|
Author
|
Topic: evolution vs. creationism: evolution wins
|
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1494 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: 03-20-2003
|
Given that they have such a short generation time, is there evidence of bacteria evolving into new, more complex, life forms? Not bacteria, but another kind of unicellular microorganism:
quote:
Coloniality in Chlorella vulgaris Boraas (1983) reported the induction of multicellularity in a strain of Chlorella pyrenoidosa (since reclassified as C. vulgaris) by predation. He was growing the unicellular green alga in the first stage of a two stage continuous culture system as for food for a flagellate predator, Ochromonas sp., that was growing in the second stage. Due to the failure of a pump, flagellates washed back into the first stage. Within five days a colonial form of the Chlorella appeared. It rapidly came to dominate the culture. The colony size ranged from 4 cells to 32 cells. Eventually it stabilized at 8 cells. This colonial form has persisted in culture for about a decade. The new form has been keyed out using a number of algal taxonomic keys. They key out now as being in the genus Coelosphaerium, which is in a different family from Chlorella.
Colonality would be the transitional form between unicellularity and differentiated multicellularity.
|
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1494 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: 03-20-2003
|
By fundamentally I mean essentially. But there's no such thing as species essentialism. Species don't contain some kind of "essence" that defines what species they are. A species is just a reproductive community.
If inspected with a microscope you would observe no differences. Oh? You inspected them?
The argument that not being willing to breed with another colony, makes it a different species, seems like stating that since Jennifer Garner refuses to mate with me she must be a different species. If Jennifer Garner wouldn't even recognize you as a potential mate, nor were you able to concieve offspring on her, she would be a different species. If you take issue with the argument then you take issue with the definition of "species". As I said, we stopped believing in species essentialism in the 19th century because there's no such thing as a species' "essence". Didn't you get that memo?
|
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1494 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: 03-20-2003
|
|
Message 192 of 310 (178564)
01-19-2005 12:45 PM
|
Reply to: Message 190 by Loudmouth
01-19-2005 12:21 PM
|
|
Woah! Your example is way better than mine.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 190 by Loudmouth, posted 01-19-2005 12:21 PM | | Loudmouth has not replied |
|
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1494 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: 03-20-2003
|
I was using "irony", conveyig a meaning contradicting the literal sense of the words used. Which is too bad for you, because none of those species - humans included - are particularly successful in evolutionary terms. Our genus contains only one species, which is a near failure as far as evolution is concerned. Basically what I'm saying is that your words were literally correct; if you meant them sarcastically, you were factually wrong.
|
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1494 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: 03-20-2003
|
The main problem I have with that is there doesn't seem to be any observable change in species in the fossil record. I don't understand how you come to this conclusion. What else would a static record of dynamic change look like besides the fossil record we have?
|
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1494 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: 03-20-2003
|
I can find no evidence to contradict this statement Well, the statement contradicts itself, really. How could an intermediate form between a species not be a species itself? Evolution predicts that intermediate, transitional species will exist, and indeed, the fossil record is chock-a-block with them.
|
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1494 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: 03-20-2003
|
Since there were no examples in Darwin's time, as admitted by Darwin, that leaves less than nothing. I guess I haven't checked my calendar lately, but I wasn't aware that it was 1979?
|
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1494 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: 03-20-2003
|
I have read several analyses of your example and most of them conclude that all of the supposed pre-horses existed at the same time as horses. Which has exactly what to do with them being transitional horse fossils?
|
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1494 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: 03-20-2003
|
New sub species have appeared, not new species. How would you tell the difference between two populations that are subspecies of the same species, and two populations that are different species?
If you evolutionists redefine terms every time there is a new development that exposes your past errors, it's hard for anyone to keep up. Get caught up with this: species essentialism died in the 1800's. "Species" means "reproductive community." This message has been edited by crashfrog, 01-25-2005 16:00 AM
|
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1494 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: 03-20-2003
|
Archaeopteryx has been shown to be a true bird "True bird"? Please. It doesn't even have a beak!
|
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1494 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: 03-20-2003
|
You accept the idea that sub species that will not or cannot interbreed is a new species, when clearly a finch is a finch and a salamander is a salamander. How would you tell if a bird is a finch or not? How would you tell if an amphibian was a salamander or not? You don't seem to get it yet - species essentialism is dead. Do you understand what I mean when I say that? You don't appear to, which is why I'm asking you these questions.
If anything, genetic diversity is lost. Lost through selection and speciation, yes. Gained through mutation.
|
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1494 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: 03-20-2003
|
Yes, I am stating that the variations of finches are sub species, in that they are all recognizable in form as finches. So, if their form changed enough through mutation, they would no longer be considered finches? Why are you so sure this is an outcome that would never occur?
There are many variations of many domesticated animals but a cat is still a cat, and a dog is still a dog. And a mammal is still a mammal, and a vertebrate is still a vertebrate, and an animal is still an animal, and an organism is still an organism. I guess everything is just subspecies of one big species of "living thing."
|
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1494 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: 03-20-2003
|
Observed mutations always impact negatively. Oh, except for lactose tolerance in humans; or resistance to atherosclerosis; or immunity to HIV; or all those examples of antibiotic resistance in bacteria. Except for those and countless other examples, all mutations impact negatively. Oh, oops, except for those that don't impact at all, which I guess is most of them. Other than that, you're right. Every single mutation is negative. Except for most of them. Sheesh.
|
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1494 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: 03-20-2003
|
No new information is gained by mutations, the information present is corrupted. I liken it to misspelling words on a page, one or two misplaced letters may not be a problem, but enough wrong ones and it is meaningless. DNA doesn't contain meaning, however. It contains sequences, some of which are translated into amino acid sequences. Any mutation may change the resulting sequence of amino acids, and there's no limit to how much change. That's where your analogy breaks down - all "words" in DNA are essentially equivalent. There are no "mispellings" because there are no three-letter triplet codes that do not either represent an amino acid or represent a start or stop codon.
There will always be new breeds of dogs, but they are fairly predictable as to what they will be: dogs. There will always be new mammals, but there is no doubt that they will be mammals. There will always be new vertebrates, but there is no doubt that they will be vertebrates. There will always be new organisms, but there is no doubt that they will be organisms. Evolution doesn't predict that dogs will not be dogs, any more than it predicts that a mammal will give birth to something not a mammal. Rather it predicts that the classification structures we invent to group organisms will become larger over time, and that we'll have to invent new subclasses. That's what an expanding, hierarcheal structure means.
|
™ Version 4.2