Evolution for Dummies and Christians

Don't mind at all, Chiroptera: I am pleased you found an application for the story beyond its anecdotal fun--makes me feel a little less OT. I agree whole-heartedly with your characterization of Archie as the quintessential transitional.I might add that John Ostrom was a voice in the wilderness in the 1960s when he picked up Huxley's 19th century ideas about dinosaurs being more like flightless birds than lizards; he also discovered the intimidating Deinonychus, that leaping, slashing raptor that so captivates Hollywood, in 1964, helping to shake off the notion of dinosaurs as lethargic, lumbering lizards, and paving the way for his student, Robert Bakker, to argue for their warm-bloodedness.BTW, my recollection from chatting with Ostrom is that the Haarlem Archie was actually on display as a pterosaur when he came upon it, though I may be mistaken. He maintained a child-like wonder and excitement about his work into his later years, a trait I have observed in both scientists and artists.

quote:

---

I might add that John Ostrom was a voice in the wilderness in the 1960s when he picked up Huxley's 19th century ideas about dinosaurs being more like flightless birds than lizards....

---

Well, what do you know. I was looking up Robert Bakker and found out that he was Ostrom's student! I was looking him up because your quote reminded me how Bakker advocates removing the dinosaurs from the class Reptilia and combining the dinosaurs and birds into a new class Dinosauria.

In fact we see this aspect in all human designs where intelligence has been actively employed in the design process.The fact that there is zero evidence for this in biological systems and more than ample opportunity and more than ample justification from a design point for improving any number of species, not least of which includes humans and their badly designed eye that needs crude rectification systems to render operable: glasses.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

When your computer reproduces itself I will believe in ID.This message has been edited by DHR, 09-28-2005 11:13 PMThis message has been edited by DHR, 09-28-2005 11:17 PM

Yes. Otherwise everything on Earth is a member of the same species. They aren't a subset, because the parent population doesn't include copper tolerant plants which can't reproduce with the parent population. The process that created this group removed them from the set which is the parents.You could argue that there was a point when the plants were slightly copper resistant and still able to reproduce with parent species. That group would likely be a subset of both groups.

Yes - by the widely accepted scientific definition of species pointed out to you.
Thure, so what you are realy saying is that you disagree with the scientific definition of species so that when a clear observation of evolution is presented you feel justified in disputing it as fact? No because the parents were observed at the same time as the new species was observed.If you can understand the fact that a parent population can produce a sub set of offspring at any time, that can not interbreed with the parent population, then you are part way to actually understanding evolution.I think that this topic may be getting somewhere
(just realised that I picked on the same points as nuggin but he beat me to it)This message has been edited by halucigenia, 09-29-2005 08:20 AM

Thure - now let’s take your point and run with it a bit.Say the new species of the Mimulus plant’s parents did not die off and spawned another subset that was tolerant to salt. This, as we evos, would see it is yet another species, would you see it as 3 sub sets of the original species? OK , now imagine these 3 reproductively isolated species changing over time, and adapting, lets say leaf colour in one (the copper tolerant one), flower shape in another (the original species) and hairiness (a further adaption to the costal climate in the salt tolerant one), even if you disagree that they are different species, I am sure that taxonomists would not, hell even amateurs would give them different common names.If you don’t like the Mimulus example, now let’s take your point a further step towards it’s logical conclusion as per nuggin’s reply - “everything on Earth is a member of the same species” how about using our old friend Archie the Archaeopteryx.
To your way of thinking then, all birds are the same species as the lizard like dino that adapted feathers, wings and flight?This message has been edited by halucigenia, 09-29-2005 08:55 AM

What if humans evolved into a subset that became "as gods?" In other words, they did not have some ancient inner unction that earlier humans had? Perhaps they needed this development to survive in a cold, cruel, and godless environment? Of course, scientifically we would have to explain what the trait that the earlier set of humans had...and is not a social religious issue as in the A&E thread here. (That is, if Faith/Belief could ever be proven to be more than a relative inner reality! ) And a lot of Christians always say this...but they usually say that we are all children of Abraham, a man of Faith, rather than Adam. I suppose that, as a Christian, I am asking the evolutionist theologians, (If you are out there) to explain if this could be both scientifically and theologically possible? I mean, it would go with the story of A&E having two sons, one a murderer of the other one(survivalist, perhaps?) Hope I am not off topic for a science forum, by the way. (Faith would be a good one to hear from...if she could explain it. Twould be interesting.)I am not a literalist, but it would go a ways to explaining to me how Science, behaviorism, A&E fable, and Tree of either/or all tie in together.(If they do)This message has been edited by Phatboy, 09-29-2005 07:28 AM

Would that not be an example of a transitional species?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I don't think so but, like so much, it depends on your definition of "transitional".I think in the context we are using the word it means a species that has features diagnositic of two higher taxa. I'm not sure this is even applied at the genus level but certainly not at the species in common usage.Perhaps we can call it little-t transitional but not big-T. ABE:Also note:
It isn't the degree of copper resistance that counts. If the new very copper resistant plant were totally interfertile with the other they would simply be variants within one species. The degree of interfertility is what counts.E.O. Wilson "The Diversity of Life" writes:"More serious conceptual problems are created by "semi-species," populations partially interbreed--not enough to constiture one big freely interbreeding gene pool, but enough to produce a good many hybrids under natural conditions.""The genus Quercus (the oaks) is outstanding for the very poor developement of sterility barriers between its species. Oak species are interfertile in many combinations, and natural hybrids may be formed between pairs of species that are very different from one another both morphologically aand physiologicall." -- quoting Whittlemore and Schaal page 47In this case there is no semispecies if the new species is totally non interbreeding. If it was partially so we would have semispecies.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 09-29-2005 10:10 AM

Me, too--but only if it is sexual.

Yeah, I originally put that in my post, then took it back out because all three are transitional species, as is everything else, and yada yada yada we spin off topic

I think the basic issue is that it would be a transitional but NOT a transitional species. It would be a link between two species rather than a species in its own right.

Exactly. That's my question.Is this a clear example of how the process works? Is the beauty of the system hidden within the fact that change is most often gradual?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

It's a good illustration of the small scale change we should hope to see on a human timescale. And it would certainly be a mistake to ask for direct observations of more dramatic change. That isn't what the theory predicts we should see.