boundaries. I do belive that whales and seals were first land creatures but I don't think there were intermediate forms but rather instant changes as in the colour of people. As you might note the claim of horses with three toes and those with nine being presented as proof of evolution rather proves the poverty of fossil evidence for the great claims they make. You can go anywhere and your question will always shut them down.Yet you will not hear this question in the schools. Regards Rob
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
For now Robert, a warning. A bit later suspention from posting for a period of time.
You have yet to show any sign that you can actually read what is posted. You have yet to back up any assertions. I suggest you step back and have a go at learning something. You still have no grasp of how little you know about anything being discussed. I suggest a dose of humility is in order. Stick close to one topic. Answer questions put to you. Supply evidence and reasoning behind what you claim. If you can't do this you are not really debating or contributing much here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
And that is a perfect example of creationism in action.
Refuse to look at the evidence and then pretend it isn't there. That should certainly not be taught in schools.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 734 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
the claim of horses with three toes and those with nine
WTF?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
quote:This is false. There are plenty of examples of transitional forms. You may argue a different interpretation of the evidence if you want, but there is no denying that these fossils exist and that they fit the definition of transitional that biologist use. Furthermore, this ignores the fact that the evidence for evolution is more than just fossils; the evidence comes from a variety of independent fields of science, and is pretty conclusive when taken together. Not only do you have to argue against the transitionals that exist, but you have to argue against each and every piece of evidence in each of these other sciences.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
SkepticToAll Inactive Member |
quote:yes, i read the fucking abstract.. From the link below: quote: The definition of a species is too vague.. IN the animal kingdom even a small change and it is defined as a different species.There seems to be no general rule..Hell, if you go by that 'don't mate with each other rule' then we are to assume that hundreds of years ago negroes and caucasions were different species but now they are because they mate with each other? This link casts a lot of doubt on evolution to be accepted as fact:http://www.alternativescience.com/...origins-speciations.htm And why do people assume I am a creationist? Am i supposed to accept everything? I have done enough trying to 'prove' evolution to myself - it seems far easier not to accept it if no one can come up with some reasonable answers...For starters what about that link above? Is is false , a lie? If so please inform me...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Maxwell's Demon Member (Idle past 6229 days) Posts: 59 From: Stockholm, Sweden Joined: |
EDIT:
After reading subsequent posts it is embarrassingly obvious to me that I misunderstood your point, please disregard this post. This message has been edited by Kent, 07-22-2004 07:09 PM "tellement loin de ce monde..."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
quote:I guess I'm not aware of any time when "negros and caucasions" didn't interbreed. There were laws in some countries that forbade this, but I'm not aware that even these laws succeeded in preventing it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
I guess I'm not aware of any time when "negros and caucasions" didn't interbreed. There were laws in some countries that forbade this, but I'm not aware that even these laws succeeded in preventing it. The laws and customs certainly didn't stop either Thomas Jefferson or Strom Thurmond. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
The definition of a species is too vague.. In the case of asexually reproducing organisms, it's possible that the Biological Species concept isn't appropriate. But for sexual species, the BSC is more than appropriate, and there's certainly nothing vague about "a reproducive community." The fact that it's often hard, however, to pin down exactly where one species ends and another starts is exactly what we would expect if evolution was true.
IN the animal kingdom even a small change and it is defined as a different species.There seems to be no general rule.. No, the rule is very clear and very general - "did reproducive isolation occur?"
Hell, if you go by that 'don't mate with each other rule' then we are to assume that hundreds of years ago negroes and caucasions were different species but now they are because they mate with each other? Had their geographical isolation proceeded for much, much longer than it did, we might very well say that they were different species. You need to stop thinking of species in the Platonic way - where individuals are variations of some abstract species template - and percieve the reality - what we think of as "species" are really more-or-less discreet gene pools.
Is is false , a lie? It's certainly full of fallacious reasoning, if that's what you mean. I noted a number of instances where they claimed no new species was formed because there was no major adaptive mutation. The problem is, that's not how evolution says new species form. Did reproductive isolation occur in each of those cases? Indeed it did. Therefore each of those is, in fact, a speciation event.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
This analysis is highly prejudiced, as a for instance.
Look at 5.3.1 Drosophila paulistorum The writer objects that Boxhorn is saying that two fruit flies which he asserts are different species, successfully mate and produce offspring (thereby proving conclusively that they are not different species but the same species.) He appears to have entirely missed the key point that " In 1958 this strain produced fertile hybrids when crossed with conspecifics of different strains from Orinocan. From 1963 onward crosses with Orinocan strains produced only sterile males." the emphasis is mine. This is clearly exactly the sort of physiological isolation he has been banging on about and it arose at some point between 1958 and 1963, the fact that it occurs in the offspring of the crosses rather than occuring during the fertilisation/ development of the embryo is irrelevant, it may be long after mating has ocurred but if you can only produce sterile males then you clearly aren't a viable interbreeding population. Being able to produce offspring isn't the vital criteria, its being able to produce offspring which can go on to breed. The article casts no doubt on evolution, all it does is object to the 'weak' definition of species. It gives no evidence that post-mating isolation cannot arise from pre-mating isolation and overlooks examples where post-mating isolation, which would qualify for the strong definition, is clearly in evidence. TTFN, WK
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024