|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Pigeons and Dogs: Micro or Macro evolution? | |||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1498 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I can't help it that you don't understand the concept that limits exist in all facets of life. Limits exist. Great. Knowing that oceans exist doesn't prove that there's one between New York and St. Louis. You need to specifically prove that there's a specific limit right where you say it is. Now, we've observed lots of mutation. We've never observed any limit that would prevent speciation or evolution. We're looking where you say the limit should be, and we can't find it. What more evidence do you think we need to conclude that it isn't there? A hand-waving metaphor isn't going to cut it. The existence of limits in biology, as a general principle, is insufficient to prove the existence of a limit right where you'd like it to be. (And I know you'd so love there to be a limit, I just know you would, but wishing doesn't make it so...)
|
|||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1498 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
We Have NEVER observed mutations accumulating in the way the theory of evolution requires. What way do you think the ToE requires mutations to accumulate? In what way is that different, in your belief, than the way we observe mutations accumulate?
Sexual reproduction is the bane of the theory. Throw away half of the genes to reproduce? Not a good thing for you. A great thing. There's a bazillion studies about how sexual reproduction is great for populations. And consider the example of genetic programmers. One thing every evolutionary algorhythm models is sexual recombination. Why would that be if it wasn't evolutionarily advantageous?
YOU have not provided any evidence that m utations can accumulate. quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1498 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Wow flies evolving into flies? Two species of flies, looks like. I'd tell you if they were two different kinds of flies if you'd only tell me what a kind is. (I notice you still haven't done that.)
What way do we observe mutations accumulating? By keeping track of genomes. Mutation is the process of new genetic codes being inserted into a gene pool. If you detect a sequence that wasn't there before, that's a mutation. Why do I have to tell you this? I assumed it would be obvious.
Even Dawkins recognizes the difficulties it presents. And yet, every population geneticist recognizes the great evolutionary advantage.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1498 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
However that can just as easily be used as evidence for a common Creator or the same intelligent designer. The only people who make this argument are people who've never created anything. You're a famous car designer. You're responsible for designing the suspension on the 2004 Honda Civic. You're really good at car suspensions. An expert, even. You're on the team now to design a submarine. (Don't ask me why.) Why would anything you know about Civic suspensions be applicable? In particular why would you throw in a useless Civic suspension into the submarine? If you came across a submarine with a useless Civic suspension, what would you conclude? That it was designed by the same guy who designed the Civic ("Intelligent" Design), or that the submarine was cobbled together by modifying Civic parts (evolution)? Common components doesn't support the same designer, because no one designer would be stupid enough to include useless parts just because they used them in another design. You show your ignorance not only of biology but of the design process in general.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1498 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
But a dog is a dog What does that mean, exactly? Let's say that I present a hitherto-unseen quaduped mammal to you. By what method would you determine if it was in the dog "kind" or not? What makes some animals members of the dog "kind" and some others not? Some kind of Platonistic "dog" ideal? Or some kind of inherent dog-ness?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1498 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
For the discussion a dog is a dog does do the trick. That's idiotic. As this is a discussion of macro and micro evolution, at issue here is what it would take for the offspring of a dog to not be a dog itself. Well, to determine that, we have to know what "dogness" is. We have to know how you determined that "a dog is a dog." We have to know why you're so comfortable asserting that no organism decended from the dog "kind" could ever be anything but a dog.
For example I myself have no problem seeing bears and dogs as all from the same one that came off the Ark. Oh. So, a dog is a dog, unless it's a bear? Look, RB, if you're just going to play fast and loose with definitions of words, why even bother having the discussion?
(post flood as I see it or post cret/ter line for you) So, just so we're clear on your position, you believe that the K/T boundary represents the recent boundary of flood sediments?
I think I'm saying that for discusion between micro/macro we can use the present words that the world uses. So you say, but then, you're the one who can't seem to tell the difference between a bear and a dog.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1498 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I mean the word dog is the word the world uses for a kind of creature and otherwise I don't understand your point. And you don't think an animal decended from dogs could be so different that we couldn't call it a dog? You don't think that would happen under any circumstances?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1498 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Since the creature is unknown its difficult to answer this. So, in other words, you don't know what dogs are, but you'd know one if you saw one? Can you imagine now why we don't bother to pay attention when Creationists open their mouths about species classification? they steadfastly refuse to get serious about it.
A dog not being a kangaroo is a difference beyond time supplied so we can draw such conclusion it is a different kind. How long is too long? How much can species change? Remember that your model predicts roughly (oh, what was it?) some million new species every year, to go from the 80,000 species on the Ark to the between 8 and 80 billion species there are today. That's quite a bit of species change. And you think dog to kangaroo (or, more acurately, mammal ancestor to both dog and kangaroo) is too much change? Why?
However macro/micro to a creationist is the big differences and indeed the line vague. The line is vague because there is no line. There's no fundamental difference between macroevolutionary change and microevolutionary change. It's like trying to find the line between near and far.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1498 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Your thing about all kinds today from the Ark makes my point. They change alittle all at once and no great time is needed. That's not what we're talking about. We're talking about stupendous change indeed, for a few generations, and then little change at all. What stimulates this great change?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1498 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
The changes after the Ark were so that the creatures obeyed God in filling and multiplying on earth. But what's the mechanism that causes the change? I mean, we've observed how the opening of new niches can cause rapid species change - that's the position of punctuated equilibrium - but the proposed rate of change you're describing is far, far more than punk eek can account for. So what's the additional mechanism?
The mechanism perhaps was a kind of natural selection however I think the mechanism for speciation has not yet been found Of course it's been found. It's well-known that the mechanism of speciation is simply reprouctive isolation and the accumulation of mutations in the absence of gene flow.
Many species are just leisure classes. ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1498 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
The sameness of dogs and bears is a lond subject and I just base on looks mostly and that it fits into kinds. And you think that this: is a better visual match than this? Do you maybe need to have your eyes checked?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1498 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
The observation of speciation has never been observed in all its glory to produce results that last in the natural world. To the contrary, we've observed countless instances of new, persistent species.
However say on a island where one bird has speciated to fill many niches as occured as not been witnessed. Of course not, as that takes many, many generations - more generations, in fact, that we've had the Theory of Evolution. But there are many, many examples where we can trace divergent, adapted populations back to a single population of ancestors, like the cichlid fish of Lake Victoria:
quote: In this complex world it is easily explained that the mechanism I need hasn't been discovered yet. Why bother with your ridiculous, ad hoc, unknown magic mechanism when we have two mechanisms we already know about - natural selection and random mutation - that are more than adequate? This message has been edited by crashfrog, 09-25-2004 02:29 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1498 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
The sameness of bears and dogs is hinted at in the fossil record. As is the sameness of humans and apes.
There is no confusing humans with apes upon observation of them in the nude. Personally, I choose to remain clothed when observing apes and humans, but that's just me. At any rate, if you're regularly confusing bears and dogs, I would reccommend putting your clothes back on, or at least your glasses.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1498 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Yeah, I get Shih-Tzus mixed up with Kodiak bears all the time, too. That must be why they call you "lefty".
|
|||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1498 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
These mechaisms have not been observed. What are you talking about? Natural selection and random mutation have been observed, over and over again. Of course they've been observed.
It is speculation that they occured. No, it's observation. We've observed these mechanisms and their effects, time and time again.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024