Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 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:   Dogs will be Dogs will be ???
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 151 of 331 (475061)
07-13-2008 8:24 AM
Reply to: Message 150 by AdminNosy
07-13-2008 8:20 AM


Re: Topic Please
Wait ... we had a topic?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by AdminNosy, posted 07-13-2008 8:20 AM AdminNosy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by RAZD, posted 07-13-2008 4:54 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
RickJB
Member (Idle past 4990 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 152 of 331 (475103)
07-13-2008 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 150 by AdminNosy
07-13-2008 8:20 AM


Re: Topic Please
I denfinitely carry some responsibility for the topic drift.
Apologies.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by AdminNosy, posted 07-13-2008 8:20 AM AdminNosy has not replied

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


Message 153 of 331 (475144)
07-13-2008 4:54 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by Dr Adequate
07-13-2008 8:24 AM


Yes, the topic is dogs, dog evolution, and possible dog evolution
In Message 1 we have the initial thesis:
quote:
A common creationist argument is that evolution does not show that a sufficient level of change can be demonstrated to have occurred in the fossil record, and that thousands of years of breeding of dogs has not produced something that is not a dog:
"The fossil record shows variations of all sorts of things but will time turn a dog kind into something that we would say is clearly not a dog?"
Beretta, Message 7
There are several issues involved in this question. One is just how much change is necessary to convince a creationist that large scale change has occurred. Another is whether macroevolution is defined by large scale change.
A final one is determining what you really means by "something that is not a dog" as "something" is not a very well defined scientific term. Do you mean when will a dog become a new species that is not a part of the wolf species (which we take as the basal dog from which all others have descended)? Or that it will become something that is as different from a wolf as say a domestic cat is from a fox?
We then looked at ancestral horse fossils, specifically eohippus (Hyracotherium), to see how similar it is to modern dogs in Message 12:
quote:
Love to see it...
The starting point is a comparison of these two skeletons}
http://www.wsu.edu:8000/~crd/skeldog.html
quote:
Dog Skeleton, by Cheryl R. Dhein, Washington State University
and (sorry it's so dark, but I wanted the same general "pose" for the skeletons)
Eohippus | Size & Facts | Britannica
quote:
"dawn horse." Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 16-Dec-07
This establishes the basis for showing an example of the development of a unique feature that did not exist before. We have to start before the feature existed eh?
And this has been repeated in Message 42
quote:
To keep imagination within the bounds of reason we can use the difference from wolf to a variety in dogs as a known amount of variation that is possible within a species -- we know that much is possible:
We don't need to consider (imaginary or otherwise) connections at all, because we are not talking about what happened in the (more for some, less for others) hypothetical past of horses, but rather in what could happen to dogs given the opportunity.
Just for reference, here are the dog and eohippus again:
Dog Skeleton, by Cheryl R. Dhein, Washington State University
"dawn horse." Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 16-Dec-07
Are the differences between dog and eohippus more or less than the variation we see in dogs?
Is eohippus similar in size, body proportions, feet, tail, etc to dog or not?
In Message 43 Beretta concedes that it is less:
quote:
Are the differences between dog and eohippus more or less than the variation we see in dogs?
I'd have to go with less -but we are talking about bones here nothing else.
Is eohippus similar in size, body proportions, feet, tail, etc to dog or not?
Yes their bones are pretty similar.
Since then we have been trying to move from eohippus to mesohippus on the same basis.
Here is some additional information on Mesohippus:
Requested Page Not Found (404)
quote:
Mesohippus was a greyhound-sized horse that lived from the early Chadronian to Whitneyan (39-30 mya) in the central Great Plains of North America. This tiny creature was just as gracful as modern horses, but it had three toes per foot instead of one. Unlike modern horses, Mesohippus had low crowned (brachyodont) teeth.

Compared to:

(Eohippus),

versus Wolf compared to dog:
And that is where we have been stuck for the last 100 posts or so.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : .

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-13-2008 8:24 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 07-14-2008 9:51 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 156 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 07-14-2008 11:01 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 154 of 331 (475236)
07-14-2008 9:51 AM
Reply to: Message 153 by RAZD
07-13-2008 4:54 PM


Hi, RAZD,
I'm going to jump in here even though I've read about 1/3 rd of this thread. It appears to me you are arguing that observable dog evolution is far broader than the changes within the horse evolution. However to me it looks like you are confirming the creationist point of view rather than refuting it.
Dog evolution is undeniably microevolution. The many dog breeds are the same species. Dogs also can interbreed with wolves, indicating common ancestry and possibly that they are actually the same species.
The question is not how much a given genome can change under microevolution. (creationists agree with microevolution) The question is the ablility of your horse to interbreed with other horses during it's era. You see all scientists have is the bones. When they see slight changes in those bones, then they declare a new species. However, there is no real test for species. There is not even a non-equivocating definition of what a species is.
So scientist have many horse species, when in reality they may be just different "breeds" of horses all coming from one horse ancestor. Just like the dogs/wolves/foxes??.....???
We have just as much variation in horse breeds today as we do in dog breeds. Miniatures to Clydesdales. They vary widely. The question is not the skeletal variations, the question is genetic reproduction.
Is it truly macroevolution or is it just a different type of horse.
The other problem you have is you are assuming the three toed horse evolved into the one toed horse of today. There is alot of evidence that refutes that.
Edited by AlphaOmegakid, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by RAZD, posted 07-13-2008 4:54 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by bluegenes, posted 07-14-2008 10:55 AM AlphaOmegakid has replied
 Message 158 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-14-2008 11:48 AM AlphaOmegakid has replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 155 of 331 (475248)
07-14-2008 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 154 by AlphaOmegakid
07-14-2008 9:51 AM


AlphaOmegakid writes:
We have just as much variation in horse breeds today as we do in dog breeds. Miniatures to Clydesdales. They vary widely. The question is not the skeletal variations, the question is genetic reproduction.
Is it truly macroevolution or is it just a different type of horse.
We also have donkeys and zebras. While horses and donkeys can produce mules, the mules are only very rarely fertile, meaning that horses and donkeys would effectively be different species in the wild, and would not exchange genetic information.
So, we are witnessing the end of an equine speciation event when we look at those two groups.
We can see groups of mammals at various stages of divergence, as we would expect in an evolutionary world.
There is not even a non-equivocating definition of what a species is.
"Clearly defined" might be better than "non-equivocating". Of course there isn't. That's because of divergence. In many closely related but distinctive groups, there's not a point where we can say for sure that they would not interbreed in the wild.
So scientist have many horse species, when in reality they may be just different "breeds" of horses all coming from one horse ancestor. Just like the dogs/wolves/foxes??.....???
Foxes? I think they're a clearly separate species, not a "breed" of wolf. Same with jackals.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 07-14-2008 9:51 AM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 07-14-2008 11:25 AM bluegenes has replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 156 of 331 (475250)
07-14-2008 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 153 by RAZD
07-13-2008 4:54 PM


RAZD
You do realize that Eohippus is about 8"inches tall and maybe 12" long. It was smaller than most chihuahuas. It was never the size of a "fox terrier" as your textbook may say. It actually is half that size.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by RAZD, posted 07-13-2008 4:54 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 157 of 331 (475253)
07-14-2008 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 155 by bluegenes
07-14-2008 10:55 AM


bluejeans writes:
We also have donkeys and zebras. While horses and donkeys can produce mules, the mules are only very rarely fertile, meaning that horses and donkeys would effectively be different species in the wild, and would not exchange genetic information.
So, we are witnessing the end of an equine speciation event when we look at those two groups.
We can see groups of mammals at various stages of divergence, as we would expect in an evolutionary world.
Yes, but creationist agree with evolution. Infact they require it. They just don't agree with one common ancestor. They see many common ancestors. Zorses an Zeedonks are well within the creationists framework. They have a common ancestor from the "horse kind".
bluejeans writes:
"Clearly defined" might be better than "non-equivocating". Of course there isn't. That's because of divergence. In many closely related but distinctive groups, there's not a point where we can say for sure that they would not interbreed in the wild.
Either way, biological evolutionary science is one of the few sciences that allows such "broad" definition with no boundaries. Therefore there is no falsification of the theory, because the definition of the theory allows equivocation. I personnaly reject theories that are based on faulty logical reasoning. But heh, that's just my way of reasoning.
bluejeans writes:
Foxes? I think they're a clearly separate species, not a "breed" of wolf. Same with jackals.
I would tend to agree with you here. That's why I used the ?? after the word fox. However there is some evidence of hybridization even though it hasn't been studied to my knowledge.
Canid hybrid - Wikipedia

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by bluegenes, posted 07-14-2008 10:55 AM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by Blue Jay, posted 07-14-2008 11:57 AM AlphaOmegakid has replied
 Message 160 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-14-2008 11:59 AM AlphaOmegakid has not replied
 Message 161 by bluegenes, posted 07-14-2008 12:06 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied
 Message 162 by Blue Jay, posted 07-14-2008 4:05 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 158 of 331 (475256)
07-14-2008 11:48 AM
Reply to: Message 154 by AlphaOmegakid
07-14-2008 9:51 AM


There is not even a non-equivocating definition of what a species is.
What's wrong with the Biological Species Concept?
We have just as much variation in horse breeds today as we do in dog breeds. Miniatures to Clydesdales.
All of which have hooves.
The other problem you have is you are assuming the three toed horse evolved into the one toed horse of today. There is alot of evidence that refutes that.
Really? You want to mention any of it?
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 07-14-2008 9:51 AM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 07-15-2008 8:55 AM Dr Adequate has replied
 Message 165 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 07-15-2008 9:11 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 159 of 331 (475258)
07-14-2008 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 157 by AlphaOmegakid
07-14-2008 11:25 AM


Hi, AlphaOmegakid.
AOkid writes:
Yes, but creationist agree with evolution. Infact they require it. They just don't agree with one common ancestor. They see many common ancestors. Zorses an Zeedonks are well within the creationists framework. They have a common ancestor from the "horse kind".
You are arguing that fossil horses like Pliohippus and others might just be "breeds" of horse, while simultaneously acknowledging that zebras, which are much more similar to modern horses than Pliohippus, are distinct from horses. Meanwhile, RAZD and Bluegenes are suggesting that the animals that more closely resemble one another are more closely related, and that Pliohippus is therefore less closely related to Equus equus than the zebra.
Which of these two ideas makes more sense?
AOkid writes:
Either way, biological evolutionary science is one of the few sciences that allows such "broad" definition with no boundaries. Therefore there is no falsification of the theory, because the definition of the theory allows equivocation. I personnaly reject theories that are based on faulty logical reasoning. But heh, that's just my way of reasoning.
Don't get me started on equivocation, man: ToE has nothing on ID in this regard.
The problem isn't that evolution allows a broad definition with no boundaries, but that you're confusing ToE with natural history. The Theory of Evolution is only a description of the mechanism by which things evolve, whereas natural history is the documentation of how that mechanism has been reared its ugly head throughout the history of life. A different set of conditions a hundred million years ago would produce an entirely different natural history, while still conforming to ToE.
AOkid writes:
There is alot of evidence that refutes that.
Your missuse of the words "refute" and "falsify" is really starting to piss me off.
-----
AOkid, msg #156, writes:
You do realize that Eohippus is about 8"inches tall and maybe 12" long. It was smaller than most chihuahuas. It was never the size of a "fox terrier" as your textbook may say. It actually is half that size.
Actually, Eohippus is 24" inches long, which makes it twice the size you say it is, which was "half the size RAZD says it is." Which, ironically, means that RAZD was right.
Edited by Bluejay, : Consistency in reference fossil.

Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 07-14-2008 11:25 AM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 07-14-2008 6:26 PM Blue Jay has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 160 of 331 (475259)
07-14-2008 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 157 by AlphaOmegakid
07-14-2008 11:25 AM


Yes, but creationist agree with evolution. Infact they require it.
Then they should probably spend less time pretending that it doesn't happen.
Either way, biological evolutionary science is one of the few sciences that allows such "broad" definition with no boundaries.
I have noticed creationists using the word "species" now and then too.
Therefore there is no falsification of the theory, because the definition of the theory allows equivocation.
I don't know what this is meant to mean --- do you? --- but the reason there's no falsification of the theory is 'cos it's true, not because of your inability to define species.
I personnaly reject theories that are based on faulty logical reasoning.
Not noticeably, you don't. You seem rather to revel in them, in fact.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 07-14-2008 11:25 AM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 161 of 331 (475261)
07-14-2008 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by AlphaOmegakid
07-14-2008 11:25 AM


AOkid writes:
Therefore there is no falsification of the theory, because the definition of the theory allows equivocation. I personnaly reject theories that are based on faulty logical reasoning. But heh, that's just my way of reasoning.
I don't know where the creationists myth that the theory of evolution cannot be falsified comes from. All you would need is something like elephant fossils in the Precambrian, and the theory is buggered, because it cannot explain that. Theories are explanations of the observations and evidence, and it is easy to think of things that would blow the ToE sky high!
But none have been discovered yet, which is odd, unless......
I hope you're not confusing an emotional attachment to superstition with "logical reasoning".
Zorses an Zeedonks are well within the creationists framework. They have a common ancestor from the "horse kind".
Then why not all mammals from a common ancestor of the mammal kind? And as there are fossils with both mammal and reptile features, why not...err.... all quadrupeds from a quadruped kind. And so on.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 07-14-2008 11:25 AM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 162 of 331 (475277)
07-14-2008 4:05 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by AlphaOmegakid
07-14-2008 11:25 AM


ToE is a Theory of Variation
Here I am, tackily responding to the same message twice again. Oh, well.
AOkid writes:
Either way, biological evolutionary science is one of the few sciences that allows such "broad" definition with no boundaries. Therefore there is no falsification of the theory, because the definition of the theory allows equivocation.
Your complaint here is, what? That things aren't easy to organize into discreet categories? The entire gist of the ToE is change, variation and diversity: what the hell did you expect? Any theory that fundamentally predicts diversity and variation should also predict trouble with categorizing, indexing, defining and identifying. That much should make sense to anybody.
Also note that ToE does not require usage of organizational categories in any particular way: the terms "species," "phylum," "family," "subclass," etc., are just for our convenience in trying to organize and communicate information with each other. So, if your argument is that ToE can't decide on a single definition of the word "species," your argument amounts to a strawman.

Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 07-14-2008 11:25 AM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 163 of 331 (475297)
07-14-2008 6:26 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by Blue Jay
07-14-2008 11:57 AM


bluejay writes:
Actually, Eohippus is 24" inches long, which makes it twice the size you say it is, which was "half the size RAZD says it is." Which, ironically, means that RAZD was right.

Hyracotherium / eohippus
Do you see the 20 cm. That's approximately 8". I don't know too many mid-sized dogs that are 8" tall do you?
from wiki... Hyracotherium - Wikipedia
Hyracotherium averaged only 2 feet (60 cm) in length and averaged 8 to 9 inches (20 cm) high at the shoulder.
The length stated is over three times the height. Proportionally this is not correct. The length includes a fully extended neck and fully extended long tail. The actual body size was about 50% loger than the shoulder height. Which I correctly stated as about 12" or 30 cm.
Do you see the .4 mm lenth? That's about 14" long. I was a couple short maybe.
In elementary level textbooks, Hyracotherium is commonly described as being "the size of a small Fox Terrier", which is actually about twice the size of the Hyracotherium. This arcane analogy was so curious that Stephen Jay Gould wrote an essay about it ("The Case of the Creeping Fox Terrier Clone"), in which he concluded that Henry Fairfield Osborn had so described it in a widely distributed pamphlet, Osborn being a keen fox hunter who made a natural association between horses and the dogs that accompany them.
source from the above wiki page.
Edited by Admin, : Rerender to be mobile friendly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by Blue Jay, posted 07-14-2008 11:57 AM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by Blue Jay, posted 07-15-2008 10:07 AM AlphaOmegakid has replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 164 of 331 (475327)
07-15-2008 8:55 AM
Reply to: Message 158 by Dr Adequate
07-14-2008 11:48 AM


the Dr writes:
There is not even a non-equivocating definition of what a species is.
What's wrong with the Biological Species Concept?
Maybe you should ask these people...
"... I was much struck how entirely vague and arbitrary is the distinction between species and varieties" Darwin 1859 (p. 48)[42]
"No term is more difficult to define than "species," and on no point are zoologists more divided than as to what should be understood by this word". Nicholson (1872) p. 20[43]
"Of late, the futility of attempts to find a universally valid criterion for distinguishing species has come to be fairly generally, if reluctantly, recognized" Dobzhansky (1937) p.310 [10]
"The concept of a species is a concession to our linguistic habits and neurological mechanisms" Haldane (1956) [33]
"The species problem is the long-standing failure of biologists to agree on how we should identify species and how we should define the word 'species'." Hey (2001) [37]
"First, the species problem is not primarily an empirical one, but it is rather fraught with philosophical questions that require-but cannot be settled by-empirical evidence." Pigliucci (2003) [36]
"An important aspect of any species definition whether in neontology or palaeontology is that any statement that particular individuals (or fragmentary specimens) belong to a certain species is an hypothesis (not a fact)"[44]
from... Species concept - Wikipedia
Please note, that I am not quotemining here. These quotes address the problem that the quoter was arguing about. I also used a supposedly non-biased source.
wiki writes:
Definitions of species
See also: Species problem
The question of how best to define "species" is one that has occupied biologists for centuries, and the debate itself has become known as the species problem. One definition that is widely used is that a species is a group of actually or potentially interbreeding populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups.[4]
Here is what is listed under the definition of species....
The definition of a species given above is derived from the behavioral biologist Ernst Mayr, and is somewhat unrealistic. Since it assumes sexual reproduction, it leaves the term undefined for a large class of organisms that reproduce asexually. Biologists frequently do not know whether two morphologically similar groups of organisms are "potentially" capable of interbreeding. Further, there is considerable variation in the degree to which hybridization may succeed under natural and experimental conditions, or even in the degree to which some organisms use sexual reproduction between individuals to breed. Consequently, several lines of thought in the definition of species exist: from... Species - Wikipedia
There are 13 different definitions/explanations of what a species is. So you can pick and choose whichever you like, depending on what you want to demonstrate. That's called "loose logic" or equivocation.
The definition of macro evolution is dependent on the definition of species. So evidence of macro evolution can be interpreted without limit, because there is no limit on the definition of species.
But if you want to follow this logic, that's OK with me.
Please note, I am not trying to get off topic, i am just answering your question.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-14-2008 11:48 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by Blue Jay, posted 07-15-2008 10:28 AM AlphaOmegakid has not replied
 Message 169 by bluegenes, posted 07-15-2008 11:29 AM AlphaOmegakid has not replied
 Message 171 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-15-2008 12:47 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 165 of 331 (475332)
07-15-2008 9:11 AM
Reply to: Message 158 by Dr Adequate
07-14-2008 11:48 AM


the Dr writes:
We have just as much variation in horse breeds today as we do in dog breeds. Miniatures to Clydesdales.
All of which have hooves.
Yes, horses have hooves. Have you ever considered that the other creatures, that look vastly different from a horse, just may not be horses. They may not be ancestors to horses. They may just be another creature that has no evolutionary history related to modern day horses.
Could it be possible that you are forcing the evolution theory into the fossil record of these creatures.
The evolutionist perpective of linear progression of slow gradual horse evolution has all but been abandoned today for the "branch bush" theory.
The new theories on this have many branches and many required unfound transitionals. Just maybe, could they be unrelated in the first place? What you were most likely taught in schools about this linear progression has been declared by science to be erroneous. Couldn't the "branching bush" theory be just as erroneous.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-14-2008 11:48 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-15-2008 11:13 AM AlphaOmegakid 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