Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Pigeons and Dogs: Micro or Macro evolution?
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 4369 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 91 of 144 (144662)
09-25-2004 3:19 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by DrJones*
09-23-2004 4:47 PM


The sameness of bears and dogs is hinted at in the fossil record. Also the similarities of them is apparent when looking close at them
There is no confusing humans with apes upon observation of them in the nude. Technical similarity only accounts for a portion of ones looks. Posture and use of body stance specks loudly also.
This however is a sideline as We argue the same blueprint provides a same result for needs of creatures.
Rob

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by DrJones*, posted 09-23-2004 4:47 PM DrJones* has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by crashfrog, posted 09-25-2004 3:31 PM Robert Byers has not replied
 Message 94 by DrJones*, posted 09-25-2004 4:39 PM Robert Byers has replied
 Message 95 by Coragyps, posted 09-25-2004 4:54 PM Robert Byers has not replied

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


Message 92 of 144 (144667)
09-25-2004 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by Robert Byers
09-25-2004 3:14 PM


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 the October 11th (1990) issue of Nature, Meyer et.al. present of paper aimed at establishing if the cichlid fish species of Lake Victoria (Africa) are monophyletic or polyphyletic. (If they all share a recent common ancestor in that lake or came from separate lineages that invaded the lake). In their paper they sequenced a 363 bp part of the cytochrome b gene and a 440 bp segment of mitochondrial DNA from what is called the control region. They sequenced these genes from several species of fish in the lake and a few species from relatively nearby lakes.
What they found was the sequences in the Lake Victoria species of fish were all very similar, but they were different from the sequences of fish in nearby lakes. All the sequences are listed in the paper.
They came to the conclusion that this indicated the cichlid species of Lake Victoria all derive from a recent common ancestor in the lake. They estimate the time of divergence at about 200,000 years ago based on a model that assumes mutations are relatively constant over time. (The lake, incidentally, had been independently dated to be 250,000 - 275,000 years old)
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Robert Byers, posted 09-25-2004 3:14 PM Robert Byers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Robert Byers, posted 09-27-2004 4:19 PM crashfrog has replied

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


Message 93 of 144 (144668)
09-25-2004 3:31 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by Robert Byers
09-25-2004 3:19 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Robert Byers, posted 09-25-2004 3:19 PM Robert Byers has not replied

  
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2284
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 94 of 144 (144691)
09-25-2004 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by Robert Byers
09-25-2004 3:19 PM


I repeat. Please list the criteria that you used to determine that they (dogs and bears) look alike. What other animals fall into the dog/bear "kind"? How often do you confuse these animals with dogs or bears?
The sameness of bears and dogs is hinted at in the fossil record
As is the sameness of apes and humans. Therefore humans and apes are the same "kind".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Robert Byers, posted 09-25-2004 3:19 PM Robert Byers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Robert Byers, posted 09-27-2004 4:23 PM DrJones* has replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 735 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 95 of 144 (144694)
09-25-2004 4:54 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by Robert Byers
09-25-2004 3:19 PM


The sameness of bears and dogs is hinted at in the fossil record. Also the similarities of them is apparent when looking close at them.
Yeah, I get Shih-Tzus mixed up with Kodiak bears all the time, too.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Robert Byers, posted 09-25-2004 3:19 PM Robert Byers has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by crashfrog, posted 09-25-2004 4:56 PM Coragyps has not replied

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


Message 96 of 144 (144695)
09-25-2004 4:56 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by Coragyps
09-25-2004 4:54 PM


Yeah, I get Shih-Tzus mixed up with Kodiak bears all the time, too.
That must be why they call you "lefty".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Coragyps, posted 09-25-2004 4:54 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 4369 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 97 of 144 (145116)
09-27-2004 4:19 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by crashfrog
09-25-2004 3:29 PM


These mechaisms have not been observed. It is speculation that they occured. The minor occurances of speciation (if its agreed this happened) prove the difficulty of it and anyways are unique. I have no problem with speciation being observed today and welcome it.
Rob

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by crashfrog, posted 09-25-2004 3:29 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by crashfrog, posted 09-27-2004 4:29 PM Robert Byers has not replied

  
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 4369 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 98 of 144 (145118)
09-27-2004 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by DrJones*
09-25-2004 4:39 PM


No there is no hint of human/ape ancestry. Just interpretations of scraps of bone.
Its not relevant what other creatures fit (if so) into the bear/dog kind. Its just basic body type.
Rob

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by DrJones*, posted 09-25-2004 4:39 PM DrJones* has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by crashfrog, posted 09-27-2004 4:31 PM Robert Byers has replied
 Message 101 by Loudmouth, posted 09-27-2004 5:17 PM Robert Byers has replied
 Message 102 by DrJones*, posted 09-27-2004 6:52 PM Robert Byers has replied
 Message 103 by Mammuthus, posted 09-28-2004 4:00 AM Robert Byers has not replied

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


Message 99 of 144 (145122)
09-27-2004 4:29 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by Robert Byers
09-27-2004 4:19 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Robert Byers, posted 09-27-2004 4:19 PM Robert Byers has not replied

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


Message 100 of 144 (145123)
09-27-2004 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by Robert Byers
09-27-2004 4:23 PM


No there is no hint of human/ape ancestry.
Not so. We have the same kind of evidence linking humans and apes as the kind that links father and child in paternity tests.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Robert Byers, posted 09-27-2004 4:23 PM Robert Byers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Robert Byers, posted 09-30-2004 4:53 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 101 of 144 (145136)
09-27-2004 5:17 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by Robert Byers
09-27-2004 4:23 PM


quote:
No there is no hint of human/ape ancestry. Just interpretations of scraps of bone.
No, there is no hint of created kinds. Just interpretations of scraps of bone and flesh.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Robert Byers, posted 09-27-2004 4:23 PM Robert Byers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Robert Byers, posted 09-30-2004 4:57 PM Loudmouth has replied

  
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2284
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 102 of 144 (145150)
09-27-2004 6:52 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by Robert Byers
09-27-2004 4:23 PM


Its not relevant what other creatures fit (if so) into the bear/dog kind. Its just basic body type.
It is relevant since you won't provide the criteria that you're using to determine that bears are dogs are the same "kind". Because you're refusing to provide this information I'm trying to get other examples from you of the bear/dog "kind" in order to determine what you're using for sorting criteria.
For the third time. What criteria are you using to determine that bears and dogs look the same? What is this basic body type? What other organisms are in this "kind"? Humans and apes share similar morphology why are they not the same "kind"?
This message has been edited by DrJones*, 09-27-2004 05:54 PM

*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Robert Byers, posted 09-27-2004 4:23 PM Robert Byers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Robert Byers, posted 09-30-2004 5:03 PM DrJones* has replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6476 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 103 of 144 (145306)
09-28-2004 4:00 AM
Reply to: Message 98 by Robert Byers
09-27-2004 4:23 PM


That might be true if you IGNORE over 30 years of molecular biology which also overwhelmingly supports human/ape common ancestry...you seem to be pretty good at maintaining your ignorance of entire disciplines of science...way to go

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Robert Byers, posted 09-27-2004 4:23 PM Robert Byers has not replied

  
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 4369 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 104 of 144 (146179)
09-30-2004 4:53 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by crashfrog
09-27-2004 4:31 PM


No way. First this is recent in the century. Second it is not verified that DNA is saying it is related to ancestry as opposed to similarity.
DNA is still a new thing and you guys shouldn't be grasping at it for survival. Its too atomic for all of us
Rob

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by crashfrog, posted 09-27-2004 4:31 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by crashfrog, posted 09-30-2004 4:58 PM Robert Byers has replied

  
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 4369 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 105 of 144 (146182)
09-30-2004 4:57 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by Loudmouth
09-27-2004 5:17 PM


Creation is a sef evident thing. We exist and so does the natural world. Its Toe that says this evidence is wrong.
Yes hoever all that is talked about in Toe is interpretation of bones and flesh. Surely our observation of the world now trumps interpretations of scanty data that changes with every new graduation class in small circles.
Rob

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Loudmouth, posted 09-27-2004 5:17 PM Loudmouth has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by crashfrog, posted 09-30-2004 4:59 PM Robert Byers has not replied
 Message 109 by Loudmouth, posted 09-30-2004 5:04 PM Robert Byers has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024