Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Show one complete lineage in evolution
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 16 of 246 (126571)
07-22-2004 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by SkepticToAll
07-22-2004 12:27 AM


Re: This does not prove Evolution
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by SkepticToAll, posted 07-22-2004 12:27 AM SkepticToAll has not replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 17 of 246 (126597)
07-22-2004 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by SkepticToAll
07-22-2004 12:27 AM


Re: This does not prove Evolution
Dear SkepticToAll,
Have you decided whether Moeritherium is like an elephant yet?
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by SkepticToAll, posted 07-22-2004 12:27 AM SkepticToAll has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 246 (126604)
07-22-2004 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Coragyps
07-21-2004 12:54 PM


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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Coragyps, posted 07-21-2004 12:54 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4145 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 19 of 246 (126675)
07-22-2004 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by SkepticToAll
07-22-2004 12:27 AM


Re: This does not prove Evolution
SkepticToAll:
SkepticToAll writes:
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?
Where do you draw the "lineage line"?
SkepticToAll writes:
The horse series is not a complete lineage - there are all similar types of horses.
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by SkepticToAll, posted 07-22-2004 12:27 AM SkepticToAll has not replied

  
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 4368 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 20 of 246 (126704)
07-22-2004 4:29 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by SkepticToAll
07-19-2004 8:57 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by SkepticToAll, posted 07-19-2004 8:57 PM SkepticToAll has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by AdminNosy, posted 07-22-2004 4:50 PM Robert Byers has not replied
 Message 22 by PaulK, posted 07-22-2004 4:52 PM Robert Byers has not replied
 Message 23 by Coragyps, posted 07-22-2004 5:08 PM Robert Byers has not replied
 Message 24 by Chiroptera, posted 07-22-2004 5:10 PM Robert Byers has replied

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


Message 21 of 246 (126716)
07-22-2004 4:50 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Robert Byers
07-22-2004 4:29 PM


It is time
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Robert Byers, posted 07-22-2004 4:29 PM Robert Byers has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 22 of 246 (126718)
07-22-2004 4:52 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Robert Byers
07-22-2004 4:29 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Robert Byers, posted 07-22-2004 4:29 PM Robert Byers has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 23 of 246 (126727)
07-22-2004 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Robert Byers
07-22-2004 4:29 PM


the claim of horses with three toes and those with nine
WTF?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Robert Byers, posted 07-22-2004 4:29 PM Robert Byers has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 246 (126729)
07-22-2004 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Robert Byers
07-22-2004 4:29 PM


quote:
There are not transitional fossils between major kinds of animals and none will ever be found.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Robert Byers, posted 07-22-2004 4:29 PM Robert Byers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Robert Byers, posted 07-24-2004 2:43 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
SkepticToAll
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 246 (126751)
07-22-2004 6:45 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by crashfrog
07-22-2004 12:39 AM


quote:
Did you read the fucking abstract?
yes, i read the fucking abstract..
From the link below:
quote:
Examples of a couple of major morphological changes produced in asexual species. Do these represent speciation events? The answer depends on how species is defined.
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...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by crashfrog, posted 07-22-2004 12:39 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Maxwell's Demon, posted 07-22-2004 7:17 PM SkepticToAll has not replied
 Message 27 by Chiroptera, posted 07-22-2004 7:36 PM SkepticToAll has not replied
 Message 29 by crashfrog, posted 07-22-2004 11:09 PM SkepticToAll has not replied
 Message 30 by Wounded King, posted 07-23-2004 6:08 AM SkepticToAll has not replied

  
Maxwell's Demon
Member (Idle past 6229 days)
Posts: 59
From: Stockholm, Sweden
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 26 of 246 (126762)
07-22-2004 7:17 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by SkepticToAll
07-22-2004 6:45 PM


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..."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by SkepticToAll, posted 07-22-2004 6:45 PM SkepticToAll has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 246 (126767)
07-22-2004 7:36 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by SkepticToAll
07-22-2004 6:45 PM


quote:
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?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by SkepticToAll, posted 07-22-2004 6:45 PM SkepticToAll has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by jar, posted 07-22-2004 7:49 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 28 of 246 (126770)
07-22-2004 7:49 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Chiroptera
07-22-2004 7:36 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Chiroptera, posted 07-22-2004 7:36 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 29 of 246 (126798)
07-22-2004 11:09 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by SkepticToAll
07-22-2004 6:45 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by SkepticToAll, posted 07-22-2004 6:45 PM SkepticToAll has not replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 30 of 246 (126907)
07-23-2004 6:08 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by SkepticToAll
07-22-2004 6:45 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by SkepticToAll, posted 07-22-2004 6:45 PM SkepticToAll 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