Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-24-2019 11:48 AM
39 online now:
AZPaul3, Coragyps, dwise1, edge, FLRW, JonF, ooh-child, Tanypteryx, Theodoric (9 members, 30 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 850,154 Year: 5,191/19,786 Month: 1,313/873 Week: 209/460 Day: 25/29 Hour: 3/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
3456
...
15NextFF
Author Topic:   Is evolution of mammals finished?
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19819
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 16 of 213 (384004)
02-09-2007 6:47 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by PaulK
02-09-2007 8:23 AM


trees, forests, and bushes
Order is above Family, which is above Genus. (There are a confusing array of subclassifications but that's the basic situation).

Which is "above" species ... (whatever "above" means here).

But what is the real difference between them? At what point does a change from the difference between species and genus become the difference between genus and family, etc?

There is no weak and wavering rule (to say nothing about hard and fast) regarding these classifications, no relation of "genus" > m "non-arbitrary speciations"(1), "family" > n "geniations" etc.

(1) where "non-arbitrary speciations" means divergence into two or more daughter populations that are non-arbitrary because they don't interbreed, versus "arbitrary speciation" which is species classification in time lumps (and we don't know if they are really non-breeding due to lapsed time between populations).

All classifications above species are really arbitrary human impressions of how much difference they include, how many different species are involved and the time frames involved.

One could also group species by {time lumps} from common ancestors - every species that is descended from a common ancestor population in the last 10 million years (say) are in the same genus, all those that are descended from a common ancestor population in the last 30 million years (say) are in the same family, all those that are descended from a common ancestor population in the last 90 million years (say) are in the same order, etcetera, ...

... and you would end up with a similar arrangement of species into genus and family and order etcetera, but one much less susceptible to the arbitrary ego of man.

"Why are there no new orders" is the basic question of this thread, and to answer that properly one needs to know how "order" is\was defined -- and the answer is that it was done rather arbitrarily for the convenience of humans studying the ancestry of life.

There are no new "orders" because we have not chosen to reorder or re-evaluate these divisions, NOT because evolution has stopped.

This is also part of why creationists don't understand "macro"evolution, but that's a horse of a different collar.

Enjoy.


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by PaulK, posted 02-09-2007 8:23 AM PaulK has not yet responded

Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5622
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006


Message 17 of 213 (384073)
02-09-2007 10:42 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by MartinV
02-08-2007 4:50 PM


Evolutions precipice
So I see Broom's observation that "evolutionary clock has so completely run down" as the well supported claim nowadays too. Interpretation of the fact that no new mammalian Order aroused during huge time period from Eocene and that mammalian diversity generally seems to be fading instead suggests some "predetermined internal factors" behind evolution and no RM and NS as darwinists suppose.

I am in no way in favor of evolution, however, strictly from a hypothetical point of view, if evolution is true then there would be virtually a near limitless abundance of genetic variability.

I think the problem with evolution is not that it will hit a wall, but that it never had the chance to climb over the wall to begin with... so to speak.

I believe there is a limit on the speed of beneficial evolution that hits a wall, which thus, would render evolution on a macro scale impossible. In other words, there is a cost substitution problem associated with the possible variables of allelic expression through genetic drift.

I wrote up a similar thread (Population Genetics) a few months back that perhaps you might appreciate.


"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by MartinV, posted 02-08-2007 4:50 PM MartinV has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by crashfrog, posted 02-10-2007 1:23 AM Hyroglyphx has responded
 Message 19 by RAZD, posted 02-10-2007 8:20 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 213 (384097)
02-10-2007 1:23 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Hyroglyphx
02-09-2007 10:42 PM


Re: Evolutions precipice
I am in no way in favor of evolution, however, strictly from a hypothetical point of view, if evolution is true then there would be virtually a near limitless abundance of genetic variability.

I'm sort of curious what you mean by "variability." Like, what is it, and how would we measure it? Do you consider it a property of individuals or of species or populations? Is it different than diversity?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-09-2007 10:42 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-11-2007 11:40 AM crashfrog has responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 19819
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 19 of 213 (384139)
02-10-2007 8:20 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Hyroglyphx
02-09-2007 10:42 PM


Re: Evolutions precipice versus Creations Blank Stare
I believe there is a limit on the speed of beneficial evolution that hits a wall, which thus, would render evolution on a macro scale impossible. In other words, there is a cost substitution problem associated with the possible variables of allelic expression through genetic drift.

First your strawman only lists one way of changing the frequency of alleles, thus it is incomplete and does not constitute any kind of answer.

Please define "macro"evolution - so we can be sure we are (a) talking about evolution and (b) we are talking about the same thing.

Also define "micro"evolution just to be sure we are talking about something different.

It should be easy eh?.

I asked the same question of Oliver on Why Evolution is science and he fluffed off with:

Message 198
Micro, as in variation and adaptation.
Macro, as in complete change fronm one creature into another.
Thanks..

Which neither addresses time frame nor degree of change involved. My answer to him is at Message 200, and you can feel free to respond there or to dodge the question.

What is the "macro"evolutionary change from Genus to Family? Family to Order? When does it occur? What is different about those levels of change and the one from Species to Genus?

What do the classifications of species into different "Genus" "Family" "Order" etcetera groupings really mean?

Enjoy.


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-09-2007 10:42 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

MartinV 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3938 days)
Posts: 502
From: Slovakia, Bratislava
Joined: 08-28-2006


Message 20 of 213 (384365)
02-11-2007 9:43 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Chiroptera
02-09-2007 4:41 PM


Re: Robert Broom

Huh. So Broom was a Lamarckian. Interesting.

Broom believed that evolution is directed by spiritual forces. I don't see connection with Lamarck's thesis that organism can pass on characteristics it acquired during its lifetime to its offspring.


There were probably many empty niches in the oceans -- I
believe that the KT-extinction hit marine life harder than land life, but I'm not sure.

And might be there were no vacant niches in the oceans at all. Yet land mammals pushed back all species from their "local maximums" there. Might be that on the land there were much more emtied niches as in the ocean at that time and yet the evolution was driven in some cases by internal forces to the sea whatever it cost.


I bet that in examining the fossil record one would see an increase in new orders in all surviving classes at this time, including among fish, crabs, and whatever.

Anyway I have never heard about adaptive radiation of water species during the period discussed. The greatest adaptive radiation in the ocean I know about occured during cambrian explosion. So preliminary I would not bet a nickel on it.


Those better adapted to a more purely aquatic life would not fare as well as the present pinnipeds, those better adapted to a more tererrestrial environment would not do any better either.

How do you know? Maybe they would.


Maybe the niches were already filled. There was no more room for new entrants.

And maybe not. Maybe just evolutionary potentiality of Pinnipedia became exhausted.


My guess is that after human race has run its course, the end result of the mass extinction which we have produced will be that the relatively few remaining species will again undergo radiative adaptation, and we would (if we were around to observe it) the rise of many more new orders.

And my guess is the opposite one. There will be no adaptive radiation of mammals anymore (like there was no other saurians radiation after K/T). My guess is what we would find is what we already know just now. I guess we will see no changes (except thick and color of the fur of rats.) No way we would see any new species or even families.

Edited by MartinV, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Chiroptera, posted 02-09-2007 4:41 PM Chiroptera has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Chiroptera, posted 02-11-2007 10:39 AM MartinV has responded
 Message 32 by Lithodid-Man, posted 02-16-2007 9:06 PM MartinV has responded

Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6532
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003


Message 21 of 213 (384370)
02-11-2007 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by MartinV
02-11-2007 9:43 AM


Re: Robert Broom
quote:
Broom believed that evolution is directed by spiritual forces. I don't see connection with Lamarck's thesis that organism can pass on characteristics it acquired during its lifetime to its offspring.

Because you don't know what Lamarck's theory was.

Broom's evolutionary theory is based on the existence of some sort of 'intelligent spiritual agency' of two types: a) the lower agency, present in animals and plants, of limited vision and limited power, and b) that of a much higher type which has planned and directed evolution (via directing from time to time the former, inferior agencies).

This is a pretty good, but short, description of Lamarck's theory. Except that he felt that the two agencies could be explained through naturalistic means rather than "intelligent spiritual" ones. The acquisition of acquired characteristics was a common belief at the time, shared by Darwin as well, and was accepted as "folk wisdom" until modern genetics showed it to be wrong.

-

quote:
And might be there were no vacant niches in the oceans at all. Yet land mammals pushed back all species from their "local maximums" there.

So "there might be no vacant niches" becomes "land mammals did push back all species".

Anyway, as long as there might be vacant niches, then there would be no other species to be "pushed back" and natural selection has not been discredited as an explanation for the observed phenomenon.

-

quote:
Anyway I have never heard about adaptive radiation of water species during the period discussed.

So go read up on the evolution of post-KT marine life and report back to us on what you find.

-

quote:
Maybe they would.

Maybe. But as long as "maybe not" natural selection has not been discredited as the best explanation.

-

quote:
Maybe just evolutionary potentiality of Pinnipedia became exhausted.

Maybe. But as long as there is a "maybe not" natural selection has not been discredited as the best explanation.

-

quote:
And my guess is the opposite one.

Cool. So we can both write our own science fiction books without fear of plagiarizing each other.


This world can take my money and time/ But it sure can't take my soul. -- Joe Ely
This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by MartinV, posted 02-11-2007 9:43 AM MartinV has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by MartinV, posted 02-16-2007 2:49 PM Chiroptera has responded

derwood
Member
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 22 of 213 (384381)
02-11-2007 11:21 AM


So, is this thread about Broom's personal beliefs from 50-70 years ago, or is it about the evolution of mammals supposedly stopping and thus propping up one of Davison's supposed claims?
  
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5622
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006


Message 23 of 213 (384387)
02-11-2007 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by crashfrog
02-10-2007 1:23 AM


Re: Evolutions precipice
I'm sort of curious what you mean by "variability." Like, what is it, and how would we measure it?

Hmmmm? I don't know if you can really quantify variability in linear terms, because with every passing generation, there is always going to be some shuffling of extant genes, some mutations along the way, and so on. And since almost every organism is unique in some capacity, there is always some variability.

Do you consider it a property of individuals or of species or populations?

Well, it starts on the individual level, and we could have different expressions found in a peripheral population that finds itself isolated from the main populace. The question is whether enough favorable mutations x natural selection can support or account for the amount of diversity we currently see found on earth.

In a static population where the reproduction rate is slow (by slow, I mean they don't produce much progeny: i.e. humans) the ration of fixed genes would be 1:300 because of cost substitution. Organisms of "bad stock" or "low fitness" would prevail, even in spite of natural selection.

"Imagine a population of 100,000 of those organisms quietly evolving their way to humanity. For easy visualization, I'll have you imagine a scenario that favors rapid evolution. Imagine evolution happens like this. Every generation, one male and one female receive a beneficial mutation so advantageous that the 999,998 others die off immediately, and the population is then replenished in one generation by the surviving couple. Imagine evolution happens like this, generation after generation, for ten million years. How many beneficial mutations could be substituted at this crashing pace? One per generation -- or 500,000 nucleotides. That's 0.014 percent of the genome. (That is a minuscule fraction of the 2 to 3 percent that separates us from chimpanzees)." -Ted Holden

How then can we account for all of the diversity we find?


"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis
This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by crashfrog, posted 02-10-2007 1:23 AM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by crashfrog, posted 02-11-2007 11:51 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded
 Message 25 by PaulK, posted 02-11-2007 2:59 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded
 Message 27 by iceage, posted 02-16-2007 4:25 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 213 (384390)
02-11-2007 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Hyroglyphx
02-11-2007 11:40 AM


Re: Evolutions precipice
I don't know if you can really quantify variability in linear terms

Then I don't see how talking about "more" or "less" of it makes any sense at all. As a hint, if your argument relies on your opponents showing you an increase in a quality you've just defined as unmeasurable, you're being pretty obviously disingenuous.

The question is whether enough favorable mutations x natural selection can support or account for the amount of diversity we currently see found on earth.

Well, wait. Are we talking about diversity or variability?

I know what diversity is. I don't know what variability is, and the questions I asked were designed to help me understand what it is. But you've largely side-stepped them, or admitted you don't know either, so I don't see what possible role "variability" could possibly play in this discussion.

How then can we account for all of the diversity we find?

Well, for one thing, individuals possess a lot more mutations than one single nucleotide substitution per generation. Where did you get such a ridiculously low mutation rate?

Secondly, sexual reproduction means that a population can be fixing a lot more than one single mutation per generation. Your Holden example is perhaps the worst-case scenario for allelic fixation, but he misrepresents it as the best. Another disingenuous argument from science's opponents. (Ted Holden is a well-knwon creationist dissembler, and TalkOrigins has a whole page devoted to exposing the bad faith arguments he regularly puts forth. I wouldn't rely on him a source, were I you.)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-11-2007 11:40 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

PaulK
Member
Posts: 14819
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 25 of 213 (384438)
02-11-2007 2:59 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Hyroglyphx
02-11-2007 11:40 AM


Re: Evolutions precipice
You do know that Ted Holden is not exactly a reliable source ? In fact a complete joke ?

And I beleive that I've already corrected you in earlier discussions on the point that many mutations are larger than a single nucleotide.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-11-2007 11:40 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

  
MartinV 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3938 days)
Posts: 502
From: Slovakia, Bratislava
Joined: 08-28-2006


Message 26 of 213 (385644)
02-16-2007 2:49 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Chiroptera
02-11-2007 10:39 AM


Re: Robert Broom
You mentioned Pakicetus (PAKistan CETacean - yet might be this animal from Artiodactyla Order could't swim at all) . How it happened that mammals Pakicetus and Ambulocetus overcame sharks and crocodiles that survived K/T Yucatan meteorite impact very well? Subsequnetly fully adapted sharks and crocodiles were not so apt to occupy "emptied niches" of shallow warm waters of shores?

------------------
And last but not at least I would like to add John Davison's statement:

"Niches never had anything to do with it anyway. The whole thing was planned form beginning to end just as Broom claimed."
-----------------

Dinosaurs disappeared at the boundary between the Cretaceous and Tertiary periods. Based on fossil evidence, the crocodiles showed no change in diversity or distribution across this K/T boundary.

http://skywalker.cochise.edu/wellerr/students/crocodiles/crocodiles.htm

Edited by MartinV, : No reason given.

Edited by MartinV, : No reason given.

Edited by MartinV, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Chiroptera, posted 02-11-2007 10:39 AM Chiroptera has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Chiroptera, posted 02-17-2007 5:09 PM MartinV has responded

iceage 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4024 days)
Posts: 1024
From: Pacific Northwest
Joined: 09-08-2003


Message 27 of 213 (385650)
02-16-2007 4:25 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Hyroglyphx
02-11-2007 11:40 AM


Re: Evolutions precipice
NJ writes:

You do know that Ted Holden is not exactly a reliable source

Holy Petrified Penis Batman...

Doesn't Ted Holden rhyme with Ed Conrad and spell "Man as Old as Coal"?

Truly the beavis and butthead of the creationist world.

LOL you know you are scraping the bottom when you reach for a quote by Holden or Conrad?

Holden is leading you down the garden path by trying to serialize a massively parallel process.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-11-2007 11:40 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by MartinV, posted 02-16-2007 5:16 PM iceage has not yet responded
 Message 33 by Adminnemooseus, posted 02-16-2007 9:06 PM iceage has not yet responded

MartinV 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3938 days)
Posts: 502
From: Slovakia, Bratislava
Joined: 08-28-2006


Message 28 of 213 (385654)
02-16-2007 5:16 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by iceage
02-16-2007 4:25 PM


Re: Evolutions precipice
There was no response to this thread at least for 5 days. Why do you post your response just few minutes after my post? Is it common tactic of darwinists to stifle unpleasant facts and to stray the discussion away? Using weird thoughts that have nothing to do with the main topic that my previous post adressed?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by iceage, posted 02-16-2007 4:25 PM iceage has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by AdminAsgara, posted 02-16-2007 7:36 PM MartinV has responded

AdminAsgara
Administrator (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 2073
From: The Universe
Joined: 10-11-2003


Message 29 of 213 (385681)
02-16-2007 7:36 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by MartinV
02-16-2007 5:16 PM


Re: Evolutions precipice
Hi Martin

When you post on a thread it bumps it to the top of the All Topics list, bringing it back to the attention of other members. Iceage posted almost 2 hours after you did and was not responding to you or the member you were replying to.

I really don't see your problem. A thread gets bumped back into view, a member sees it and responds to something they read there. That is how a discussion board works.


AdminAsgara Queen of the Universe

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
  • General discussion of moderation procedures

  • Thread Reopen Requests

  • Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
  • New Members: to get an understanding of what makes great posts, check out:

  • "Post of the Month Forum"

  • "Columnist's Corner" Forum
  • See also Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC, and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 28 by MartinV, posted 02-16-2007 5:16 PM MartinV has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 30 by MartinV, posted 02-16-2007 8:15 PM AdminAsgara has responded

      
    MartinV 
    Suspended Member (Idle past 3938 days)
    Posts: 502
    From: Slovakia, Bratislava
    Joined: 08-28-2006


    Message 30 of 213 (385689)
    02-16-2007 8:15 PM
    Reply to: Message 29 by AdminAsgara
    02-16-2007 7:36 PM


    Re: Evolutions precipice
    Hi AdminAsqara.

    You have written:


    Iceage posted almost 2 hours after you did and was not responding to you or the member you were replying to.

    I would say the thread was dormant 5 days. I edited my post at 01:08 today.


    Edited by MartinV, 02-16-2007 01:08 PM: No reason given

    Member "iceage" responded 17 minutes later (01:25). Out off topic I would say. The topic is End of mammalian evolution. I strictly keep the line. I am waiting for neo-darwinistic response and no for spam.

    Edited by MartinV, : No reason given.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 29 by AdminAsgara, posted 02-16-2007 7:36 PM AdminAsgara has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 31 by AdminAsgara, posted 02-16-2007 8:39 PM MartinV has not yet responded

    Prev1
    2
    3456
    ...
    15NextFF
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.0 Beta
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019