|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,418 Year: 3,675/9,624 Month: 546/974 Week: 159/276 Day: 33/23 Hour: 0/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1426 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Speciation + Evolution = More Diversity | |||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1426 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
The scene: sitting at computers all over the world ...
"Why don't creationists understand evolution -- it is so simple," the evolutionist wails:
We can even see how evolution causes speciation with Ring Species:
Remove any one of the intermediate varieties, so that the band is broken, and you have two distinct species. We now have more species than before, so life is more diverse. It is so simple: "But," replies the creationist, "this does not tell us anything we do not know. Species always reproduce after their own kind, a dog will always be a dog. You may end up with several species of dogs, but they will still be dogs. This does not tell us how new forms of life are evolved: when does a dog become something else? Evolution says that mammals evolved from marsupials, so when will a kangaroo evolve into a giraffe? This kind of change is not seen in the fossil record, nor has it been observed by man, so how can you say this happens?" This little scenario depicts, I believe, the state of many debates between creationists - people that predominantly use faith to understand the world - and "evolutionists" - people that predominantly use science to understand the world. See Evolutionary Theory Explains Diversity, Dogs will be Dogs will be ??? and What i can't understand about evolution.... threads for examples. Where does "large" change come from? - the change that makes giraffes so different from kangaroos? Simple:
After speciation has occurred, the daughter populations no longer share genes through reproduction, and they are free to evolve completely different traits. The likelyhood is high that one of them will become quite different, either to inhabit a new ecology that the other is not as well suited to (could have caused the original split), or to make use of the existing ecology in a different way, and this will lessen competition between the two species rather than drive one to extinction. Continued evolution of daughter populations along different ecological paths results in increased diversity - difference - between them over time. That is how the small amount of difference we seen below can become the amount of difference we see between other bird species. Greenish warblers
quote: Continued evolution causes more change - in each population, from generation to generation to generation. That should be enough for starters. There is more to discuss about where change occurs, but this is long enough for now. This thread is about evolution after speciation.
This thread is NOT about the definitions of evolution, the theory of evolution, or species. If you want to discuss these definitions please go to the appropriate thread: Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : color, subtitle Edited by RAZD, : added block at end 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: |
Hey Coyote,
In other words, what mechanism prevents evolution from going beyond "kinds" (which is not a scientific term, or even a defined term, but may serve here to represent the idea). What mechanism prohibits speciation, followed by speciation and still more speciation? Good question. I think one of the problems is that people tend to think of species as static, that the species after many generations is still similar to the original species just after speciation, thus making them think that the common ancestor for humans and chimps, for instance, is half human and half chimp, part bare, part hairy, something in the act of transforming into one or the other. Thus I want to first discuss two kinds of speciation: (1) arbitrary speciation -- usually in fossil species, where after many generations of fossils there is noticeable difference between the latest fossil and the first one (the "type" fossil for the species), and to distinguish the differences the latest fossil is given a new species designation. This is an arbitrary designation, and there is room for doubt about the actual amount of change being enough for speciation (if reproduction could be ascertained) to be measured. (2) distinct speciation -- either in the fossil record or in existing organism, where speciation has occurred, and you now have two species instead of one: there is no doubt that speciation has occurred. For instance with Pelycodus:
quote: Color for empHAsis: this is the kind of continuing change we are talking about. Here you have both kinds of speciation shown - a series of arbitrary speciation designations from the bottom up to the divide, and then a distinct speciation event as the population divides into two distinct populations, and these daughter populations continue to diverge after the speciation event. Now one can argue that Pelycodus ralstoni (at the bottom) and Pelycodus jarrovii (just below the divide, the "parent" population), are different species, as their difference is similar in degree to the difference between Notharctus nunienus and Notharctus venticolus just after the divide, and we can argue whether there is sufficient difference for Pelycodus trigonodus to fit in between. Thus the distinction I would like to draw between arbitrary speciation and distinct speciation. It is fairly evident that arbitrary speciation is just evolution - the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation, and it does not include the mechanism of speciation that involves the reproductive isolation of the daughter population from the parent - except by time. Certainly we can see that the hereditary traits of Pelycodus ralstoni and Notharctus venticolus are not similar, because of the difference in size, if nothing else. We should also expect that the hereditary traits of Pelycodus ralstoni and Notharctus nunienus are not similar, in spite of the similarity in size, because of the other traits that have changed in the interim. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : color Edited by RAZD, : fixed glitch in quote Edited by RAZD, : switched to copied picture 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: |
Hey Coyote, Taz, lets get back to speciation for now to set the benchmarks of this discussion.
As we see from the Pelycodus example, arbitrary speciation is just the acknowledgment of continuing evolution within the Pelycodus form, and that after some arbitrary level of change has occurred it is convenient to talk about a new species. I bring this point up because many fossil species are divided this way, and it helps to have a clear understanding of what this means. As each population advances from generation to generation it gains some new hereditary traits and loses some old ones: there is a succession of traits in the populations. When the older traits are lost from the population they are "extinct" so we can see that in arbitrary speciation the traits that define the "type fossil" for that species gradually are replaced by new traits in the population, until the old traits no longer exist within the population. Every time this occurs then, a step has been taken that differentiates this species from the one that existed at the speciation event that defined this branch of evolution. At that distinct speciation event the difference was minor - this is what evolution predicts - on the order of the Greenish Warblers in Message 1:
Each arbitrary speciation stage add more change to the branch where it occurs, as seen in Pelycodus in Message 4:
In Message 1 I said:
quote: And we can see this in Pelycodus, where one branch continues with increase in size at the same rate of evolution change as before, but the other branch diverges at a faster rate in the other direction. If it can get sufficient distance ecologically from the other then both can survive. If they can't then either they will be reunited or one will go extinct. This apparently has also happened in the Pelycodus lineage according to this presentation:
quote: Where the gray branches show distinct speciation events where one branch went extinct. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : switched to copied pictures 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: |
Welcome to the fray, westernjoe,
Let me start with some posting tips:
... as you are new here, some posting tips: type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quotes are easy or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:
quote: For other formating tips see Posting Tips. That is not the definition of evolution. The definition of evolution is the change in allele frequencies over time. That is one (incomplete) version of one of the common definitions of evolution: it means the same thing -- you do not get change in hereditary traits without a change in the frequency of alleles. You do not get changing allele frequency with out change in hereditary traits. You are missing population, and that the relevant time period is from generation to generation. Your definition also cannot be applied to fossils or to observations in the wild where DNA samples are not taken. I'll also be happy to discuss this further with you, in relation to the definitions offered by two universities teaching evolution, and reference back to Darwin, but that is the subject for another thread.
Perhaps you would like to discuss this at the Definition of Evolution thread? I'll copy your definition there and then comment on it okay? See Message 193 Not only that, but this change in allele frequencies must be caused via random molecular changes and natural selection. Not really: the change is introduced by mutation, and this is random, but whether it is incorporated into the population is a matter of selection. Selection does not cause mutations, the two processes are independent.
Therefore the flaw in your whole reasoning is this: RMNS never happens. Now that you have proven that your straw man is false, perhaps we can talk about evolution.
It doesn't happen in micro evolution, ... Having been observed and documented to occur, even by creationists, your statement is obviously false.
If someone would like to show me an example of microevolution, aka random mutation culled by natural selection validated by controlled experiment on animals, I would dearly like to see it. Please participate in What i can't understand about evolution...., and once you have disabused yourself of your false opinions perhaps we can take up this topic about how continued evolution after speciation increases the difference between the daughter populations. re your Message 9:
The problem materialists have is they attempt to define animals, such as dogs, by the physical....but what ultimately is responsible for the creation of a kind (such as the dog kind) is not anything that can be found in the physical....there is no "dog gene" or "dog genes." therefore...there is nothing for which to mutate to turn a dog into anything else. The mind of a dog is ultimately what must be altered. To change a dog into a non-dog would require the change of a non-phyiscal dog mind into a non-dog mind. Feel free to participate in the Dogs will be Dogs will be ??? thread ... as long as you stay on topic and address the issues. Better yet, go to this new thread The Spirit Dog hypothesis? to discuss your concept.
And the other thing is, since evolutionists are unable to unearth any common ancestors between, say dogs and cats and bears and horses, then there is no actual evidence that their theory is true...it's certainly not science. Curiously your opinion does not make the evidence disappear, nor does it affect the natural behavior - the evolution and speciation - that is going on around us. Denial of reality is not an alternative explanation, it is just denial. Now if you have any comments on this thread that apply to increased difference from generation to generation as daughter population inevitably acquire random mutations, and then select the most effective of the random mutations available at any one time by their adaptation to different ecologies, I suggest you take your opinions to another thread. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : added link to new thread Edited by RAZD, : added link Edited by RAZD, : color 1st time 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: |
If he cannot keep it to a discussion of the increasing difference between sibling species after speciation then it the discussion does not belong here.
I've started a new thread for his spirit dog hypothesis - is it native american religion based?
The Spirit Dog hypothesis? Feel free to comment there Edited by RAZD, : clarty Edited by RAZD, : new thread link Edited by RAZD, : subt 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 westernjoe,
ah.....so you are avoiding my point that evolution is caused by a change in allele frequencies over time. So I suppose we need to get that straight -- is evolution indeed caused in this way? And also, is this the result of random mutations and natural selection? (note: I did not claim that selections caused mutations.) my reply is here: Message 193
No, I am pointing out that it is off topic on this thread. You can go to Message 193 to discuss this further. Did you notice that when you quoted a source that the definition was much closer to my original formulation than what you first said? I'll copy that to message 193, so we can continue from there. After we get that straight we can get on to the business of what constitutes "micro-evolution" and what doesn't. So let's start there...it will be fun to start from the beginning and take it nice and slow. Curiously you do not get to hijack this thread to continue off topic discussions. You can go to the linked thread, and once we have sorted out what evolution really is defined as by evolutionary biologists, then we can proceed to MACROevolution vs MICROevolution - what is it? or "Macro" vs "Micro" genetic "kind" mechanism? to discuss "micro" and "macro" definitions. If you have any lingering questions about the topic of this thread please reread Message 1 - and yes, I do get to decide what the topic is: I wrote it. Please note this thread in passing: Definitions, Daffynitions, Delusions, Logic and Critical Thinking. I will see you on other thread. Continued discussion off-topic can lead to suspensions. Also I would be interested to see you follow up on the spirit dog issue at The Spirit Dog hypothesis?, thanks. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : added link Edited by RAZD, : added Edited by RAZD, : color the second time Edited by RAZD, : hide Edited by RAZD, : youme 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 westernjoe,
This is the third time I have requested you go to Message 193 to discuss the definition of evolution. Notice that the topic of that thread IS the definition of evolution. here was your question: No, that was Coyote, and he was also off-topic, if you read for comprehension you could see that.
Take your time....I'll be waiting...this is going to be fun.
Curiously you can wait forever on this thread and keep mucking it up OR you can go to the thread that IS about the topic you want to discuss and continue there.
The link provided is to a thread titled "Definition of Evolution" so if you want to continue a discussion of what the definition is, THAT IS THE THREAD TO DO IT ON. so why is it off-topic for you to define what "evolution" is? why is that so difficult for you? I cannot answer your challenge without you first giving me an accurate definition of what evolution (micro and/or macro is)....if you do not care to do so then the discussion is pointless. My argument against your challenge is that "micro" evolution doesn't even exist, as defined by your theory. I find it rather humorous that someone who purports to want to engage in an intelligent and reason based discussion on this topic, cannot figure out that they can do so ON THE THREAD LINKED ABOVE. my reply is here: Message 193 Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : grow a clue eh? Edited by RAZD, : highlighted the THIRD time Edited by RAZD, : ... Edited by RAZD, : No reason given. Edited by RAZD, : hide Edited by RAZD, : youme 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: |
westernjoe
I'm absolutely on-topic,
one wonders if you are unable to realize that your reply is already posted, and that you are unable to follow links provided.
my reply is here: Message 193 "Message 193" STOP WASTING THIS THREAD WITH OFF-TOPIC BANTER The alternative explanation is that your only purpose is disruption of discussions.
Edited by RAZD, : hide Edited by RAZD, : youme 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: |
well westernjoe, another diversion off-topic?
another attempt to disrupt the discussion of increased diversity after speciation, the topic of this thread? I dispute this because you don't even know what a "species" is.
This can be discussed on the Definition of Species thread.
my reply is here: Message 21 The reason that these comments of yours are off-topic, is that these definitions HAVE been discussed, and we don't need to tie up this thread discussing them all over again. IF you have a problem with the definitions presented, then go to the threads that discuss those definitions.
If you are going to create a new post and make unfounded assertions, you should expect people to take you up on them. Curiously these definitions are anything but unfounded assertions, which you would realize if you followed the links to where they are discussed.
This thread begins with these definitions, so if you want to dispute them then go to the appropriate threads to do so. If you can't understand this simple request then I will have to ask that this thread be close in order to keep you off it.
Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : hide 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: |
well westernjoe, I expect to see you suspended soon.
And to the Admin, if you can't keep your big nose out of the way so I can expose this sham of the theory then I'll move on. Go ahead and ban me, who cares. RAFD is too chicken to debate the topic he brought up anyway...I'm getting bored. What is hilarious about all this petty posturing of yours, is that it is a completely ridiculous position when you look at the FACT that your posts have been quoted and replied to, and all your need to do is go to the appropriate threads, that the only thing keeping you from the discussion is your inability to realize this. Once again, my reply is here: Message 193 They say you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. Now if you really want some fun, try those links. If on the other hand, all you want to do is to continue to disrupt this thread then I will have to ask that it be closed. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : hide 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: |
westernjoe
... I am disputing ... your definition of evolution. your reply is here (put your cursor over these words and right click to activate this link) Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : .. 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: |
westernjoe,
I dispute this because you don't even know what a "species" is. your reply is here (put your cursor over these words and right click to activate this link) Enjoy. 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: |
hey Rahvin,
I'd suggest that, at this point, the best option is to simply stop feeding the troll. A troll doesn't cite evolution textbooks, I think he just doesn't understand (1) how many different threads there are on this site, (2) that these topics have already been discussed before, (3) that a thread dedicated to the Definition of Evolution is a better thread to discuss Definition of Evolution than any one he currently happens to be on, (4) that a thread dedicated to the Definition of Species is a better thread to discuss Definition of Species than any one he currently happens to be on, (5) that threads are limited to ~300 posts, so content that is not part of the thread debate wastes space, and (6) that I am more than ready and willing to debate him on these points on their proper threads, and have in fact already started there. Plus, I would like to see more about his spirit dog concept. Enjoy. 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: |
hey Huntard,
There are people that are interested in discussing this. Most definitely ... on the appropriate threads:
And then, once the definitions have been resolved, perhaps we can continue with the question of continued evolution after speciation. We can discuss different rates of evolution, and the effect of ecology on those rates. From evidence such as the foraminifera we do see different rates of evolution at different times and for different reasons: article 8
We can see that speciation is not a "one-shot wonder" but a repeated process that allows species to take fuller advantage of the available ecosystems. This shows in the response to the K-T extinction event:
quote: Actually, I think this is the same response, each species reaches their carrying capacity for the particular ecology, branching into neighboring ecologies and speciating as necessary to fill that ecology. It's an opportunistic response: the more opportunity there is the more evolution will likely take advantage of it as individual organisms try to survive and reproduce. We can also see different rates of evolution in the aftermath of speciation for Pelycodus, as they evolve to reduce competition between the two daughter populations:
quote: The rate of evolution from Pelycodus jarrovii to Notharctus nunienus is faster than the overall rate of evolution from Pelycodus ralstoni to Notharctus venticolus (although one could argue that it varies around this overall trend with fast and slow periods). The difference in size would also result in the smaller Notharctus nunienus being able to take better advantage of feeding higher in the trees, while the larger Notharctus venticolus was able to take better advantage of feeding on the ground, thus resulting in different ecologies even if they inhabited the same geological area. Certainly this simple graph shows that they indeed diverged further after speciation. What would be interesting would be to follow each branch further. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : switched to copied pictures 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 Coyote, sorry about the snafu on the great debate thread.
In other words, what mechanism prevents evolution from going beyond "kinds" (which is not a scientific term, or even a defined term, but may serve here to represent the idea). What mechanism prohibits speciation, followed by speciation and still more speciation? I would answer this with the evidence that invalidates the possibility of any such barrier, as I did on the great debate thread when seekingfirstthekingdom raised the issue of "genetic boundaries" From Message 33 quote: Another example of convergent evolution that extends even further into the dark ages of life on earth is the killer whale and the white shark:
quote: Great white shark - Wikipedia
quote:(except that a shark is not a "true" fish ...) It appears there is no "genetic barrier" that prevents mammal evolution from becoming similar to sharks, which are from an ancient order:
Cartilaginous fish diverged from the branch that mammals are on over 450 million years ago, and pre-date "true fish" ... that's a lot for one "kind" eh? This puts true fish, amphibians, birds and mammals together with Cartilaginous Fish into one "Kind" ... Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : one kind word Edited by RAZD, : ... Edited by RAZD, : ” to - 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) • • •
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024