|
Understanding through Discussion |
|
|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
| EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
|
| |
| ChatGPT | |
| Total: 916,427 Year: 3,684/9,624 Month: 555/974 Week: 168/276 Day: 8/34 Hour: 1/1 |
| Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
| Author | Topic: Dogs will be Dogs will be ??? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
RAZD Member (Idle past 1426 days)  Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
RAZD Member (Idle past 1426 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
RAZD Member (Idle past 1426 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
RAZD Member (Idle past 1426 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
RAZD Member (Idle past 1426 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
RAZD, for all your good intentions ID proponents like Beretta are simply not prepared to work on one topic in the manner that you favour. Agreed, however this is not a license to diverge from the topic, rather it means waiting for another creationist/idologist, and seeing how they deal with the information. The reluctance of Beretta and of AlphaOmegaKid to look at these skeletons and recognize and acknowledge that the differences between them is less than the variation that we see in dogs demonstrates that their denial of macrevolution is not based on a review of the evidence.
In any case you are in the right. Perhaps the best way to ensure a very clean topic is to have a great debate with limited access. The problem there, is that when (not if?) the creationist runs away from the evidence you end up with a dead end -- like my "great debate with S1WC - whereas this way it is open to new creationists. So for all the creationists out there who think macroevolution is not shown in the fossil record consider these pictures:   Note that both of these pictures are of actual fossil skeletons in similar positions and angle of view. Questions for creationists: (1) Are these, or are they not, similar animals? If not, why - what are the differences? (2) Are the differences more, or less, than the differences in dogs? If more, why - what are the differences and how do they exceed the variation seen in dogs. Edited by RAZD, : . Edited by RAZD, : moved photos 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) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
RAZD Member (Idle past 1426 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi AlphaOmegaKid,
I will be replying to your post with multiple posts due to time constraints. Not because I am avoiding anything. Good, because I would rather focus on one step at a time, rather than a flood of information that explodes as others reply in different ways to different aspects. I would appreciate it if you focused on the topic and not answer any replies to your comments that are not directly related to the topic: whether mesoohippus is more or less different from eohippus than the variation we see in dogs from wolf.
Now as far as missing the point, you did. There is no question that mutations can cause extra digits. And as you noted intelligent selection removes them from the population. What we don't see in any vertabrate is extra digits being naturally selected within the populations. You seem to think, as many scientists do that the fossil record somehow declares ancestorship. It doesn't. That is an interpretation of the fossil record. First we were presented with linear trees of this horse ancestorship. These pictures are still taught today. This was an interpretation of the fossils. Today with cladistics we have a branching tree of horse evolution. That is an interpretation of the evidence. A creationist interpretation would be one where the "branches" may represent different kinds of animals. The cladistic chart represents the same thing except it has one common ancestor eohippus. The creationist chart would have multiple trunks. In the case of the 55my charts, the creationist chart may only have 2-4 kinds. Not every fossil find is a different type of animal. Please note that both modern science and creationism agree with certain aspects of evolution. It is a strawman argument to suggest otherwise. I know of no reputable creationist website that doesn't agree with observable repeatable micrevolution. Interpretation of evidence is not evidence. (I will repeat this many times, as it is a common misunderstanding of science and logic.) The issue is not what you think, what creationists say, the history of horse taxonomy, or where you want to redirect the discussion, the issue is whether eohippus is more or less different from mesohippus than the variation we see in dogs from wolf. Note that both of these pictures are of actual fossil skeletons in similar positions and angle of view. Questions for you to direct your answers to are: (1) Are these, or are they not, similar animals? If not, what are the differences? (2) Are the differences seen more, or less, than the differences seen in dogs from wolf? If more, what are the differences and how do they exceed the variation seen in dogs from wolf.
Again, I will repeat for you and all the readers. I and most of all creos agree with evolution. We disagree on the subjects of time and common ancestry. That's all. That makes it simple. But you ignored my point. If genes exist to create bones and skulls, the alterations (extremely small alterations) to those genes can happen that cause the bones to be bigger and smaller. That is microevolution (observable and repeatable). The creation within the genome of multiple new genes for polygenetic traits like hooves is macroevolution. This we don't see (observable and repeatable) happening in nature. We only see it (observable but not repeatable) in the fossil record. The fossil record relies on interpretation. And all we are interested in, is whether the variation from eohippus to mesohippus is more or less than the variation seen in dogs from wolf. This sets an objective standard that doesn't rely on subjective interpretation. So is mesohippus more or less different from eohippus than the variation we see in dogs from wolf? Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : add Edited by RAZD, : . Edited by RAZD, : moved photos 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) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
RAZD Member (Idle past 1426 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Thanks AlphaOmegaKid,
Ok, I'm going to anwer you, but you're not going to like my answer. No, I appreciate the answer, as it details how little difference there is.
I'm not sure how familiar you are with horse evolution, but actually there are supposed transitionals between Hyracotherium and Mesohippus. Here is the sopposed lineage... Hyracotherium, Orohippus,Epihippus and the Mesohippus. I will refer to these as H,O,E and M. One source - http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/natsci/vertpaleo/fhc/Stratmap1.htm - says that Orohippus is the only one in between, but it is not surprising that there are differences of opinion. Orohippus also coexisted with Hyracotherium, so one could argue that they are sibling rather than parent/child. It depends on whether you are a "lumper" or a "splitter" when talking about taxon divisions. I also note that these are genus level taxons and that there are species within those levels, and many fossils, none of which are identical. In other words there are many fossils that would be classified as intermediates between any of these forms, but which are lumped into one category or the other for convenience of discussion.
Now as far as archetype you could say that these organisms are similar. The size variation, main skull shape and overall shape of the organism is within what we see with wolf/dog evolution. Very good, we agree that they are very similar animals. Now the question is, do any of the differences amount to a significant change.
First the rib count sequence of H-O-E-M is 18-15-16-16. We don't see those kind of changes in the populations of wolf/dog evolution. We see stasis in the overall rib count of the population. What would be the fitness benefit to loosing three ribs, then gaining one? I would say that this is a neutral change, thus variation back and forth without any sever evolutionary consequence. As we see today, there is variation among all species with occasional differences in numbers of repeated sequences (fingers, toes, teeth, ribs). The question is not whether such a difference needs to be beneficial, the question only needs to be that they are non-detrimental. A mutation that is neutral cannot be selected against. Perhaps you can demonstrate how a difference in the number of ribs can be detrimental?
Second, the hind toe count of H-O-E-M is 4-4-4-3. We don't see a loss of toe digits being beneficial in wolf/dog evolution. We see stasis in these feature within the populations. Again, a loss of digit is usally seen as a negative mutation. Certainly not beneficial. What would be the fitness benefit of loss of a toe? Actually we do see it, because the wolf/dog has already lost one, with a "dew claw" being a remnant visible in some dogs. The loss of another would just continue that trend. But again the issue again is not that such minor differences need to be beneficial, just that they need to be non-detrimental. As we have seen there are instances of dogs with fewer toes among other variations, and these don't necessarily affect the animal. Of course when it comes to dog breeds, the breeders will select against any such mutations (as you point out) purely on the basis of aesthetics, in order to maintain the "characteristics" of the breed -- the breeds are actually selected for stasis. There is no evidence I am aware of, however, that shows that the loss of a toe is any hindrance to the behavior and survival of a dog in the wild. Perhaps you can demonstrate how a difference in the number of toes can be detrimental to survival or breeding in the wild? There are many instances of hunting dogs that have lost toes and are still able to be capable and productive hunting dogs.
Third, the tooth sequences vary substantially. From the sequence of incisor-canine-premolar-grinding molar we see the following: H=3-1-4-3, O=3-1-3-4, and E=3-1-2-5, M I couldn't find. Again we see stasis in wolf/dog teeth. In fact dog diets have changed substantially over about 2000 known years of history, and the teeth have shown stasis. And I would argue that dog teeth have evolved, that the teeth in some breeds are quite different in size, proportion and shape from the teeth in other breeds, curved in some and straight in others for instance. We probably see more crooked teeth in dogs due to the prepared diets compared to wolf teeth. But for the sake of argument I will agree that these three items are places where Mesohippus is different from Hyracotherium. After all, if there weren't any differences they wouldn't be classified as different genus\species\etc, so we know there are differences. Now we compare these to differences in dogs that are not seen between Mesohippus and Hyracotherium: large difference in size, difference in proportions of legs to back, differences in the proportions of front legs to hind legs, differences in the skulls, differences in the size of the eyes compared to the skull, differences in the lengths of the tails (with various numbers of tail bones, many dogs with no tail at all). The question is not whether there are traits that do not change in dogs that do change in Hyracotherium to Mesohippus, but whether overall the difference is more or less than the variation seen in dogs. Now if you look at Message 1 of this thread you will see that I compared domestic cat to red fox by a number of characteristics, and then did the same for dog and wolf, and then compared the overall difference of cats to foxes to the overall differences of dogs to wolves. Do you think that if we did this in depth an analysis that the results for Hyracotherium to Mesohippus would be more or less than the results for dogs and wolves?
Now the teeth and the toes are the main evidence used for evolution support. But we don't see (observable and repeatable) that in wolf/dog evolution. Irrelevant. Please keep such comments to a minimum. Again, the question is whether overall The question is whether the sum differences between and Is more or less that the differences between  Enjoy! I am, thanks. Now do you want to step back and take the intermediates between Hyracotherium and Mesohippus and discuss those and their differences and compare those to dog/wolf variation, or do you want to move on? Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : repeat repeat delete Edited by RAZD, : . Edited by RAZD, : moved photos 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) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
RAZD Member (Idle past 1426 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
RAZD Member (Idle past 1426 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
RAZD Member (Idle past 1426 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Brad H. in Message 238 on Evolution would've given us infrared eyesight states:
FOSSIL RECORD- In order to rely on the fossil record as evidence for universal common decent, one would have to see at least one example of a finely graduated chain of fossils between any two major forms. Brad, please note that Message 1 of this thread states (in part):
quote: As you can see we need to lay some groundwork for a common understanding of what we are discussing, before we can begin to discuss the pros and cons of the issue. Views of scientists and creationists are commonly quite different on these definitions, and so people end up talking past each other instead of debating the issue.
In order to rely on the fossil record as evidence for universal common decent, ... We don't. For one, universal common descent is a different theory from the theory of evolution, per se, and is more like a corollary of the theory. Second, we see common descent in speciation events and in common reproduction within all species, and no other mechanism, and thus the question arises: how far back can common descent explain the fossil and genetic records?
... one would have to see at least one example of a finely graduated chain of fossils between any two major forms. Once again, the problem with answering this is defining what is meant by a "finely graduated chain of fossils" other than begging the question with setting an impossible standard (one that cannot even be met for your personal human ancestors for only the last 3000 years or so?) Again, from Message 1:
quote: There are many chains of fossils like this, from ancestral form to modern form, showing substantial change along the way, and the questions for you, are how much change do you need to see, and how much linkage from one to the next do you really need. Remember that
The fossil record and the genetic record are tests of this theory. The fossil record does not have to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that evolution was responsible, rather it just has to show that evolution is a possible explanation of the fossil record, and that there are no elements in the fossil record that contradict this possibility. Thus logic (and the scientific method) only requires that the all known evidence should be explained by the theory, for it to be considered valid. Likewise, the genetic record does not have to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that evolution was responsible, rather it just has to show that evolution is a possible explanations of the genetic record, and that there are no elements in the fossil record that contradict this possibility. Thus logic (and the scientific method) only requires that the all known evidence should be explained by the theory, for it to be considered valid. Further, these two entirely distinct records should agree if evolution is the explanation of the diversity of life. These three conditions are met. 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) • • • |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
RAZD Member (Idle past 1426 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
RAZD Member (Idle past 1426 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
RAZD Member (Idle past 1426 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
RAZD Member (Idle past 1426 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Chuck77,
Ooops. Yes, I made a mistake. Foxes are canine? I thought they were feline(felidae). I wondered if that was the case. I think you would agree that this shows you the difficulty in defining macroevolution according to what you can see or not see or by having a certain number of morphological changes.
Message 271: RADZ writes: Would you expect one to become exactly like the other, or through convergent evolution to have similar behavior and appearance, as we see with the sugar glider (australian marsupial) and the flying squirrel (north american placental)?
Hi RAZD. I brought this post over here to respond to. You can work it into one comment with my other post if you like so we don't have multiple comments going at the same time. Well, that's a good question. I'm not sure. Maybe the same kind but a different species? On the face of it I would say they were the same kind. Although i'm not sure. I don't think location of animals is what determines kinds. I think a bird in Australia could be same kind of bird in America, etc. And we see this with seagulls and terns for instance, however here we have the difference between marsupial and placental mammals. The location becomes a factor when we consider reproductive isolation, and in this case Australian marsupial mammals have been isolated from placental mammals for a long time. As has been pointed out by Huntard, the genetic\taxonomic differences between these organisms is greater than the difference between cat and fox, yet because of convergent evolution they appear very similar. There are differences that you don't see in the genetics and in the bones that are more than the differences between cat and fox. This again shows you the difficulty in defining macroevolution according to what you can see or not see, or by having a certain number of morphological changes.
Although in your example they could be different kinds sure. I guess I could ask what helps you determine what a kind is? How do you classify certain animals, species? I'm not so sure I have a great definition to be honest. I don't think it's easy to say just based on similar behavior and appearance. A lion could have simliar apperances as a dog but one would be feline and the other canine. So maybe we should work on a good definition of kind before we go further. Biology does not use "kind" as a classification, even though the taxonomic classification system was developed by Linneaus long before Darwin. Instead a number of levels are defined that show (or attempt to show) the levels of a nested hierarchy of descent from ancestors. This system is becoming increasingly unwieldy and many biologists are turning to cladistics.
quote: Now I would think that you, and other creationists, would agree that their view of a "kind" would constitute a "clade" as used by cladistics,
Evolution is True Because Life Needs It Message 105 (RAZD to Portillo) Do you agree or disagree that a kind would form a clade of animals related to a common ancestor (ie the original created kind)? |
^ a
/ \
/ \
/ ^ b
c ^ / \
/ \ / \ Here "a" is a common ancestor to the four end groups, "b" is a common ancestor to the two right side groups, and "c" is a common ancestor to the two left side groups. We see this pattern in DNA and in the fossil record, so we know that this pattern of development of daughter groups from parent groups is a fact in nature. Do you agree or disagree that this is the pattern for the evolution within a kind? Here "a" would be the basal type for a "kind" would it not? We don't need to know what level of taxonomy "a" "b" "c" and the four end groups are, they have all descended from the basal "a" kind\group. Here "b" and "c" could be wolves and foxes, and one of the right hand end groups could be dogs. Their descendants will always be members of the dog clade, always be members of the wolf clade, always be members of the "a" clade.
We could, but that could be interpreted as claiming that "kind" is defined by "family" taxon, and I would rather not be side-tracked by that issue. We can instead call it the Canidae clade, and avoid that issue. In any event, what evolution predicts is that offspring of any individuals within a clade will continue to be members of that clade, no matter how distinctive or differently they or their descendants evolve in later generations. The questions then become (a) what can evolve from a specific breeding population, and (b) how different do they need to become for you, creationists, to accept that macroevolution has in fact occurred, that the diversity of life has increased. If we go back to dogs and the OP for this thread:
quote: Note that this is an artistic interpretation of an actual fossil. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : added info, changed subtitle Edited by RAZD, : codeby 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
RAZD Member (Idle past 1426 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024
(1)