Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8896 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-21-2019 7:39 AM
42 online now:
Percy (Admin), RAZD (2 members, 40 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,523 Year: 3,560/19,786 Month: 555/1,087 Week: 145/212 Day: 12/49 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1314
15
1617
...
29NextFF
Author Topic:   Species/Kinds (for Peg...and others)
Peg
Member (Idle past 3005 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 211 of 425 (541015)
12-30-2009 6:06 PM
Reply to: Message 209 by Blue Jay
12-30-2009 10:30 AM


Re: Round and round, again and again
Im sorry that you are finding this annoying bluejay,

but i didnt draw the conclusion in the experiement I posted, the scientist did. If anything is annoying its that not all scientists are in agreeance. This makes it very hard to know who to believe....i'm sure they can't all be right.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by Blue Jay, posted 12-30-2009 10:30 AM Blue Jay has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by Blue Jay, posted 12-31-2009 1:36 AM Peg has not yet responded
 Message 214 by Rrhain, posted 12-31-2009 4:30 AM Peg has not yet responded
 Message 220 by jasonlang, posted 12-31-2009 4:33 PM Peg has not yet responded

    
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 773 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 212 of 425 (541066)
12-31-2009 1:36 AM
Reply to: Message 211 by Peg
12-30-2009 6:06 PM


Re: Round and round, again and again
Hi, Peg.

Peg writes:

but i didnt draw the conclusion in the experiement I posted, the scientist did. If anything is annoying its that not all scientists are in agreeance. This makes it very hard to know who to believe....i'm sure they can't all be right.

But, we're not talking about the same experiment! You can't just take that one experiment and assume that all changes in all bacteria everywhere are identical to the changes in that one experiment.


-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by Peg, posted 12-30-2009 6:06 PM Peg has not yet responded

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 213 of 425 (541075)
12-31-2009 4:27 AM
Reply to: Message 207 by Peg
12-30-2009 6:38 AM


Peg responds to me:

quote:
quote:
Indeed, but this is only after they spent decades indicating that there couldn't be any variation at all. When it became clear that speciation could actually happen, they simply moved the "kind" definition up the taxonomic tree.

im not sure if thats true or not


It's the entire basis for creationists whining about "microevolution" and "macroevolution": The original claim was that evolution was absolutely impossible. In no way, shape, or form could there ever be evolution.

But then it became to difficult to deny the evidence staring them in the face. When you can achieve reproductive isolation in 13 generations, it becomes difficult to say that it is a biological impossibility.

So they simply moved the goalposts: OK, so evolution is possible, but it's "microevolution" and not "macroevolution," as if there were such a distinction at all. If 1 + 1 = 2, then 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 10 and the genome can mutate and change as much as you like. There is nothing to stop it.

Witness your own claims: In trying to pin you down as to what you mean by "kind," you've kept moving the goalposts. Anything to allow you to keep your "kind" categorization pristine and unsullied by having one "kind" give rise to another.

It's why you keep saying "cat kind" without explaining why lions and ocelots are somehow not the same kind while lions and tigers are.

quote:
but it certainly sounds familiar...when people began to realise that life does not spontaneously generate, evolutionists changed tact too

Evolution was never about spontaneous generation.

Why would you have us lie about that?

quote:
great, so now genetics has nothing to do with evolution either?

No, genetics has everything to do with evolution. You're the one trying to portray a false distinction between them.

In short: You don't know what "genetics" is and thus, your description of what it is and how it works is fundamentally flawed and your statements contain no veracity.

Notice your claim that somehow an organism that reproduces by cloning isn't "mutating" when it gives rise to new genetic traits. You call the appearance of these new traits "genetics" rather than "evolution." You pretend that those aren't the same thing. Evolution is genetic change over time.

quote:
and im not sure what you're trying to imply with your 2nd equation

If you can evolve a little, you can evolve a lot. There's nothing to stop it. There is no "kind" barrier. How on earth does the genome know that it isn't allowed to mutate anymore because that next one will result in a different "kind" compared to the original?

That's why I keep asking you about ring species: Each adjacent species pair is interfertile, but the two species at the ends are not. The genome changes little by little, each time maintaining compatibility with the close neighbor but by the time the journey is finished, there is so much change that it is completely incompatible with the point of origin.

And thus, we have a new "kind" which is, according to your definition, two organisms that cannot achieve gamete conjugation.

A ring species is a direct presentation of new "kinds" arising via evolution.

Why would you have us lie about it?


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by Peg, posted 12-30-2009 6:38 AM Peg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by Peg, posted 01-01-2010 12:00 AM Rrhain has responded

    
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 214 of 425 (541076)
12-31-2009 4:30 AM
Reply to: Message 211 by Peg
12-30-2009 6:06 PM


Peg writes:

quote:
but i didnt draw the conclusion in the experiement I posted, the scientist did.

Incorrect. That is not what was concluded.

Again, you are pretending that there is some distinction between "genetics" and "evolution." This is because you don't know what "genetics" is.

Once again, I ask you directly:

Do you think the chromosome replicates perfectly every single time?


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by Peg, posted 12-30-2009 6:06 PM Peg has not yet responded

    
jasonlang
Member (Idle past 1478 days)
Posts: 51
From: Australia
Joined: 07-14-2005


Message 215 of 425 (541088)
12-31-2009 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by Arphy
12-18-2009 3:07 PM


Re: Sauce for the Goose, etc.
http://creation.com/speedy-species-surprise

Couldn't resist pointing out some flaws in the logic

1. Phenotypic change does not necessarily indicate any evolution at all, let along hyperevolution. All species have pre-evolved adaptability to changes in conditions. Consider the great increase in height / longevity of the Japanese population since WW2, which nobody would claim to be evolution but which would score high on the "darwins" (14 yo Japanese boys now are as heavy as adults at the end of WW2)

http://web-japan.org/trends95/68.html

2. Where short term genetic adaptation occurs it is almost %100 through competition between variations in the gene pool in response to changes in the environment. Rapid strong selection pressures tend to "use up" genetic variation within the population, putting a final break on the "hyper-evolution", so in the long run evolution is constrained by the mutation rate no matter how strong the selection pressures (during a period of stability, variation builds back up to equilibrium).

3. Paleontologists use average size of specimens when determining long term evolution trends. You wouldn't claim that because you found a small adult T-Rex fossil and a much larger one from 1 year later that T-Rex suddenly evolved bigger, because chance in plays a part in the individual life of each animal or group.

4. The predator is also adapting to the guppies. At first, the abundant new food source benefits each predator roughly equally (boosting predator survival all round, little competitive pressure), but as the predator population maxes out and the guppies grow bigger to avoid being eaten, those predators able to eat the larger prey will be selected for. As this continues, the advantage of being a large guppy will eventually diminish and the guppies may shift back towards producing a high quantity of young and being smaller again.

So much for hyper-evolution.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Arphy, posted 12-18-2009 3:07 PM Arphy has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 225 by RAZD, posted 12-31-2009 8:08 PM jasonlang has responded

    
jasonlang
Member (Idle past 1478 days)
Posts: 51
From: Australia
Joined: 07-14-2005


Message 216 of 425 (541096)
12-31-2009 11:37 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by Peg
12-20-2009 1:02 AM


Re: Kinds
ICANT writes:

The list would need to have every kind that is living on earth today as well as those that have become extinct since the flood took place.

im not sure if it would need all the kinds today.

we know that animals can produce great variety within their kinds such as dogs and cats for instance.

You're not sure the Ark would need all the 'kinds' seen today, Peg ??

I though the point was that new kinds cannot be created ? Or are you forgetting the bounds of your Ark-certified "kinds" ?? Very convenient these "kinds".

Edited by jasonlang, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Peg, posted 12-20-2009 1:02 AM Peg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 224 by greyseal, posted 12-31-2009 7:30 PM jasonlang has responded
 Message 231 by Peg, posted 01-01-2010 12:20 AM jasonlang has not yet responded

    
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 773 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 217 of 425 (541104)
12-31-2009 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 202 by Peg
12-29-2009 10:59 PM


Change and Variety
Hi, Peg.

I'd like to try to tackle this genetics issue from another standpoint.

The following quote contains several keywords that I want to focus on:

Peg writes:

Creationists accept that variety exists within the different 'kinds' of animals, and this is due to genetics. this is factual and has been proved beyond doubt that its an accurate description of life and why it changes.

(emphasis mine)

Variety: In your view, where does this variety come from? Was it always there? Can new variety be created? What happens to variety over time? Does it decrease? Increase?

Genetics: In your view, what is "genetics"? Is it just heredity and dominant/recessive mechanics? What do genes actually do, in your mind?

Change: In your view, what is changing? Are actual gene sequences changing? Or, are genes just being mixed together in different ways? For a specific example, if one bacterium divides into two, will the two resulting bacteria be identical?

-----

I don't intend to overwhelm you with questions, but, I think, if you seriously consider those questions, you may come to realize the simple reality that underlies the Theory of Evolution:

Chromosomes replicate. They do so imperfectly. So, copies of a single chromosome are not always identical to one another.

Changes to chromosomes result in changes to traits.

Differences in traits between organisms result in differences in the chances of success.

Differences in traits between organisms also result in differences in function between organisms.

Changes in functions can alter which traits have higher chances of success.

Changes in genes, traits or function can reduce perceived or actual compatibility between organisms, and can lead to reproductive isolation.

Changes can accumulate across generations.

Do you disagree with any of these points?


-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by Peg, posted 12-29-2009 10:59 PM Peg has not yet responded

  
jasonlang
Member (Idle past 1478 days)
Posts: 51
From: Australia
Joined: 07-14-2005


Message 218 of 425 (541106)
12-31-2009 1:18 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by ICANT
12-25-2009 9:50 AM


Re: Kind (Wolves)
Wolves and Dogs can Hybridize - so they must be one 'Kind' according to your previous claims.

Also Coyote and Jackals, Foxes claimed but unconfirmed

They have a "Canid interfertility chart" here :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canid_hybrid

Edited by jasonlang, : No reason given.

Edited by jasonlang, : No reason given.

Edited by jasonlang, : No reason given.

Edited by jasonlang, : No reason given.

Edited by jasonlang, : No reason given.

Edited by jasonlang, : No reason given.

Edited by jasonlang, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by ICANT, posted 12-25-2009 9:50 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by ICANT, posted 12-31-2009 6:44 PM jasonlang has responded

    
jasonlang
Member (Idle past 1478 days)
Posts: 51
From: Australia
Joined: 07-14-2005


Message 219 of 425 (541117)
12-31-2009 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 196 by Peg
12-29-2009 3:17 AM


Peg, you claim that all changes in Chromosome number are always detrimental, yet your individual "kinds" contain members with wildly varying numbers of chromosomes.

Birds Range : 40 - 138 Chromosomes, but are all of the same "kind"

They seem to have coped fine, how does this gel ?

http://wiki.answers.com/...hromosomes_can_be_found_in_a_bird

Also Peg : your claim that mutations never ever occur is a worrying regression, making yourself sound stupider than before. It would make your proposed development of kinds into the range of known species completely impossible.

Sexual reproduction inevitably reduces genetic variation, regardless of whether you believe in natural seleciton or not (only 50% of the DNA from your parents is in you, the other half is lost). Maintaining a continuous level of genetic diversity in the face of inevitable reduction requires mutation. Without it all species would end up as clones.

Edited by jasonlang, : No reason given.

Edited by jasonlang, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by Peg, posted 12-29-2009 3:17 AM Peg has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by Rrhain, posted 01-01-2010 1:15 AM jasonlang has not yet responded

    
jasonlang
Member (Idle past 1478 days)
Posts: 51
From: Australia
Joined: 07-14-2005


Message 220 of 425 (541120)
12-31-2009 4:33 PM
Reply to: Message 211 by Peg
12-30-2009 6:06 PM


Re: Round and round, again and again
Peg, both experiments are in total agreement, there absolutely no conflict.

In your quoted experiment, there was a pre-given population of e coli, some of which were phage resistant.

In the other experiment, a single e coli was bred into a population. Changes in the DNA occured during breeding, giving a population just like the one in the first experiment, with the same results of some having phage resistance.

Really, where's the discrepancy than an eight-year-old couldn't see past, and where do you think the phage-resitance came from in the first place for your quoted experiment ?

If no mutation ever occurs, all the e coli should have been identical in both experiments from the start. You'd be almost completely alone on that one (plus you need hyper-mutation and hyper-selection to explain hyper-evolution after the flood, but it still wouldn't be enough, only direct genetic engineering from God could explain it)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by Peg, posted 12-30-2009 6:06 PM Peg has not yet responded

    
Drosophilla
Member (Idle past 1716 days)
Posts: 172
From: Doncaster, yorkshire, UK
Joined: 08-25-2009


(1)
Message 221 of 425 (541121)
12-31-2009 5:53 PM
Reply to: Message 204 by Peg
12-29-2009 11:08 PM


Crash course on genetics??
Hi Peg,

Much like traits that show up in a family line, one person may have blonde hair, but it doesnt show up in the decendents until some stage down the track...then every now and then the someone gets the blonde hair.

But hey, if you want to call it mutation, i'll call it mutation for the sake of it.

Can I suggest Peg that if you wish to debate genetics with some actual understanding of the subject that you invest in a genetics text-book - your knowledge of the subject is more than a little wanting I'm afraid.

However meantime I'll throw my tuppeny-worth into the ring and try and help you see how it fits together.

What the other posters have been telling you is that bacteria only have one chromosomal set, and that they reproduce asexually, theoretically reproducing that exact chromosome set. It's a bit like me giving you a copy of your bible, a pen and a load of paper and asking you to write out a copy of said bible without making a single spelling mistake, punctuation error or transposition of data. Biological systems are good....in fact extraordinarily good....but even those systems cannot replicate to that degree of excellence where there are no copying errors.

That is mutation. It is a fact of all genetic copying operations and it happens all the time. Mostly the errors are tiny and not of significance to the individual. Sometimes the error is deadly and the individual dies - either at conception stage (yes even for bacteria), sometimes later.

The hard facts of life mean that to be "successful", a copying error must not affect an individual's mortality before it has a chance to reproduce itself.

So, back to the colony of bacteria. Every now and again a mutation will occur that will alter the cell wall structure enough to make that individual resistant to say an antibiotic. If the antibiotic is not in the vicinity this will not be necessarily an advantage to the altered individual. In fact it could be a detriment. For example, an altered cell wall membrane that repels an antibiotic might also be less sensitive to other chemicals - say nutrients which the cell does need. In a colony where others are competing fiercely for resources (and there's nothing like a colony of expanding bacteria for fierce competition), our altered cell could easily perish - one reason maybe why the altered condition doesn't necessarily become standardised throughout the colony.

Can you see that these mutated conditions arise in isolated individuals all the time? There is no "evolution seeing that something is needed" business at all. This is just routine mutation, happening all the time for the sole reason that the copying process simply is not perfect and millions of altered phenotypes happen all the time. Some die, some live and reproduce.

Now we come to the second part of what the ToE is all about - Natural Selection. The phrase is a bit unfortunate as the word 'selection' implies something done with intention ....nothing could be further from the truth. If an antibiotic gets into our colony, then the bacteria with no defence begin to die. The few individuals that had the mutation....and with billions of individuals there will always be a handful at any one time with the mutation....suddenly find themselves in luxury. They can handle the poison, and all the resources are now theirs for the taking. In the absence of competition they multiply - passing on the mutation to the vast majority of their offspring (some could mutate back the old form - but they are doomed for the same reason the original colony was doomed) and hey presto - the mutated condition has allowed resistant bacteria to survive and evolve.

And all because there was a change in the outside environment (antibiotic arriving on scene) that happened to favour a mutated individual carrying that protection.....it's not even unlikely - there are billions upon billions of bacteria, millions of them have various mutations that have happened through chance copying errors and all we need is one with the right resistance to this one antibiotic and we are away. (Ever wondered why whenever we invent new stronger antibiotics, they end up only being effective at a very high level at first. In time resistance spreads because for every antibiotic, there is a copying error on a bacterial chromosome that can lead to resistance against that antibiotic.....it's a game we thought once we could win....I don't think the medics and geneticists believe that anymore...unless one of our learned posters corrects me).

However this is the essence of Natural Selection - the environment allowing individuals with the right mix of phenotype to survive and breed, and culling the ones that don't. And phenotypes come from genotypes.....which themselves are subject to random mutation effects as a result of imperfect copying errors.

There are no 'traits' to pass on as there is only one bacterial chromosomal data set - it all should be passed on.....but it couldn't have been otherwise all the colony would be wiped out. Mutation is a huge part of genetics - you, I and every plant and animal simply couldn't be here without it.

Please try and absorb what these guys are telling you...honestly we have geneticists here....Wounded King for example. These people have worked for years in the field - it's hard stuff, and it's a gross insult for a layperson (who doesn't even know enough to distinguish between asexual and sexual genetic reproduction [basic 3rd year biology at the school I went to by the way] to waste time arguing from ignorance because they can't be bothered to do the basic subject learning).

Sorry to sound harsh. But you could save everyone, including yourself, a lot of time by doing a little reading in the field first.

By the way, Happy New Year Peg.

Edited by Drosophilla, : typo

Edited by Drosophilla, : addition of material


This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by Peg, posted 12-29-2009 11:08 PM Peg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by Peg, posted 01-01-2010 12:09 AM Drosophilla has responded

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 222 of 425 (541123)
12-31-2009 6:44 PM
Reply to: Message 218 by jasonlang
12-31-2009 1:18 PM


Re: Kind (Wolves)
Hi jasonlang,

Welcome to EvC.

jasonlang writes:

Wolves and Dogs can Hybridize - so they must be one 'Kind' according to your previous claims.

What previous claims?

You breed two dogs you get a dog.

You breed two wolves you get a wolf.

They each produce after their own kind.

Would there be a wolfdog if man had not interfered?

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by jasonlang, posted 12-31-2009 1:18 PM jasonlang has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by greyseal, posted 12-31-2009 7:04 PM ICANT has responded
 Message 252 by jasonlang, posted 01-01-2010 3:05 PM ICANT has responded

    
greyseal
Member (Idle past 1937 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 223 of 425 (541124)
12-31-2009 7:04 PM
Reply to: Message 222 by ICANT
12-31-2009 6:44 PM


Re: Kind (Wolves)
ICANT, I know you have trouble accepting reality, but...what?

are you telling me that man can create a dog from a wolf? or that wolves and dogs were already different kinds? or that they're still the same kind?

that was a spectacularly content-free posting even for you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by ICANT, posted 12-31-2009 6:44 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 226 by ICANT, posted 12-31-2009 10:42 PM greyseal has responded

    
greyseal
Member (Idle past 1937 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 224 of 425 (541126)
12-31-2009 7:30 PM
Reply to: Message 216 by jasonlang
12-31-2009 11:37 AM


Re: Kinds
jasonlang writes:

peg writes:

ICANT writes:

The list would need to have every kind that is living on earth today as well as those that have become extinct since the flood took place.

im not sure if it would need all the kinds today.

we know that animals can produce great variety within their kinds such as dogs and cats for instance.

You're not sure the Ark would need all the 'kinds' seen today, Peg ??

I though the point was that new kinds cannot be created ? Or are you forgetting the bounds of your Ark-certified "kinds" ?? Very convenient these "kinds".

hear hear!

if they wouldn't need to know all the "kinds" that existed today, then that would suggest that new "kinds" can arise - which is flatly impossible if you're a (YEC) biblical literalist; god created the kinds, there can be no new information in the genome and NO. NEW. KINDS.

You need to know ALL the kinds that are around NOW AND ALL the kinds that ever were and have gone extinct, as kinds can NEVER increase and must ALWAYS decrease, but otherwise be static (i.e. when not going extinct, all kinds are always the same kind forever and always).

this is creation SCIENCE people, it is INTELLIGENT DESIGN, not that namby-pamby wishy-washy creationism with lack standards, no basis in reality and no methodology behind it!

be rigourous if you wish to be credible!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by jasonlang, posted 12-31-2009 11:37 AM jasonlang has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 256 by jasonlang, posted 01-01-2010 3:26 PM greyseal has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19756
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.4


Message 225 of 425 (541130)
12-31-2009 8:08 PM
Reply to: Message 215 by jasonlang
12-31-2009 11:11 AM


development and ecology, not genetics
Hi jasonlang, nice post, but I have some nits:

1. Phenotypic change does not necessarily indicate any evolution at all, let along hyperevolution. All species have pre-evolved adaptability to changes in conditions. Consider the great increase in height / longevity of the Japanese population since WW2, which nobody would claim to be evolution but which would score high on the "darwins" (14 yo Japanese boys now are as heavy as adults at the end of WW2)
2. Where short term genetic adaptation occurs it is almost %100 through competition between variations in the gene pool in response to changes in the environment.

You are correct that this is phenotypic change, but it is not a "pre-evolved adaptability" or a genetic (genotype) change. The increase in height and weight occurs in the individuals across the board, because it is due to better nutrition and better medical care, especially pre-natal and early formative years care. In essence the ecology has changed to improve the health and well-being of the individuals. This is\was observed in every third world country where better nutrition and medical care was brought to bear.

Nor is this due to adaptability, as the ecology does not require increase in height or weight for survival or breeding, so this change is not an adaptation to a restriction of the environment. Rather it is a relatively selection neutral development.

3. Paleontologists use average size of specimens when determining long term evolution trends. You wouldn't claim that because you found a small adult T-Rex fossil and a much larger one from 1 year later that T-Rex suddenly evolved bigger, because chance in plays a part in the individual life of each animal or group.

And they include the population variation as part of the equation. Take Pelycodus as an example:

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/pelycodus.html

quote:

he 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.

As you look from bottom to top, you will see that each group has some overlap with what came before. There are no major breaks or sudden jumps. And the form of the creatures was changing steadily.


And they also consider sexual dimorphism and maturity of the specimens.

In the above diagram we see a clear trend in size of the whole population, and it is on a time scale that would likely find your example of Japanese youth just a blip.

4. The predator is also adapting to the guppies. At first, the abundant new food source benefits each predator roughly equally (boosting predator survival all round, little competitive pressure), but as the predator population maxes out and the guppies grow bigger to avoid being eaten, those predators able to eat the larger prey will be selected for. As this continues, the advantage of being a large guppy will eventually diminish and the guppies may shift back towards producing a high quantity of young and being smaller again.

Individual cases of faster than average evolution are not a surprise, nor is it a challenge to the Theory of Evolution. It is a common creationist misunderstanding that evolution claims change must be slow, when in fact evolution is a response mechanism, and so the rate of change is driven by the degree of selection pressure. Where selection pressure is high and continuous, then evolution will occur in every generation - which is extraordinarily fast compared to geological time - and either the change keeps up with the pressure or the species goes extinct.

Sexual selection is an example of continuous selection pressure, and where there is fisherian run-away sexual selection it can drive phenotypic and genetic change very rapidly of succeeding generations.

We also see instances where a species is introduced to a new environment\ecology, with the ability to infiltrate and commandeer that environment\ecology quite rapidly:

Differential Dispersal Of Introduced Species - An Aspect of Punctuated Equilibrium

quote:

(2) European Starling


http://www.rainieraudubon.org/...x/sparrow-starling-info.htm

In the early 1890's, the Acclimation Society of North America released 50 pairs of Starlings into New York's Central Park as part of a project to introduce every bird ever mentioned in a Shakespeare play. Only 50 years later their populations had spread across the continent, competing for nesting sites with our native birds.

From only 50 starlings to continent wide in less than 50 years.


And there are other examples - dogs and rabbits in Australia, dogs and cats in the Hawaiian Islands, etc etc etc.

Rapid speciation and dispersal of new diversity can also occur following an extinction event for species able to take advantage of the opportunity and potential loss of predators.

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/...on/foram_article3.html

"What we've found suggests that the rate of speciation increases dramatically in a biological vacuum," Parker said. "After the Cretaceous extinction, the few surviving foram species began rapidly propagating into new species, and for the first time we're able to see just how this happens, and how fast."

As foram survivors rush to occupy their new habitats, they seem to start experimenting will all sorts of body shapes, trying to find something stable, something that will work, Arnold said. Once a population in a given habitat develops a shape or other characteristic that stands up to the environment, suddenly the organisms begin to coalesce around what becomes a standardized form, the signature of a new species.

As the available niches begin to fill up with these new creatures, the speciation rate begins to slow down, and pressure from competition between species appears to bear down in earnest. The extinction rate then rises accordingly.

So, far from being a problem, rapid evolution is expected to vary in rates from slow to generation by generation fast.

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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by jasonlang, posted 12-31-2009 11:11 AM jasonlang has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 261 by jasonlang, posted 01-01-2010 4:08 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
RewPrev1
...
1314
15
1617
...
29NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019