Evolutionary Theory Explains Diversity

Well interrelation, you're off to a bad start. This thread is about how evolutionary theory explains diversity, which was the question in your original proposed topic. If you think you have a better theory then you need to show how your theory explains diversity better.So far all we have from you are things that are already explained by evolutionary theory, and a couple of "science fair experiments" dealing with existing organisms reacting to artificial environmental factors.This does not explain diversity.Evolution explains diversity: evolution is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation, isolate two populations in different ecologies, and evolution predicts that generation after generation they will evolve in different ways, due to the selection to live and reproduce in the different ecologies. Thus diversity occurs. Message 37
This is basic behavioral biology of living things, not how new species arise and thus result in diversity.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) • • •

Hi again interrelation, let's see what you have ... What mechanism limits the diversification?Speciation has been observed, both in the lab, in the field and in the fossil record: this is diversification.Pelycodus: gradulastic

quote:

---

Successive fossils in the Pelycodus fossil record show the gradual evolution of increased size, which can be recognized as a series of species. The coexistence of two simultaneous size trends indicates a speciation event.

---

Here you see the trend to diversity in the changing makeup of the populations from generation to generation, with a gradual trend for the whole population to consist of larger individuals, while the individuals clearly overlap in size at each level.There is a clear division of the parent population into daughter populations - a speciation event - that then evolve in different directions, increasing the diversity of the total population.This trend continues outside the realm of the graph without finding any barrier to such diversification by mutations causing variations, and by natural selection of the variations in each population\generation. In other words, it just "happened" - organisms were just existing in their specific populations, and then suddenly "poof" a new species appeared?Curiously there is no evidence of this occurring. Curiously this is only logically feasible if these "designated geological era" were constant. Instead we see the geological record has many changing aspects, and the life is observed adapting to those changing conditions, rather than dying out and being replaced "poof" by new species in the new conditions.Interestingly, your claim here is also invalidated by the pelycodus fossil record above: we see a gradual trend, divisions and a spreading of diversity, yet there is no sudden "poof" of new forms of organisms at different "designated geological era".If what you claim is true, there is absolutely no reason for a tree of common descent to be visible in the fossil record (see pelycodus example) or in the genetic record.Pelycodus single-handedly shows each of your statements to be false, a rather incredible degree of failure for your concept in explaining any evidence.A theory that doesn't explain the evidence is not a valid theory.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : extended

---

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) • • •

Hi again interrelation, I'm still wondering when you will ever deal with the facts of evolution. But the question is -- did you do the same experiment with plants - see if they avoided the stick?If they don't, and the mechanism is really a process to avoid death, then should not plants exhibit the same behavior?Did you do it with bacteria? With sponges? Starfish? Coral? Opossums? Turtles? Except that you did not test Darwin's concepts nor TOE in any way. If you don't know that then you know squat about evolution. What you have done is test individual organisms to see if they react to their environment -- curiously the ability of life to react to it's environment is one of the defining elements of living things. You have proven that living organisms exhibit one of the defining elements of living things. WOW.You have also shown, yet have not seemed to have observed, is that the methods used by different organisms to react to their environment are different, due to their different evolution. Except for the minor detail that your experiments have zilch, zero, nada, zip, rien, nothing to do with natural selection. Why?Because it doesn't test for the differential preservation of different inherited traits from one generation to the next within a population.You don't have a population.You don't have a generation.All you have is sadistically tormenting small animals for no apparent purpose.Now lets look at some more of you silly concepts: And again, when we look at the evidence this is not what we see. The previous example of pelycodus starts with a population with a variety of sizes, and after time has passed ends up with a wider variety of sizes split into two distinct populations. This diagram actively shows evolution occurring:http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/pelycodus.html

quote:

---

Pelycodus was a tree-dwelling primate that looked A complete fossil much like a modern lemur. The skull shown is probably 7.5 centimeters long.

​

The numbers down the left hand side indicate the depth (in feet) at which each group of fossils was found. As is usual in geology, the diagram gives the data for the deepest (oldest) fossils at the bottom, and the upper (youngest) fossils at the top. The diagram covers about five million years.

​

The numbers across the bottom are a measure of body size. Each horizontal line shows the range of sizes that were found at that depth. The dark part of each line shows the average value, and the standard deviation around the average.

​

The dashed lines show the overall trend. The species at the bottom is Pelycodus ralstoni, but at the top we find two species, Notharctus nunienus and Notharctus venticolus. The two species later became even more distinct, and the descendants of nunienus are now labeled as genus Smilodectes instead of genus Notharctus.

---

Looks to me like the organisms thrived over time, increasing in diversity, and with no apparent limit. Can you show where on the side scale (the one that shows time) where time is being ignored? What causes the limitation? Once you have speciation you have two populations that increase variations over time, and different natural selection (the real kind) operating on the two different populations with necessarily different results -- necessarily different because (a) the mutations that provide opportunity for increased survival and reproduction will necessarily be different and (b) because the ecology that is imposing a selective filter on what organisms survive and reproduce better than other is also necessarily different.Diversity by TOE is inevitable. It is specifically predicted by the theory, And it is observed in reality. I again refer to the pelycodus chart. Pretty funny that one little primate proves so many of your silly concepts to be false. In fact, just about every piece of evidence I turn to shows your concepts and your understanding of evolution to be false and a rather pathetic display of ignorance.A true scientist would go back to the drawing board. Actually a true scientist would never get to your drawing board - they would learn the facts first, and study evolution rather than beat up the neighbors cats and dogs. This is the biggest piece of ad hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy that I have seen in a while. The "plausible explanation for the diversification" is precisely what (real) evolution (with real natural selection plus real mutation), but instead is evidence of god poofing organisms into existence. Here's another inconvenient truth:article 8

quote:

---

Tony Arnold and Bill Parker compiled what may be the largest, most complete set of data on the evolutionary history of any group of organisms, marine or otherwise. The two scientists amassed something that their land-based colleagues only dreamed about: An intact fossil record with no missing links.

​

"It's all here--a virtually complete evolutionary record," says Arnold. "There are other good examples, but this is by far the best. We're seeing the whole picture of how this group of organisms has changed throughout most of its existence on Earth."

​

About 330 species of living and extinct planktonic forams have been classified so far. After thorough examinations of marine sediments collected from around the world, micropaleontologists now suspect these are just about all the free-floating forams that ever existed.

​

The species collection also is exceptionally well-preserved, which accounts largely for the excitement shared by Parker and Arnold. "Most fossils, particularly those of the vertebrates, are fragmented--just odds and ends," says Parker. "But these fossils are almost perfectly preserved, despite being millions of years old."

---

Where's the "poofed" life forms in that record - it covers over 66 million years, shows complete speciation event after speciation event after speciation event. Sadly for you genetics shows that your concept is codswallop. Preserved in DNA are small inserts caused by viral infections that have been deactivated by the surviving cells, these insertions are passed on to following generations because (a) they are there and (b) they do not affect survival, reproduction or development of the organisms. The is also absolutely no rational reason for exactly the same insertion of exactly the same kind of virus in exactly the same sequence from one individual to another, let alone from one species to another.When these inserts are compared between the genomes of different species they show a tree of hereditary relationship that logically only comes via common descent from the individual with the original infection.Fascinatingly this tree of relationship matches that previously derived from the homologies in the fossil record. Amazingly they even extend back to the original life forms, with the three major domains of life, archea, bacteria and eucharyota. And we come back to the fact that what you have stated (a) has absolutely no effect on reality, and (b) is in fact contradicted by reality.Scientists discard falsified concepts. You have several to send to the trash bin.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : more

---

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 interrelation, you are just digging yourself in deeper and deeper. No, what makes a theory wrong is contradictory evidence, like the evidence of pelycodus and foraminifera (just for starters) that totally invalidate your concept.Now you have shown that you don't understand natural selection, evolution, life, biology, science, the scientific process and logic.What's next?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) • • •

Hi interrelation, let's see if you've learned anything. Ah, so your theory that life can avoid death by using interelation is false. So it appears that you have a vast untested sample of the world. Curiously biologists have covered the world and studied every known species and several now extinct ones. Fascinatingly they all behave according to predictions from evolution. But it didn't try to run away? Looks like it had a totally different reaction to your stick than the rat - can your concept explain that difference?Evolution can and does. In both situations you are dealing with species that have evolved survival mechanisms over millions of years, and each mechanism has helped ensure the individual passes on their genetic traits, including the mechanisms for the rat to run and the turtle to draw it's neck into it's shell. Can you explain why the shell?Evolution can predict the behavior of each one of these organisms to your stick. Thus if your attempt your "experiment" and all you do is confirm what evolution predicts then you have demonstrated that evolution's predictions are correct. Thank you for demonstrating that you do not know what evolution is.My car changes over time - it rusts. That is not evolution.My body changes over time - it has grown up and is not advancing into the tribulations of age, but that too is not evolution.Evolution is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation. The time mechanism is reproduction and the production of new generations, and the change mechanism is mutations and selection for increased survival and reproduction.If you want to learn about the reality of evolution try
Evolution 101 - Understanding EvolutionNote: An introduction to evolution - Understanding Evolution

quote:

---

The Definition:
Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations). Evolution helps us to understand the history of life.

---

They teach biology. You could learn. Sadly no, you ONLY tested one aspect, you only tested for survival patterns, pre-evolved survival patterns. Curiously they are ancestral to primates, apes, ... and humans. Hi mr lemurlike being - too bad you haven't evolved from your limited past.Of course we could also discuss therapsidae, but I somehow doubt that you would understand the interesting sequence in the middle where the fossils are in transition from reptiles to mammals, and they have two jaw joints instead of one. This is biological development, not TOE Because this is how individual organisms develop according to the DNA they have inherited. This is not where evolutionary change occurs, it follows the change that happens when the DNA is formed for the sperm and egg before they combine into the zygote.If they die on the way to developing into reproductive adults then this is one way how natural selection works to eliminate DNA patterns that cannot develop into reproductively capable adults. So why do entirely different species have exactly the same scars from exactly the same fights in exactly the same places?Their existence is but a small part of the problem before you: their location and their identical pattern show that the scars all came from one fight by one ancestor to all the descendants that carry the scar.Common descent, evolution, explains that pattern, your theory does not.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) • • •

Hi Caffeine, The best I can figure is that natural selection during the instance of his hitting animals with stick does not explain the evolved behavior of organisms to survive and breed.He seems to ignore the whole accumulated behaviors and their specific relationship to the various inherited traits of the different species, through time that have been integral to the formation of the species as it is today. This of course brings us to the other problem: Or where it is more visible in the "interrelation" hypothesis and results in a some kind of "complete" explanation. If his hypothesis does not explain any single thing better than is explained already by evolution, then his hypothesis necessarily suffers the same degree of incompleteness, whatever it is.Given that each of the responses to his "experiments" can be predicted beforehand by our knowledge of biology, he has not tested any incompleteness of evolution theory.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) • • •

Hi Alan Clarke, welcome to the fray, sorry I was away when you posted your first reply on this thread. Things seem to have gone south in my absence. Curiously, you don't answer why this makes evolution theory a failure at explaining diversity. Diversity is explained by speciation and the diversification of daughter populations from a parent population, and while this will involve transitions from one species to a new species or two, those transitions don't have to be extreme, just different enough to prevent or discourage interbreeding of the daughter populations.Let me help you a little with a review of some details here: What the theory of evolution predicts is that daughter species will have some hereditary traits in common with a parent species. In this particular case, there were several homologies between the skull found and the skull of whales - the shared traits of the daughter populations with the ancestral one. Because those homologies were closer to known whale ancestors than to artiodactyl ancestors, and so erred on the side of conservative to place it closer to whale than the ancestral artiodactyl. To begin with you are trying to pretend that an artistic rendering is an actual prediction of Gingrich in the paper he published - do you have the citation and a quote that validates that? The information is readily available for those who want to learn the facts:See Philip D. Gingerich
Research on the Origin and Early Evolution of Whales (Cetacea)

quote:

---

The mammalian order Cetacea is divided into three suborders: (1) Oligocene to Recent Odontoceti or 'toothed whales'” living today; (2) Oligocene to Recent Mysticeti or 'baleen whales'” living today; and (3) older and more primitive Eocene Archaeoceti or 'archaic whales'” which evolved from land mammals and gave rise to later odontocetes and mysticetes. My research on the origin and early evolution of whales is focused on archaeocetes. I have been fortunate to work with many colleagues on this in Egypt, Jordan, Pakistan, and India, (see co-authors in the publication list below). The stages of early whale evolution that we have documented are shown here in Figure 1. We have found and collected virtually complete skeletons of middle-to-late Eocene Basilosauridae (Dorudon and Basilosaurus), exceptionally complete skeletons of middle Eocene Protocetidae (especially Rodhocetus and Artiocetus), and a partial skull of earliest middle Eocene Pakicetidae (Pakicetus). Recovery of diagnostic ankle bones in the skeletons of primitive protocetids during our field work in Pakistan in 2000 confirmed their derivation from Artiodactyla (the mammalian order including cows, deer, hippos, etc.), and showed convincingly that whales did not originate from mesonychid condylarths as Van Valen hypothesized (and we had expected). Figure 1. Skeletons of the archaeocetes Dorudon atrox and Rodhocetus balochistanensis compared to that of Elomeryx armatus, which is here taken as a model for the extinct group of artiodactyls (Anthracotheriidae, s.l.) that we now think may have given rise to archaic whales. Pakicetus has a distinctive skull and lower jaw, but is not demonstrably different from early protocetids postcranially. Note changes in body proportions and elongation of feet for foot-powered swimming in Rodhocetus, then later reduction of the hind limbs and feet as the tail-powered swimming of modern cetaceans evolved in Dorudon.

​

A. Elomeryx drawing from W. B. Scott, first published in 1894. B. Pakicetus skull from Gingerich et al. (1983). Terrestrial interpretation is pure speculation: what little is known of the skeleton resembles Rodhocetus. C. Rodhocetus skeletal reconstruction from Gingerich et al. (2001). D. Dorudon skeletal reconstruction from Gingerich and Uhen (1996). Figure may be reproduced for non-profit educational use.

---

(color for emphasis)The ankle bones connect Rodhocetus to the artiodactyls root, with Elomeryx as an example.Please notice the question-marks for the body of pakicetus. What you actually see is that the prediction is that when more information is known about the body, that it will be intermediate between Elomeryx and Rodhocetus.Curiously that is just exactly what was found.Artistic renderings are not "predictions" nor are they scientific theories. If you have any doubt about this then refer again to the words in yellow above.Crayon writing on a picture saying "non-viable forelimbs" is just silly creationist ignorance rather than anything provided in the literature.Interestingly, rather that show that this means that the theory of evolution fails to explain diversity -- the topic of this thread -- what your example shows is that even more diversity -- more difference -- occurred between Pakicetus and known whale ancestors. Message 97
Interestingly, what science does is test predictions against new information, and then it corrects the theoretical structure to accommodate the new information, or the theory that made the prediction is discarded.In this way science eliminates bad information, leaving information that is likely more correct than previously. Except that the actual science predicts an intermediate form, both from the coelacanth and from pakecetus.Rather than be a mistake, this prediction has been fine-tuned by additional information. Fascinatingly, what we see in the coelacanth fossils is a diversity in fin form from the other fish, structure that is also found in early quadra-ped ancestors like the ichthyostega, structures that were also show up in tiktaalik. Once again we see intermediate form as fish diversifies into quadra-peds. The problem here is (a) a massive misunderstanding of macroevolution and (b) an argument based, in effect, on a cartoon rather than on the scientific evidence. There is no such thing as "macro-evolving" in evolutionary biology.Now it has been suggested that you participate in another thread on macroevolution before compiling more errors in your posts here, and that would be a good idea: this thread is about diversity, and how it occurs through speciation, and not about macroevolution per se, and certainly it is not about your interpretations of transitional fossils.See MACROevolution vs MICROevolution - what is it? for a discussion of macro evolution. Which is also off topic.Interestingly, your opinion is (a) irrelevant to the way the term is used in science and (b) completely unable to alter reality in any way: life will continue to evolve regardless of your opinions.You either use the terms as they are used in science, or you are talking about something else - a fantasy in your head - instead of reality. Terms are used to convey specific meaning or communication is confused.In science, evolutionary biological science, macroevolution is the evolution that occurs in the daughter lineages after speciation. This evolution occurs by the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation. This evolution is observed in the world around you.Because daughter populations are - by the definition of "speciation" - reproductively isolated, they no longer share the same genetic pool of traits. All new mutations only occur in one population or the other. These daughter populations will also live in different ecologies, which means they will have different selective pressures for which traits are advantageous to survival and breeding, and which traits are not advantageous. Thus natural selection will result in different trait selection in the daughter populations to adapt to live in the different ecologies, and over time the accumulation of greater and greater difference between the daughter lineages will be virtually inevitable -- this is macroevolution, as used in biological sciences. This is diversity. This is explained by the theory of evolution.Your cartoons and your assertions of opinion do not address this issue, and thus you fail to show that the theory of evolution does not explain diversity.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) • • •

Hi pandion,The biological definition of species is a population of individuals that interbreed. In practice this means that two or more genetically similar populations can physically interbreed, but that the opportunities to do so are declined in most cases.An example is the asian greenish warbler ring species that has two ends on a somewhat continuous band around the Tibetan plateau, where each sub-population breeds with the neighboring population until you get to the northernmost section of the ring, where two varieties don't see the others either as mates or as competition.As far as dogs go, it is hard to tell what the wild "natural" behavior of a domesticated animal would be when given the opportunity.An interesting side note is the Carolina "Yellow" DogCarolina Dog - Wikipedia

quote:

---

The Carolina Dog, or American Dingo, is a type of wild dog discovered in the late 1970s.[1] They were located living in isolated stretches of longleaf pines and cypress swamps in the Southeastern United States. They are dogs of medium size, with a fawn coat and frequently a melanistic mask.

​

Some ancient paintings and rock art of Native Americans depict dogs that have physical traits similar to those of Carolina Dogs. Carolina Dogs also have a ginger-colored coat that is found on other wild dogs, including Australian Dingoes and Korea’s native dog, the Jindo.[3] Experts have said that Carolina Dogs are seemingly indistinguishable from the Jindo.[citation needed] Also, fossils of the dogs of Native Americans exhibit similar bone structures to Carolina Dogs. Brisbin found a resemblance between 2,000-year-old skulls and those of the Carolina Dogs, but concluded that there was too large a difference to prove any connection.[4]

​

The preliminary DNA testing may provide a link between primitive dogs and Carolina Dogs. Brisbin stated, “We grabbed them out of the woods based on what they look like, and if they were just dogs their DNA patterns should be well distributed throughout the canine family tree. But they aren't. They're all at the base of the tree, where you would find very primitive dogs.” This wasn’t conclusive, but it did spark interest into more extensive DNA testing.[2]

---

From the DNA results, if confirmed, it would appear that these dogs by overwhelming preference do not interbreed with other dogs, with wolves or with coyotes, as otherwise the DNA would be mixed instead of basal to "very primitive dogs".It would be interesting to see more DNA research into this to see if they compare closer to wolves, coyotes or dogs.What we could have is a species of dog that came with the original settlers of N.America - the American Indian ancestors - from Asia, explaining their "primitive" genes, and as a result they have some distinct genetic and possibly behavioral differences from dogs brought from europe. The behavioral differences - like in the asian greenish warblers - could be enough to limit if not prevent interbreeding.That would make dogs a "ring species" as well.And of course, ring species are definite proof of the development of additional diversity within populations, diversity due to evolution and in response to the opportunities and adaptations imposed by different ecologies.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : subtitleEdited by RAZD, : clrtyEdited by RAZD, : mor clrty

---

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) • • •

Mity Eve is not the topic -- see Message 1The diversity of species, and how the theory of evolution explains it, are the topic.

quote:

---

I'll start off with some definition of what we are talking about ... to make sure we are talking about the same thing. In the science of evolutionary biology there are two (2) basic processes:

1. the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation.
2. the reproductive isolation of daughter populations from the parent populations or other daughter populations.

The first is a basic definition of "evolution" (the process that is the subject of the theory), and it is similar to other definitions used, including Darwin's original formulation ("Descent with Modification") and what is often called the genetic definition (the change in the frequency of alleles in a population over time). It is also similar to what is used to teach the science of evolutionary biology at the university level.

​

The second is a basic definition of "speciation" where descendant populations become genetically dissimilar with isolation as time passes due to the process of evolution operating in different ecologies and through different sets of new mutations\traits that arise in populations of otherwise similar organisms, and because of the lack of sharing of those new mutations\traits with the other populations.

​

Each of these processes operate through several mechanisms, some shared some not. Natural selection is one such process, and the one that Darwin recognized as being able to cause descent with modification. Ecological changes are also a mechanism, as evolution is a response system, and populations of organisms will respond to different ecologies with different "fitness" selection.

​

Darwin's insight was that these simple processes were sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it

• from life on earth today,
• from history (accounts of now extinct life),
• from prehistory (cave paintings and other archeological artifacts),
• from the fossil record (the natural history of life that has lived on earth in the past) and
• from the genetic record (although he did not know about genes he figured out that there was "a" mechanism that transmitted hereditary traits from one generation to the next, and that populations were related by common ancestry, genetics has just given us better information on what the various mechanisms are and how we can determine the common ancestry history from the evidence in the genes).

​

This is what the theory of evolution is (as opposed to the process and the science): that these simple processes, the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation and the division of populations into reproductively isolated daughter populations, are sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it, from the life on earth today, from history, from prehistory, from the fossil record and from the genetic record.

---

Is there any stage in the evolution of organisms that cannot be explained by evolution?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) • • •