|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,915 Year: 4,172/9,624 Month: 1,043/974 Week: 2/368 Day: 2/11 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
MartinV  Suspended Member (Idle past 5859 days) Posts: 502 From: Slovakia, Bratislava Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is evolution of mammals finished? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3992 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 7.5 |
MartinV writes: quote: We discussed the issue more in details there. So it is not necessary to discuss it here in another examples. You were not asked to discuss it again. You claim to have established a fact elsewhere. None of your respondents are obliged to sift through an entire thread to find your supposedly irrefutable proof. The only reason I can see to refuse to post a link is that the supposedly irrefutable proof does not exist. When a man claims to hold all aces but will not show his hand, he loses the game. I see you failed to respond to the fact that present ecological interaction is not the sine qua non of evolutionary explanation (there, a little Latin to match your romantic German )...
Yet other conception is self-representation (die Selbstdarstellung) of species. It is more credulous explanation, why we obviously do not observe any advantage/disatvantage of such color patterns. As I stated earlier, many species depend on color and pattern for successful predation and its avoidance, as well as for an edge in sexual competition. Are you claiming that genetic inheritance produces no difference in survival? Do you claim that handsome men do not bed more women? You see no disadvantage to albinism in a tropical species? Do you believe an arctic animal that sheds its white winter coat too soon is unaffected by the loss of camouflage? Real things always push back. -William James Save lives! Click here!Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC! ---------------------------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1906 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: See now this is interesting - I respond directly to one of Davison's claims and it is implied that I am unfamiliar with his arguments, yet here you are quoting/paraphrasing Davison, so clearly you are familiar with Davison's rantings/writings. So, whose claims are you arguing for - Davison's or Broom's? Because they are NOT the same.
quote: So, which is it? Did Broom claim both? Or did Broom claim no new Orders in 30 million years, and Davison claim no new Genera in 2 million years? I ask because when I referred specificially to Davison's claims, which was purportedly the topic of this thread (or at least the basis for it), I was accused of not knownig his claim. As a systematist of sorts, I see a big problem with relying on arbitrary concepts like what a group of organisms is classified as as a means of arguing against evolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1906 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: Interesting. I wasn't aware that there were a great deal of nocturnal insectivorous birds and a large number of diurnal seed eating bats such that they would be in competition. Learn something every day...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5902 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
Hummingbirds can be devastating, quick and sharp. Oh yeah. Never, NEVER wear a bright red tee-shirt in a tropical forest. The disappointed (and very annoyed) hummingbirds who thought you were the world's largest flower can get very aggressive - and occasionally painful.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MartinV  Suspended Member (Idle past 5859 days) Posts: 502 From: Slovakia, Bratislava Joined: |
See now this is interesting - I respond directly to one of Davison's claims and it is implied that I am unfamiliar with his arguments, yet here you are quoting/paraphrasing Davison, so clearly you are familiar with Davison's rantings/writings. So, whose claims are you arguing for - Davison's or Broom's? Because they are NOT the same.
Of course they are same. Broom and Davison state that evolution is over.
So, which is it? Did Broom claim both? Or did Broom claim no new Orders in 30 million years, and Davison claim no new Genera in 2 million years? I ask because when I referred specificially to Davison's claims, which was purportedly the topic of this thread (or at least the basis for it), I was accused of not knownig his claim.
It seems that this question doesn't give you a rest. Of course this is a great puzzle - who said what an when. If we know it exactly we should solve the problem if evolution is over immediately.
As a systematist of sorts, I see a big problem with relying on arbitrary concepts like what a group of organisms is classified as as a means of arguing against evolution.
If you think that bats, whales, rodents, elephants are arbitrary classification you should - as systematist - propose another division that would better fit into darwinistic concept. Maybe to give whales, dogs and rabits into one Order Lagocarnceta - and we could see that new Order originates just at the beginning of 21 century.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MartinV  Suspended Member (Idle past 5859 days) Posts: 502 From: Slovakia, Bratislava Joined: |
Do you believe an arctic animal that sheds its white winter coat too soon is unaffected by the loss of camouflage?
That's another problem of darwinism - it see only extremities in this case. Of course coloration of some species may have cryptic function. The problem is that let say such species made only 0,5% of all species. Question remains if random mutation is reason of it. 99,5% of species have "normal" coloration which is neutral. Some of them have even conspicuous color that should be explaind away using great darwinistic fancy. So why are swans white?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Parasomnium Member Posts: 2224 Joined: |
MartinV writes: 99,5% of species have "normal" coloration which is neutral. Some of them have even conspicuous color that should be explaind away using great darwinistic fancy. Conspicuous colouration of species does not need to be "explained away", it's perfectly understandable in simple darwinistic terms. Flowers have conspicuous colours because insects pollinate them, and flowers that attract more insects by being more brightly coloured will prosper more than those less so. Some very brightly coloured insects are signalling their being poisonous to would-be predators. The better the warning, the better the chance of survival. Some birds are brightly coloured because it has become a factor in their mating process. The more beautifully coloured the bird, the better its chances of being chosen as a mate. The latter is a case of darwinism involving sexual selection. No "great darwinistic fancy" needed, just the same old story, time and again, of random mutation and natural - or sexual - selection. "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin. Did you know that most of the time your computer is doing nothing? What if you could make it do something really useful? Like helping scientists understand diseases? Your computer could even be instrumental in finding a cure for HIV/AIDS. Wouldn't that be something? If you agree, then join World Community Grid now and download a simple, free tool that lets you and your computer do your share in helping humanity. After all, you are part of it, so why not take part in it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MartinV  Suspended Member (Idle past 5859 days) Posts: 502 From: Slovakia, Bratislava Joined: |
The more beautifully coloured the bird, the better its chances of being chosen as a mate.
And the better chance that male progeny will attract attention of some predator. It's interesting that female choice goes so often against fitness of the species, isn't it? And yet natural selection didn't select females progeny with lesser demands to gay colour of males. So darwinistic logic is this - color patterns has some aposematic/protective meannig, or it is selected by mating process.Tertium non datur - as Omnivorous says. So whats the case of swan? Edited by MartinV, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
And the better chance that male progeny will attract attention of some predator. It's interesting that female choice goes so often against fitness of the species, isn't it? That's rather the point, the fact that the animals survive despite the handicap means that they are in fact fit so the size or distinctiveness of colouration act as an honest signal of fitness to the female of the species. There is no need for there to be any one size fits all explanation for all variations of colouration. TTFN, WK TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2508 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
MartinV writes: So why are swans white? They don't have to be. Swans can be aggressive and are good fighters, and the northern hemisphere ones may have developed the white colouring in order to appear larger to potential preditors. An extrovert strategy, being loud and bold. However, swan colouring could have been largely neutral evolution, as the existence of both mixed coloured and all black swans in the southern hemisphere might indicate. See link below. Black swan - Wikipedia
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5902 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
So why are swans white? Not all of them are. Cygnus melanocorypha (black-necked swan, S. America) and C. atratus (black swan, Australia) aren't white. You might as well ask why several species of white swans have black beaks (for instance, C. buccinator, C. columbianus), or blue beaks for that matter (C. cygnus). Sexual selection is the most likely reason, as you've been told.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MartinV  Suspended Member (Idle past 5859 days) Posts: 502 From: Slovakia, Bratislava Joined: |
They don't have to be. Swans can be aggressive and are good fighters, and the northern hemisphere ones may have developed the white colouring in order to appear larger to potential preditors. An extrovert strategy, being loud and bold. However, swan colouring could have been largely neutral evolution, as the existence of both mixed coloured and all black swans in the southern hemisphere might indicate. See link below. Black swan - Wikipedia
Thanks for the link. It means that color of swans have no survival advantage - they can be white or black as well. Color of their plumage was not selected by "Natural selection" so in this case "Natural selection" is meaningless. It support thesis that "Natural selection" in many cases is no relevant explanation of coloration of species. Consequently "Natural selection" as explanation of evolution is in many cases only darwinistic fancy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MartinV  Suspended Member (Idle past 5859 days) Posts: 502 From: Slovakia, Bratislava Joined: |
Sexual selection is the most likely reason, as you've been told.
So the motor of evolution is not "Random mutation and Natural selection" but "Sexual selection" instead? Does it mean that reason why ancient fish became feathered eagle is only due to "sexual selection"? Or do darwinists use "sexual selection" in cases where they cannot explain morphology by Natural selection only? Is sexual selection something like darwinistic crutch? Or better question - can "sexual selection" lead to speciation? Are there any examples where "sexual selection" created new species, genera, family, order? Edited by MartinV, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
We discussed the issue more in details there. So it is not necessary to discuss it here in another examples. The fact is that your position was refuted on the other thread, so failing to link to it shows you don't want that known. Not that you admit it to yourself. Enjoy. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Of course they are same. Broom and Davison state that evolution is over. Thus when we see evolution happening, this refutes both of them. Enjoy. 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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024