Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-18-2019 3:41 AM
20 online now:
Meddle, Tangle (2 members, 18 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 853,983 Year: 9,019/19,786 Month: 1,441/2,119 Week: 201/576 Day: 4/98 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
3456
...
14NextFF
Author Topic:   evolutionary chain
Christian
Member (Idle past 4420 days)
Posts: 157
Joined: 10-16-2005


Message 16 of 204 (255860)
10-31-2005 6:19 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by crashfrog
10-28-2005 8:36 PM


Evolution gives rise to trees, not chains. Thinking of organisms in terms of chains of development is of fairly limited use.

It seems pretty useful to me. It's very useful to show evidence of decendence. For example, in biblical geneologies, they start with one guy, We'll call him "A" for the purpose of illustration. Then they say "A" begot "B" and "B" begot "C" and "C" begot "D", etc. This shows that "D" is truly a decendant of "A". In our case, though, we don't know exactly which animals decended from which because we weren't there, so we have to speculate. But it would be very useful to try to piece together actual chains. In any case, if we do have trees, shouldn't you be able to find chains on the trees?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by crashfrog, posted 10-28-2005 8:36 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Lammy, posted 10-31-2005 6:40 PM Christian has responded
 Message 20 by crashfrog, posted 10-31-2005 6:44 PM Christian has responded

    
Lammy
Member (Idle past 19 days)
Posts: 3607
From: Chicago
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 17 of 204 (255869)
10-31-2005 6:40 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Christian
10-31-2005 6:19 PM


Are you saying that guy A only begot B and B only begot and B only begot C and etc.?

If this was the case, the world population wouldn't have increased at all through the ages. You have a very limited view of reality.

Think of it this way. How many second cousins do you have? How many third cousins do you have? Now, add in all the ones that you have lost contact. Now, add in all the ones that you don't know about. Now, multiply that by a billion. Do you still want to call it a chain?

Evolution is best viewed as a bush, just like your family. I highly doubt that your great grandfather only had 1 child and his father only had 1 child and his father only had 1 child and etc.

christian writes:

In any case, if we do have trees, shouldn't you be able to find chains on the trees?


If every living creature that ever existed got fossilized, yes. Again, what you are asking for is not reality. Fossilization is extremely rare and the ones that actually got fossilized and survived to this day is even rarer.

How would you like it if I demand the skeletal remains of every person in your family going back 100 generations?

This message has been edited by Lam, 10-31-2005 06:43 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Christian, posted 10-31-2005 6:19 PM Christian has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Christian, posted 11-03-2005 6:07 PM Lammy has responded

    
Christian
Member (Idle past 4420 days)
Posts: 157
Joined: 10-16-2005


Message 18 of 204 (255870)
10-31-2005 6:42 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by crashfrog
10-28-2005 8:36 PM


I thought I already answered this but I can't find my answer so I'm doing it again. If I've done it twice, sorry.

Evolution gives rise to trees, not chains. Thinking of organisms in terms of chains of development is of fairly limited use. You wouldn't bother to think of your own ancestry in terms of a "family chain" leading from some arbitrary great-great-grandparent down to you; it's much more useful to consider your family as a tree, because it connects you to your cousins and uncles, as well as your direct ancestors.

But I'm not so interested in who you think my cousins are. I'm a whole lot more interested in who you think my ancestors were and why you think they were my ancestors. So for our purposes, I think a chain would be a lot more useful. Anyway, if we have trees, can't we find chains on the trees? If I look at my own family tree, I can find out who my grandfather, great-grandfather, great-great grandfather...etc. were.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by crashfrog, posted 10-28-2005 8:36 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

    
Christian
Member (Idle past 4420 days)
Posts: 157
Joined: 10-16-2005


Message 19 of 204 (255871)
10-31-2005 6:44 PM


I guess I did post two replies to that, oops.
    
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 204 (255872)
10-31-2005 6:44 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Christian
10-31-2005 6:19 PM


It's very useful to show evidence of decendence.

But that's not how descendance works. Families expand, not descend. Just like evolution, pretty much.

For example, in biblical geneologies, they start with one guy, We'll call him "A" for the purpose of illustration. Then they say "A" begot "B" and "B" begot "C" and "C" begot "D", etc. This shows that "D" is truly a decendant of "A".

1) The Bible geneologies are fictitious.
2) The Bible geneologies are strictly paternal and primogenitural; they're not true geneologies because they leave out almost all of the family.

But it would be very useful to try to piece together actual chains.

Why? What use would you get that you wouldn't get from the whole picture? Why hobble yourself?

In any case, if we do have trees, shouldn't you be able to find chains on the trees?

Only by working backwards. If you want to work forwards, you need to be thinking in trees.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Christian, posted 10-31-2005 6:19 PM Christian has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Christian, posted 11-03-2005 6:37 PM crashfrog has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19869
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 21 of 204 (255907)
10-31-2005 8:48 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Christian
10-31-2005 6:07 PM


could these animals actually have evolved from each other?

Do you mean one individual directly from another individual? Highly unlikely event, and not necessary. Each generation descends from the previous one, and each individual is a representative of its generation. We can compare human skeletons over the last 4,000 years and note changes over that time (due to diet, climate, changing racial characteristics, etc), but we do not need them to be directly related to do so.

If you mean did one species evolve from another then the answer is yes, but not unequivocally, and again not necessarily directly.

It is possible for a species in the group to be a cousin species to the actual line of descent, (the way Neanderthals are cousin species to Homo sapiens). This would only be determined by uncovering more specimens until we determined (as occurred with Neanderthals) that one of the originals is on a branch from the main line instead of on it.

There could also easily be an intermediate specimen or more between any two fossils that have been found, just as there are intermediates between you and your great-great-great-great grandparents, but you don't need to know that level to know that your generation descended from theirs.

Does this invalidate the picture of gradual transition from point {A} to point {B} that we see based on the current knowledge?

If so, could you give me the chain of actual animals that could've evolved from each other

Again, if you want an individual {A} begat individual {B} begat individual {C} in the fossil record then the answer is no. We would also never know if we did uncover two specimens how closely they were related even if found together unless it were extraordinary circumstances.

If you want a species {A} begat species {B} begat species {C}, then the answer is that we have such a list -- although I don't have such a specific species by species list -- based on the fossil evidence that is available. This might make an interesting topic to research for someone interested in the actual sequences.

But, there certainly are ones listed in the article that one can place in a rough chronology from the context.

How this "link by link chain" would actually help you is another question. We have a gradual transition of specific features over a given time period going from point {A} to point {B} - but how those fossils are divided into "species" is rather arbitrary and based on human interpretation of accumulated differences. There is even the arbitrary dividing line between "reptile" side of the transition (Therapsid) and "mammal" side of the divide (Morganucodonts), where the ones each side of the "dividing line" have the same level of change as between them and the next species away from the dividing line, both of the "borderline" species having a double jointed jaw.

We make the distinctions of species to aid in our description of what is happening. Nature has no need to do so -- all that is needed is breeding, change in population characteristics over time, and natural selection of {survival\reproduction} enhancing features.

If you could take a snapshot of each ancestor of any human individual back 70 million years and play them like a time-lapse 'movie' you would see a gradual transition, a morphing of characteristics, back to the point where the final ancestor in the series would look something like a small four-legged mammal with a longish snout and a tail. Where does one species end and the other begin?

How goes the {age dating correlations} study?


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 15 by Christian, posted 10-31-2005 6:07 PM Christian has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 202 by RAZD, posted 12-20-2006 7:39 PM RAZD has not yet responded

  
Christian
Member (Idle past 4420 days)
Posts: 157
Joined: 10-16-2005


Message 22 of 204 (256555)
11-03-2005 6:07 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Lammy
10-31-2005 6:40 PM


Are you saying that guy A only begot B and B only begot and B only begot C and etc.?

Of course not.

Think of it this way. How many second cousins do you have? How many third cousins do you have? Now, add in all the ones that you have lost contact. Now, add in all the ones that you don't know about. Now, multiply that by a billion. Do you still want to call it a chain?

I'm not calling it a chain. I'm asking for a chain. It seems pretty clear to me that on any tree, there would also be chains you could follow. Let me say again that I am not asking for definite ancestors, only plausible ancestors, I'm even ok with a few missing links. I would simply like to see a chain of ancestry. For example, tell me who the most recent ancestor of the turtle was that had no shell, and then fill in the gap between no shell and shell. But what I don't want is a list of half-shelled species that couldn't have evolved from each other. Rather, fill in the gaps with some sort of plausible chain of actual species of animals that might possibly have evolved from each other. If there aren't chains like this, then I don't know how anyone could possibly say that the fossil record is evidence for evolution.

If every living creature that ever existed got fossilized, yes. Again, what you are asking for is not reality. Fossilization is extremely rare and the ones that actually got fossilized and survived to this day is even rarer.

Maybe you can tell me what percentage of species living today are seen in the fossil record.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Lammy, posted 10-31-2005 6:40 PM Lammy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Lammy, posted 11-04-2005 2:00 AM Christian has responded
 Message 26 by NosyNed, posted 11-04-2005 2:17 AM Christian has responded
 Message 28 by mark24, posted 11-04-2005 3:58 AM Christian has responded
 Message 30 by mick, posted 11-04-2005 9:10 PM Christian has responded

    
Christian
Member (Idle past 4420 days)
Posts: 157
Joined: 10-16-2005


Message 23 of 204 (256569)
11-03-2005 6:37 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by crashfrog
10-31-2005 6:44 PM


But that's not how descendance works. Families expand, not descend. Just like evolution, pretty much.

Right, but within that expansion there are chains. My husband, for example, can trace his geneology for 14 generations by looking at his family tree. He could draw it as a huge, complicated bush, or he could write it as a chain starting with a great-great-great...grandparent and ending with himself. Yes, that leaves out a lot of family members, but it shows who his direct ancestors were.

1) The Bible geneologies are fictitious.

Highly unlikely since the people back then knew who their relatives were and if the geneologies were fictitious, people would've had something to say about it. However this has very little to do with the topic.

2) The Bible geneologies are strictly paternal and primogenitural; they're not true geneologies because they leave out almost all of the family.

most of the family is left out on purpose to simplify the geneologies. Simplifying the geneologies is useful to show more clearly who the ancestors were. That may not be why the women were left out, but that's also a whole other topic.

Why? What use would you get that you wouldn't get from the whole picture? Why hobble yourself?

With a simple chain I could look at each species and determine if I agree that it is plausible that this species evolved from the previous one. I'd rather not be "hobbled" by a huge bush when all I need is a chain.

Only by working backwards. If you want to work forwards, you need to be thinking in trees.

Well, It's lovely to look forward and imagine the tree of ancestors I will have, but it does very little to prove or disprove evolution. So lets work backwards.

P.S. I haven't answered your posts on intelegent design for two reasons.
1)I'm kind of caught up with this thread and the one about the age of the earth right now.
2)You've stumped me for the time being and I'm going to have to do some more research before I can answer you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by crashfrog, posted 10-31-2005 6:44 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Omnivorous, posted 11-03-2005 10:49 PM Christian has not yet responded
 Message 31 by mick, posted 11-04-2005 9:37 PM Christian has not yet responded
 Message 40 by crashfrog, posted 11-05-2005 12:19 PM Christian has not yet responded
 Message 41 by Yaro, posted 11-05-2005 2:14 PM Christian has not yet responded

    
Omnivorous
Member (Idle past 1132 days)
Posts: 3808
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005


Message 24 of 204 (256650)
11-03-2005 10:49 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Christian
11-03-2005 6:37 PM


People saying something about it...
Hi, Christian.

Christian writes:

1) The Bible geneologies are fictitious.

Highly unlikely since the people back then knew who their relatives were and if the geneologies were fictitious, people would've had something to say about it.

And where would they have recorded what they had to say about it? I don't think those comments would make it into the Bible. I'm sure you already appreciate the irony of attempting to refute someone who has something to say about it with this particular unsupported assertion.

Also, DNA tests have shown that a significant percentage of presumed paternity is in error, as I'm sure it was then. Your husbands 14 apparent forefathers almost certainly include a cuckold or two; the genes of a female ancestor may be all that keeps him in that family tree.

Simplifying the geneologies is useful to show more clearly who the ancestors were.

You mean, "who the ancestors {considered important} were," since I presume that when you say your husband traces "great-great-great...grandparent and ending with himself" you mean "grandfather."

Purely on a logical basis, I don't understand why a fraction of the truth is clearer than the full truth.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Christian, posted 11-03-2005 6:37 PM Christian has not yet responded

    
Lammy
Member (Idle past 19 days)
Posts: 3607
From: Chicago
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 25 of 204 (256686)
11-04-2005 2:00 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Christian
11-03-2005 6:07 PM


Christian writes:

Maybe you can tell me what percentage of species living today are seen in the fossil record.


Again, you are asking for something from fantasy land.

Maybe you can tell me what percentage of people living today are decendants of people that have been recorded in history.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Christian, posted 11-03-2005 6:07 PM Christian has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Christian, posted 11-08-2005 6:02 PM Lammy has not yet responded

    
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8842
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 26 of 204 (256687)
11-04-2005 2:17 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Christian
11-03-2005 6:07 PM


Chains you've been given
I think you've been given half a dozen chains in this thread. What problem do you have with those you've been given?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Christian, posted 11-03-2005 6:07 PM Christian has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Christian, posted 11-08-2005 6:00 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
today9823 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 27 of 204 (256694)
11-04-2005 3:45 AM


creation power

Off Topic. Do not reply to this post.

I figure it's about the power level of creation within you! You can change with this ability to create something whithin yourself! Although to raise the creation power within you... you must learn from God!

Love Richard

This message has been edited by AdminJar, 11-04-2005 08:48 AM


Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by AdminNosy, posted 11-04-2005 9:36 AM today9823 has responded

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 3359 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 28 of 204 (256696)
11-04-2005 3:58 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Christian
11-03-2005 6:07 PM


Christian,

Maybe you can tell me what percentage of species living today are seen in the fossil record.

Given the number of living species known in the fossil record is near zero, the figure is probably very low. Take passenger pigeons, for example. They numbered in their billions at any given time, not a single fossil example is known to us.

Mark


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Christian, posted 11-03-2005 6:07 PM Christian has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Christian, posted 11-14-2005 5:02 PM mark24 has not yet responded

    
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 29 of 204 (256747)
11-04-2005 9:36 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by today9823
11-04-2005 3:45 AM


Topic
Hi, again Richard. As noted in another thread you're supposed to stay on topic. Thanks.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by today9823, posted 11-04-2005 3:45 AM today9823 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by today9823, posted 11-05-2005 6:04 AM AdminNosy has not yet responded

  
mick
Member (Idle past 3150 days)
Posts: 913
Joined: 02-17-2005


Message 30 of 204 (256972)
11-04-2005 9:10 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Christian
11-03-2005 6:07 PM


Christian writes:


I'm not calling it a chain. I'm asking for a chain. It seems pretty clear to me that on any tree, there would also be chains you could follow. Let me say again that I am not asking for definite ancestors, only plausible ancestors, I'm even ok with a few missing links. I would simply like to see a chain of ancestry.

Here you go.

Cheers

Mick

edited to give clearer picture

This message has been edited by mick, 11-04-2005 09:15 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Christian, posted 11-03-2005 6:07 PM Christian has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by today9823, posted 11-05-2005 6:15 AM mick has not yet responded
 Message 35 by Lithodid-Man, posted 11-05-2005 6:18 AM mick has responded
 Message 37 by Minnemooseus, posted 11-05-2005 10:06 AM mick has responded
 Message 64 by Christian, posted 11-14-2005 5:12 PM mick has not yet responded
 Message 66 by randman, posted 11-14-2005 5:45 PM mick has not yet responded

  
Prev1
2
3456
...
14NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019