Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   where was the transition within fossil record?? [Stalled: randman]
halucigenia
Inactive Member


Message 211 of 304 (254262)
10-23-2005 5:26 PM
Reply to: Message 204 by randman
10-23-2005 4:51 PM


More species misconceptions
Whatever the label and whatever propaganda you guys want to spout, there is clearly no spectrum of life, but discrete groups separated one from another. That's why a cat and dog cannot mate for example.
Nope - a domestic dog and a wolf are different species, within the same genus, and they can mate. A domestic dog and a Jackal, different species within the same genus probably could not mate. A dog and a fox are very unlikely to be able to mate as they are separated by genus, but are within the same subfamily.
A dog and a cat can't mate because they are so far apart genetically speaking that they are put in different families.
There's more to this classification lark than just species you know.
I know they are just labels, but people like labeling things even when there is a bit of a blurry line between things.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by randman, posted 10-23-2005 4:51 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by randman, posted 10-23-2005 5:32 PM halucigenia has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 212 of 304 (254263)
10-23-2005 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 209 by RAZD
10-23-2005 5:11 PM


Re: Randman and denial.
First off, groups evolve, not individuals. So even asking a question such as the following shows a profound ignorance of ToE.
Do you deny that each individual within the group is different from each other individual within the group?
As far as your other points, any exceptions to the rule just illustrate the rule even more. Life is not a spectrum because onyl discrete groups can interbreed, or reproduce.
Are there very, very tiny exceptions to the rule, such as ring species? sure.
Do they change the rule or statistically change the fact that groups can only interbreed within discrete groups?
Not at all.
I am sorry you guys are either too proud or ignorant to concede this point, but the simple fact is life is not a spectrum at all. For example, there is no other species humans can mate with and produce fertile offspring. Same goes for the vast majority of species, and even within the overlapping exceptions such as ring species, the general principle holds true. There is no spectrum, just discrete groupings.
This message has been edited by randman, 10-23-2005 05:29 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by RAZD, posted 10-23-2005 5:11 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by RAZD, posted 10-23-2005 6:35 PM randman has replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 213 of 304 (254266)
10-23-2005 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 210 by randman
10-23-2005 5:17 PM


Some questions
You were asked clear and specific questions. You don't have a clue about an answer do you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by randman, posted 10-23-2005 5:17 PM randman has not replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 214 of 304 (254267)
10-23-2005 5:32 PM
Reply to: Message 211 by halucigenia
10-23-2005 5:26 PM


Re: More species misconceptions
You are using labels and language to blur reality. Take a step back and see how true and simple this is.
Creatures can only mate or reproduce within a certain group. End of story.
Humans have no near spectrum species or groups we can mate with. Same is true for the vast majority of creatures. We've gotten into the business of cross-breeding within these groups, and calling different aspects of these groups species when probably it would be better to label the whoel group species.
If you define "species" as the group animals can interbreed with, you have very little overlap. The spectrum analogy is a myth obfuscating the facts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by halucigenia, posted 10-23-2005 5:26 PM halucigenia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by Yaro, posted 10-23-2005 5:48 PM randman has replied
 Message 224 by halucigenia, posted 10-23-2005 6:36 PM randman has replied

coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 477 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 215 of 304 (254268)
10-23-2005 5:33 PM
Reply to: Message 192 by Buzsaw
10-23-2005 10:14 AM


Re: Majority Accomodates Themselves
buzsaw writes:
There needs to be some term for designating between intra-species adjustments and bonafide transitional evolutionary progress.
Because the distinction between the two variably types of changes are always in the grey area.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by Buzsaw, posted 10-23-2005 10:14 AM Buzsaw has not replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 216 of 304 (254271)
10-23-2005 5:44 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by mark24
10-23-2005 12:05 PM


Re: Well done - clear and concise
MARK, none of your following questions are germane the discussion.
"What is the geographical range of a potential transitional population?;
What is the population size of a potential transitional population?;
What percentage of a population, if any, live in habitats that are conducive to fossilisation?;
What is the chance of any given individual fossilising in any given habitat?;
What is the range in time of a potential transitional population?;"
The reason being is over geologic time, even though there is no evidence for the ansers to these questions for the vast majority of species evos claim since in reality there is no evidence the species ever existed in the first place, but we can look at known facts and do comparisons.
For example, evolution involves the introduction of changes to lfie one earth, right?
So we can view any range of differences within life and compare that range with numbers of species. Looking at whales, it would be appropiate look at the range of differences in living whales, and look to see if those distinquishing features are well-represented in the fossil record, which they are.
Then, we can view other mammals such as horses with their known or considered to be known immediate transitional forms, or you can look at various other mammals. Looking at horses, we see a 29 to 1 ration between immediate ancestral forms within a very right range of similarity/differences to modern horses.
Why are these type of comparisons valid?
Because unlike most evo thinking, this kind of thinking compares actual facts and observed data with each other.
So according to ToE models, there should be exponential growth of previous species the larger the range of differences. If it took a couple of thousand very whale-like species to lead to modern whales, it probably took a couple of million before that to lead to the 2000 forms, and this is because evolution is not considered to proceed as straight line but to many various dead-end branches.
Evos want us to accept that it is reasonable that we see no trace of 99.9% of these branches, and yet see tons of fossils for the .01% of these branches.
Another, more reasonable explanation is that using .01% of the data to demand 99.9% of the data never seen is an active demonstration of the human imagination, but poor science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by mark24, posted 10-23-2005 12:05 PM mark24 has not replied

Yaro
Member (Idle past 6496 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 217 of 304 (254273)
10-23-2005 5:48 PM
Reply to: Message 214 by randman
10-23-2005 5:32 PM


Re: More species misconceptions
So... what about worms? They are asexual. Where does your definition of species leave them?
This message has been edited by Yaro, 10-23-2005 05:48 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by randman, posted 10-23-2005 5:32 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by randman, posted 10-23-2005 5:55 PM Yaro has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 218 of 304 (254275)
10-23-2005 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 217 by Yaro
10-23-2005 5:48 PM


Re: More species misconceptions
First off, I used the term reproduce or interbreed, but more importantly, I am not trying to engage in definitions and semantic arguments. The process is the process irregardless if words and definition exist at all.
Take a step back and try to envision what occurs in reality instead of debating semantics. In reality, groups interbreed or reproduce within the same group.
Certainly, there are LIMITED exceptions where, for example, one can breed various plants together, but even there, there is still a discrete group involved. There is just some exceptions within that group.
I think if you were honest with yourself and took a step back to look at how groups of creatures are organized within different groups, you would see that the spectrum analogy is a poor one.
For example, I know of no other species humans can breed with.
Do you?
If the spectrum claim was accurate, we should be able to mate with our nearest species.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by Yaro, posted 10-23-2005 5:48 PM Yaro has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by Yaro, posted 10-23-2005 6:18 PM randman has replied
 Message 225 by halucigenia, posted 10-23-2005 6:52 PM randman has replied

Yaro
Member (Idle past 6496 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 219 of 304 (254281)
10-23-2005 6:18 PM
Reply to: Message 218 by randman
10-23-2005 5:55 PM


Re: More species misconceptions
In reality, groups interbreed or reproduce within the same group.
To a large degree this is true, however there are many notable exceptions. Someone mentioned ring species earlier. And despite your belief that this is somehow rare, you would be incorrect. Such anomalies are found throughout the spectrum of biology.
Insects that change their sex, or have multiple reproductive cycles. For example, aphids sometimes reproduce viviparous or oviparous depending on the time of year.
Certainly, there are LIMITED exceptions where, for example, one can breed various plants together, but even there, there is still a discrete group involved. There is just some exceptions within that group.
BS. There is no such thing as LIMITED exceptions, the whole of the biosphere is an exception. You see things too black and white, the fact is every organism, group of organism, and individual is peculiar in it's own right. Taxonomy paints a very broad brush and isn't always perfect at capturing those intricacies.
I think if you were honest with yourself and took a step back to look at how groups of creatures are organized within different groups, you would see that the spectrum analogy is a poor one.
It isn't.
Where does squirrel end and where does squirrel begin?
For example, I know of no other species humans can breed with.
Do you?
Ya, chimps. It's highly likely we can interbreed, the only reason we haven't is probably for obvious ethical reasons.
If the spectrum claim was accurate, we should be able to mate with our nearest species.
Humanzee.
This message has been edited by Yaro, 10-23-2005 06:19 PM
This message has been edited by Yaro, 10-23-2005 06:25 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by randman, posted 10-23-2005 5:55 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 220 by jar, posted 10-23-2005 6:23 PM Yaro has replied
 Message 226 by randman, posted 10-23-2005 7:24 PM Yaro has not replied

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


Message 220 of 304 (254282)
10-23-2005 6:23 PM
Reply to: Message 219 by Yaro
10-23-2005 6:18 PM


Re: More species misconceptions
If the spectrum claim is true would it also not depend on where we are in terms of distance from the last common ancestor?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by Yaro, posted 10-23-2005 6:18 PM Yaro has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by Yaro, posted 10-23-2005 6:25 PM jar has replied
 Message 227 by randman, posted 10-23-2005 7:28 PM jar has replied

Yaro
Member (Idle past 6496 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 221 of 304 (254283)
10-23-2005 6:25 PM
Reply to: Message 220 by jar
10-23-2005 6:23 PM


Re: More species misconceptions
yes, definetly.
ABE: That is, the farther away we are the more different the color.
This message has been edited by Yaro, 10-23-2005 06:26 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by jar, posted 10-23-2005 6:23 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by jar, posted 10-23-2005 6:27 PM Yaro has replied
 Message 228 by randman, posted 10-23-2005 7:29 PM Yaro has not replied

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


Message 222 of 304 (254284)
10-23-2005 6:27 PM
Reply to: Message 221 by Yaro
10-23-2005 6:25 PM


Re: More species misconceptions
So is there is any reason within the spectrum analogy to expect that a species would be able to breed with it's closest related species?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by Yaro, posted 10-23-2005 6:25 PM Yaro has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by randman, posted 10-23-2005 7:32 PM jar has not replied
 Message 236 by Yaro, posted 10-23-2005 8:06 PM jar has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 223 of 304 (254285)
10-23-2005 6:35 PM
Reply to: Message 212 by randman
10-23-2005 5:28 PM


Re: Randman and denial.
I am sorry you guys are either too proud or ignorant to concede this point,
ah the randman ad hominem.
First off, groups evolve, not individuals. So even asking a question such as the following shows a profound ignorance of ToE.
ROFLOL. Too bad I noticed that you did NOT answer the question asked. Denial is like that.
As far as your other points, any exceptions to the rule just illustrate the rule even more.
The logical basis of that statement is just stunning, randman, stunning in it's total lack of being a real answer to the qestions asked. Thanks for another chuckle.
Are there very, very tiny exceptions to the rule, such as ring species? sure.
Or in other words, what you cannot deny you must seek to minimize as much as possible.
Let me put it this way:
(1) You did not deny that there is variation between individuals within a population of any species such that each individual is different: variation is readily observable.
(This, of course, is the basis for the operation of selection on evolving populations, for if there was no variation between individuals then either all would survive or all would perish)
(2) You did not deny that speciation has in fact occured.
(This has, of course been observed in several instances so denial would be foolish eh?)
(3) You did not deny that the ring species actually shows the process of completely gradual gradation from one form of a species to another form to another form to another form ... until the end forms do not interbreed.
(4) You did not deny that this is, in fact, an example of just the spectrum of life that you previously called "incredible nonsense!"
But at the end you claim (repeat):
randman in denial writes:
There is no spectrum, just discrete groupings.
Let me repeat -- do you deny:
(1) that variation between individuals exists within the populations of species?
(2) that speciation has been observed?
(3) that the greenish warblers show the gradation between forms that interbreed until a point is reached where two forms do not interbreed?
(4)that the greenish warblers show a very clear spectrum of life that diverges until two components no longer interbreed?
Now let me add one more to the list:
(5) that the variation shown by the greenish warblers in space is no different than the variation shown by other species in time: two populations diverging until a point is reached where two forms do not interbreed?
The evidence is there, it is that simple, do you deny it?
(ps - so much for my "profound ignorance of ToE" - LOL)
{edited to correct spelling "to populations'}
This message has been edited by RAZD, 10*23*2005 06:37 PM

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by randman, posted 10-23-2005 5:28 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by randman, posted 10-23-2005 7:36 PM RAZD has replied

halucigenia
Inactive Member


Message 224 of 304 (254286)
10-23-2005 6:36 PM
Reply to: Message 214 by randman
10-23-2005 5:32 PM


Re: More species misconceptions
You are using labels and language to blur reality
Sorry, but it's the reality that's blurry, we use labels and language to try and make sense of it.
.Creatures can only mate or reproduce within a certain group. End of story.
This is just dependant on how you define that group. I would define that such group to be somewhere between species and subfamily for some organisms, but it need not correspond exactly to either, if you want to define your own grouping based on this criteria go ahead, it's just another label, trying to define that elusive blurry reality.
Humans have no near spectrum species or groups we can mate with
maybe we do but I doubt that the experiment will be conducted.
If you define "species" as the group animals can interbreed with, you have very little overlap.
But you do have overlap, that's the problem with trying to classify something that does involve a spectrum.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by randman, posted 10-23-2005 5:32 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by randman, posted 10-23-2005 7:44 PM halucigenia has not replied

halucigenia
Inactive Member


Message 225 of 304 (254289)
10-23-2005 6:52 PM
Reply to: Message 218 by randman
10-23-2005 5:55 PM


Re: More species misconceptions
For example, I know of no other species humans can breed with.
Do you?
If the spectrum claim was accurate, we should be able to mate with our nearest species.
Closest species, in time, that would be the last Homo sp. I bet we could.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by randman, posted 10-23-2005 5:55 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by randman, posted 10-23-2005 7:56 PM halucigenia 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