Evolutionary Theory Explains Diversity

And? What is your point? I assume you had one but I can't work out what it was, that Science is tentative and scientists are willing to revise and revisit things, that more information collected over a longer period gives us better data? I also don't believe that Darwin's classification of the finches as different species was based upon observations of interbreeding or a lack thereof. In fact I don't believe it was in fact Darwin's classification at all, as far as I can see the classification was done by John Gould based on samples brought back from the Galapagos by Darwin and other members of the Beagle's crew.
The researchers on the galapagos Finches also noted that there clearly was behavioural pre-mating isolation, but that it wasn't complete isolation. If you really can't discriminate between routinely observed scientific phenomena and the tenets of the 'Flat Earth Society' then I'm not surprised you have trouble understanding modern evolutionary theory, but I would hesitate to place the blame on science's doorstep. Maybe rather than considering the 'sound' of the word you should read up on what it actually means and then you might find that it is in fact simple and logical.TTFN,WK

"And? What is your point?"Well if you stop taking things out of context you'd see the point I was trying to make, hard to have a constructive discussion if all you're doing is nit picking. Anyway, I'll wait for a response from RAZD since his responses are informative and constructive.

In what way was that out of context? You brought up Darwin's finches as an example of some point that I simply can't see, why not explain it instead of whine?TTFN,WK

Thanks Marcosll, and welcome to the fray. Sorry for the delay in response, but work has been busy. type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes: For other formating tips see Posting TipsIndividuals don't evolve, they have a set phenotype dependent on their genes and the environment they grew up in. They are transitional between the phenotype of their parents and any offspring they will have. Natural selection operates on the phenotype and that with genetic drift determine what individual DNA, and thus which traits, are passed to the next generation.Evolution is not the morphing of an individual life-form into another nor the sudden birth of a new life form, but a gradual process. You can liken it to the still pictures that make up a movie, each frame fixed, but the appearance of change with time. You can also liken it to the stick figure "animation" you can do with a pad of paper, making little changes on each page from the bottom up, and then when you flip through the pages you see the accumulated effect of those changes. Wounded King has already addressed this, the issue is being in the same area and not interbreeding. The biological definition of species is populations that don't interbreed with other population, thus each of the varieties of the Greenish Warbler are considered the same species with the ones adjacent to it, with which they do interbreed, but when you get to the closing overlap you do not have interbreeding. This demonstrates a problem with the biological definition of species, and shows that the concept of species is not easily defined. No, because they did interbreed when they came into contact. We have several "hybrid zones" around the world of various mixes of human genes.The real issue, as far as biology in general and evolution in particular is concerned, is that populations can and do divide into non-breeding populations that are descended from a common breeding population. We call this process speciation, and it has been observed in many instances. I recognize that species is hard to define precisely, but that this isn't that critical to the study of biology in general or evolution in particular. The biological definition of species also cannot be applied to asexual species. Species is really just a word we use to help describe what we are talking about, and our definitions and understanding don't effect what goes on in the natural world: that is based on the behavior of individuals in interaction with other individuals and the environment around them.We also see from genetics and molecular biology that there is not much real difference between organisms, we all have DNA made of the same materials and we all have cells with the same basic structures and organization. My wife just bought a new car. My old car is 12 years old, and it shows a number of rust patches on it. How come there are no rust patches on my wife's car? Surely the metal on it is corroding?Humans have a recorded history of some 4 thousand years, while life has existed for 3.5 billion years, so our observation has only covered less than 1 millionth of the natural history record. During those 3.5 billion years how many "very distinct new forms" have appeared? What do you define as "very distinct" in terms of change? And we have observed several new species in the last 50 years. The question comes down to what your expectations are and then how realistic they are. For instance, why should evolution occur faster now than in the past? All the ecological niches are pretty full with existing life and the environment has been pretty stable - that doesn't offer much opportunity for new life forms to develop ... unless you want to discuss what may happen with global warming ... What else do I need? Microevolution within populations, the division of populations into non-interbreeding daughter populations, the subsequent diversification of the daughter populations by microevolution within their now distinct populations.This explains diversity. We can theorize that this is sufficient to explain all the life forms we know of from the world today, from history, from the fossil record and from genetics. We can test that theory by looking for common ancestor population in the histories and checking them with the genetics.How much change is needed to develop "very distinct new forms of life" depends on what you mean by "very distinct" -- and this is an issue that is discussed on the Dogs will be Dogs will be ???, and I'd be happy to discuss it there.Enjoy.

---

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.

---

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

The Key points of Evolution is getting close to the 300 post limit, and anyone who wants to continue the discussion or evolution and the relation to diversity are welcome to add comments to this thread.

1. Evolution is simple. There are a few basic principles that are sufficient for a basic understanding of real evolution (not creationist mythology).
   

   Evolution is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation.

   
   This can easily be observed in the world around us. No two individual organisms are identical, every breeding population is composed of individuals with different mixtures of variations in traits. Some of those individuals will be more successful at surviving and breeding than other individuals. This results in their being able to pass on genes to more of the next generation than others, thus changing the mixture of traits from one generation to the next. Their relative success or failure to survive and breed are related to the phenotype of each individual organism and to the ecology in which they are living. Different phenotypes will have different relative success or failure in different ecologies.
   ​
2. Diversity is inevitable. Every subpopulation of every species inhabits a different ecology, although differences may seem relatively minor. Traits that are advantageous in one ecology can be disadvantageous or neutral in others, thus the relative success or failure of different phenotypes will be different results in different ecologies. Without sharing of the genepools between subpopulations inhabiting different ecologies, the subpopulations will inevitably diverge based on the different relative success or failure of different phenotypes to survive and reproduce in the different ecologies. Because the earth ecology is constantly changing, the relative success or failure of different phenotypes to survive and breed will be changing from generation to generation. Because catastrophic change to ecologies do occur, isolation of subpopulations will occur that will prevent sharing of the genepools between the subpopulations.
   ​
3. Time only increases the effect. Once subpopulations have become non-mixing daughter species from their respective common ancestor parent population there is no mechanism to remix, reintegrate, rejoin two species into one. It is inevitable that they will become increasingly diversified from each other and that they too will have subpopulations living in different ecologies that will accumulate different traits with different success and failure in survival and breeding for the various phenotypes in each subpopulation. It is inevitable that isolation will occur, it is inevitable that as time passes the process will repeat time after time.
   ​
4. The Theory of Evolution can be briefly stated as the theory that these simple, ongoing, inevitable, processes are sufficient to have caused all the diversity of life we know, from the world around us, from history, from the natural history of geology and paleontology, and from the genetic record embedded in the DNA of all living (and many dead) organisms.

The evolution has been observed, both in the changes in traits from generation to generation, and in the separation of subpopulations where gene mixing ceases, and in the different results in different ecologies. In this regard we have factual evidence that all these processes of evolution have occurred and will continue to occur. We also see exactly the same trends in the fossil record. We also see exactly the same trends in relationships between different populations of organisms in the fossil record and in the genetic record, thus confirming the relationships of organisms to common ancestor populations.

We can say that evolution is a fact of life, and that as a result, diversity is inevitable.

The only remaining real question, then, that creationists can have is not whether evolution occurs, but how far back can we go to determine how many common ancestor populations were involved at the start of the process.Enjoy.

---

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.

---

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

interrelation in Message 1 of Is natural selection enough to explain asks Natural selection alone, no. Evolution in general, yes.See Message 1 for more detail.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : esig

---

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) • • •

I think the diversities of life and the complexities of life can best be describe as interrelation and not evolution.Interrelation is the process of all individual organism to survive which respect to its time, its surrounding and its condition.

​

When I say
"process", I mean the way how a living organism copes, reacts, interacts, behaves and responds
"survive", I mean to maintain life, on the organism's maximum ability to live
"time", I mean the designated era that we can verify geologically
"surroundings", I mean nature (or members or parts of nature) and the common interrelated originator (CIO) besides the concerned organism or species
"condition", I mean the actual state of the organism

​

From http://www.interrelation-theory.com

Hi interrelation, and welcome to the fray. Interestingly, what you personally think has absolutely no effect on reality: life continues to evolve as the earth orbits the sun. What you need to do is show how this is different and distinct from evolution, and then propose a test, a prediction, of what should occur if "Interrelation" is true and should NOT occur if evolution is true.Note that this means (a) doing your homework, and (b) understanding evolution at a PhD level.What is your testable prediction? It is bad form to use this forum to advertise your website, and it is against forum guidelines to argue with bare links. I'll take this as just intending to be your reference for your "definitions"Enjoy.

---

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) • • •

Well, I came here to discuss that TOE is now already an obsolete and old theory. Maybe you did not see my web site. Look and see so that you may know.

We do not debate websites. You will have to bring your ideas here to have them discussed.I strongly suggest you do not dump too much at once. Give an overview of the ideas and then allow the discussion to bring out more detail.

Okay, that is good.Thank you.

Actually, you came here to tell us how good Interrelation Theory is.Is Interrelation Theory rubbish without contrasting it to ToE? You've used the first 500 words to tell us that you have a theory and that peer review mags won't publish it because they're unable to pull themselves away from their ToE dogma. I could have explained the ToE in less words with a degree of accuracy that would allow for testable predictions: i.e., no rabbits in the Cambrian.If your "theory" has any value it needs it independently of how much rubbish the ToE may be. If it's any good ToE will fall on it's own.I've read your site. You don't have a theory: you have a word. You keep repeating the word as if it has some kind of meaning. last summer I was given the great honor of being one-of-anyone-who'd-pay-some-minor-attention of studying the blue prints of a genuine, working UFO. This guy had spent untold hours weeks drawing this thing up in every, prosaic detail. He'd labeled the grommets used where wire passed through bulkheads. And right smack dab in the middle was a circular room marked "Primary Magneto-Reniatory Units" These were, I was told, the motors that made it go. End details.Oh yeah! You have icon's too. Why didn't Darwin use icons rather then arguments? He'd have been in like Flynn with the Catholics. This is a science board. You need to argue your position not sell it.As to your definitions: Seems to me you have this "common interrelated originator (CIO)" that needs defining much more the "time". I'm guessing most folks here would figure out "time" on their own.And then there are your mechanisms: "BIOTIC PRESERVATION MECHANISM (BPM)". Things don't die on purpose. You had to study that; hun? I mean, it's your prime mechanism. It really needs to have a bit more lan vital if it's not to just sort of a D'ah statement.Okay! I just have to admire your experiments. They are more telling of your mind set than all the rest of your missive. I present them here because I'd hate it if people with something interesting to do were to miss them. I don't think you'll find a single person to argue with your conclusion that this is not evolution by natural selection.Edited by lyx2no, : Submitted rather than previewed again.

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them.

Oh thanks, for posting it here one of the mechanism. I'm preparing to post it here.Of course, since you are following the TOE, then, you will surely say that Interrelation Theory is wrong. Anybody can say that. I can say that too to TOE. But if you will understand Interrelation Theory better is that the reason why organisms are changing is not because they are evolving by natural process with no purpose, but they are interrelating with a purpose as we see it in nature. And they are interrelating becausu they are preserving their life. The opposite of the TOE.Yes, this is the biotic preservation mechanism. And it is excatly the opposite of natural selection.And the peer review, I've writen it there in the web page. I got pity of the peer reviewer. How will he knew if my theory is right or wrong by using just only one theory that is not neutral? (I am not saying neutral theory in TOE).There is more in Interrelaton Theory than that. But thanks.Edited by interrelation, : No reason given.

Hello Interrelation, welcome to the forum.You mentioned a purpose figuring in your theory of interrelation. Just out of interest, where does this purpose come from? And how does it influence the way organisms change?

---

"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.

Thanks for the questions1. You mentioned a purpose figuring in your theory of interrelation. Just out of interest, where does this purpose come from?
ANSWER: Well, since all living organisms have purposely protect their life, then, the most plausible explanation for that is the giver of life to them. Is it nature? Is it alien? Is it God? I called it the common interrelated originator in my Interrelation Theory. Since I am a Christian, I will assuredly say that it is God who had created life but since I can't present to you in physical form now, then, maybe I'm wrong. But the giver of life is the cause of that since it is testable and observable.And how does it influence the way organisms change?
ANSWER: By simple test and observation tells me in the Interrelation Theory that organisms may loose its parts or members of its parts to change, just to gain its life. I mean, organisms life is more important part than their change, or losing some of its parts just to live.Definitely, life is main factor that greatly influenced them to change (a sacrificial change maybe, in human perception).And how does it influence the way organisms change?