Understanding through Discussion

QuickSearch

 EvC Forum active members: 52 (9184 total)
 2 online now: Newest Member: paulwilliam Post Volume: Total: 918,361 Year: 5,618/9,624 Month: 24/619 Week: 13/47 Day: 1/10 Hour: 0/1

EvC Forum Science Forums Biological Evolution Definition of Species

Summations Only

Author Topic:   Definition of Species
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2237 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008

 Message 76 of 450 (544010) 01-22-2010 8:20 PM Reply to: Message 75 by RAZD01-22-2010 7:56 PM

Re: Speciation discussion, mutations, possibilities and opportunity
How many times do you need to throw 10 dice to get all 6's? The probability of it occurring increases with the number of throws. ...
Indeed. As I recall, the mutation at the 400th generation made use of a previous neutral mutation...
The analogy I prefer is throwing 10 dice and keeping those with sixes, while rolling only those that are not sixes. You will have sixes on all ten dice in minutes.
Your comment about a "previous neutral mutation" suggests that this is indeed closer to the way evolution works than having to roll all ten each time.
Most creationist calculations claiming that evolution is impossible because of the long odds use the "roll them all each time" method, and are clearly erroneous.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

 This message is a reply to: Message 75 by RAZD, posted 01-22-2010 7:56 PM RAZD has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 77 by RAZD, posted 01-22-2010 8:36 PM Coyote has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1536 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004

 Message 77 of 450 (544014) 01-22-2010 8:36 PM Reply to: Message 76 by Coyote01-22-2010 8:20 PM

selection and mutation vs mutation alone
Hi Coyote,
The analogy I prefer is throwing 10 dice and keeping those with sixes, while rolling only those that are not sixes. You will have sixes on all ten dice in minutes.
Yes, as that shows the power of selection combined with mutation, however at this point we are only talking about the possibility of mutation, so selection is not involved yet.
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 76 by Coyote, posted 01-22-2010 8:20 PM Coyote has not replied

herebedragons
Member (Idle past 989 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009

 Message 78 of 450 (546097) 02-08-2010 11:08 AM Reply to: Message 75 by RAZD01-22-2010 7:56 PM

mutations, possibilities and opportunity
Hi Razd. I hope you’re feeling well. Just a quick post so you know I haven’t given up on this and to clear up a couple of points.
No need, this pace suits me, and it allows for digestion of information before proceeding to the next level, and better understanding of your concerns.
Good. I like the pace too. I don’t like to have to wade through numerous personal attacks and senseless arguments to learn anything. This is why I would rather keep our discussion here as long as it is relatively on topic - the mechanisms that cause change and the effect of those changes. Is that OK?
I am quite busy right now, so a slower pace is easier to manage. It might interest you that I am taking a Botany course at a local university. The course does cover evolutionary theory somewhat, though we won’t focus on it. Later in the year we cover genetics and heredity but mostly as an overview. I am considering getting my degree in biology or biochemistry or maybe microbiology. If this discussion accomplishes nothing else it has renewed my love for science.
The rest will be for you to decide,
You are right. It all comes down to each of us needs to choose what we believe. I probably shouldn’t have responded the way I did, but I felt the question how much more change is needed? was a bit condescending and begged a needed for what? reaction. I do feel an obligation to accept evidence from observation, what I do not feel obligated to is interpretation of those observations.
it can be due to ignorance of the actual possibilities, or just being uninformed.
I can admit my ignorance and being uninformed; however, I feel the need to not just accept information verbatim, but to think about it, analyze it and make sense of it.
however please note that I am a Deist, not an atheist
Just out of curiosity, what is a Deist? Do you believe that some unknown deity set up the natural laws, started life and has left it to it‘s natural course without interference? Not meant to be a theological discussion, I just have never met anyone that said they were a Deist before and was curious.
OK, now back to the discussion ...
The major source of mutations is imperfect replication: during reproduction the DNA of the parent is imperfectly replicated in the cells for the offspring.
I understand that the rate of error in DNA reproduction is 1 error in 100,000,000 base pair replications (that’s conservative toward the more error end). Then after replication and before the cell actually divides, it is checked for errors and repaired as needed. Repair mechanisms probably don’t detect point mutations very efficiently, but would repair larger damage. Of course repair mechanisms are imperfect too and would allow errors to progress through division occasionally. Then, as you noted, the error must happen within germ cells. (I have read that bacteria are able to turn off their DNA repair mechanism when environmental stress levels rise). This is what gives me the impression of improbability.
This is a common argument from improbability
I think part of the problem here is my understanding of random. Random is defined as: without an identifiable pattern, plan, system or connection.
That something is "mind boggling" is not any criteria on which to base a scientific conclusion (else much of physics and chemistry would be discarded),
The difference is physics and chemistry and very predictable. There is nothing random about chemical and physical reactions. As mind boggling as these interactions are, they behave predictably and with identifiable patterns and connections. One criterion for scientific conclusions is repeatability. Would randomness be repeatable? Example (I will stick with the E.coli experiment for now): If the first experiment showed mutation conferring benefit after 400 generations but the next trial resulted in the extinction of the colony, would that not invalidate the experiment as being unrepeatable? Do I misunderstand the concept of repeatability? Repeatability is based on the fact that natural laws are predictable.
I want to clarify my thinking (not my position at this point) about this unknown mechanism. I am not saying there is anything magic and I don’t believe I said hidden DNA. I think you misunderstood what I was saying. What I am trying to consider and was asking you to consider is more of a cause and effect situation. I don’t see that DNA replication errors can account for necessary mutations at least as the cause of them. The randomness doesn’t seem to fit with the cause and effect observations we make in nature. Weather appears to be random, as it can vary from day to day, but we know that weather is caused and it affects future weather occurrences in a complicated, interactive system of natural processes. Do living cells operate under different principles?
I have class shortly, so I need to get going. But, next time I would like to discuss the E.coli experiment a bit more. I did not see some of the observations you discussed in the article I read. Could you give me a link to a good article on the experiment? It would save me a lot of time searching. What I didn’t see in the article I read was any results from subsequent experiments. Did they repeat the experiment and get identical results or did they get a totally different outcome? I also didn’t see that they were able to identify any individual organism that the mutation started from, but that the colony suddenly experienced rapid growth. Did the colony that began the growth contain individuals with the mutation and without the mutation? The individuals without the mutation would not necessarily have died out, as they were surviving before the mutation. I also don’t recall that the beneficial mutation had built upon a previous neutral mutation, but we could be talking about two different studies.
Well, take care and I’ll talk to you later
Thanks

 This message is a reply to: Message 75 by RAZD, posted 01-22-2010 7:56 PM RAZD has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 81 by RAZD, posted 02-09-2010 10:17 PM herebedragons has not replied

herebedragons
Member (Idle past 989 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009

 Message 79 of 450 (546253) 02-09-2010 2:33 PM Reply to: Message 75 by RAZD01-22-2010 7:56 PM

mutations, possibilities and opportunity continued
Hi again, Razd.
I had a few minutes and I wanted to expand on my previous post a bit.
Everything that happens within a cell is highly organized and incredibly precise. Cells take in materials, synthesize proteins and other compounds, expel waste and produce energy in precisely the amounts needed. Out of hundreds of theoretically possible amino acids that could exist, only 20 are used for building proteins. And these are arranged in exactly the correct order and in exactly the proper quantities for sustaining the organism. E.coli bacterium have 600 to 800 proteins active at any one time and complex multi-cellular organisms have several thousands. Each protein has a specific function and is specifically suited for that function. Cells have an elaborate system of communication that allows substances to move throughout the organism precisely where they are needed. As I am sure you are well aware, this list could go on and on. The organization and precision of living systems is incredible (to say the least)!
Then from that knowledge and observation (or despite it), we introduce the mechanism for adaptation as a random, undirected process. The process that allows organisms to change in order to meet changing demands of their environment is based on blind chance and failure of a highly ordered system to function correctly. We have an extremely precise and ordered system relying on luck for its survival. This is the premise of evolution. Organisms change in response to environmental pressures. They don’t change for just no reason, otherwise there wouldn’t so much stasis in the fossil record. Coleanthus is a simple example. Why didn’t this species change over millions of years? It didn’t need to. It was perfectly adapted to its environment. The only way organisms survive drastic changes in climate or environments is if they are lucky enough to acquire a chance, random mutation that impart a beneficial characteristic that gives it a better chance of survival.
What I am saying is that this doesn’t make sense to me. The problem with supposing a mechanism that is not random is that you can’t go very far with it before you are forced to conclude that some intelligence designed it. And the science community will have no part of that. I, however, do not have those same limits.
Again, what I am suggesting is that perhaps, the mechanism for change is not random and undirected, but in fact, controlled by the cell. The cells genetic structure has certain built in adaptation mechanisms that allow the organism to change in response to its environment. That such mechanisms exist is a fact.
Regulation of Bacterial Metabolism
Bacteria can change protein structures, patterns, enzymes, and other regulation compounds to respond to environment. They can regulate metabolic pathways by turning metabolite production on and off depending upon the substrates available in the environment. They can change their gene structure, control the rate and process of transcription, alter proteins after synthesis and adjust the translation of proteins. Bacteria are able to respond to extreme variations in environments.
How can we observe and acknowledge the above and then conclude that the mechanism the brought all that about is random and undirected? Don’t tell me there is no other known mechanism. If I said abiogenesis could not be true because no know mechanism exists, the response would be that just because we haven’t identified the mechanism, doesn’t mean it can’t be possible.
You asked how it is even possible. I understand that something like 97% of the human genome is non-coding information. It used to be referred to as junk DNA as it was thought to have no purpose. It is now known that it has purpose and I think somewhere around 60% has an identifiable purpose. It involves transcription, regulation, expression, development and much more. But there is still a large amount of genetic information that is unclear about what purpose it serves. Perhaps the answer lies within the unknown - it usually does.
Again, I am not saying this is my position, but merely my thoughts. This is an argument of improbability, but more thought out. It’s more than just saying it's too mind boggling to accept. It’s improbability based on observations. I’ve mentioned before that I’m having trouble taking what is observed and extrapolating that into evolutionary theory. Not that I dismiss the entire theory, much of it makes sense. I want to also mention that I have appreciated your responses. I have not just rejected your opinions and have learned a lot from you. But I guess there’s not much point in discussing things we agree on, so I will bring up things I either don’t understand or don’t agree with.
Thanks and take care

 This message is a reply to: Message 75 by RAZD, posted 01-22-2010 7:56 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

 Replies to this message: Message 80 by Taq, posted 02-09-2010 3:00 PM herebedragons has not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 10202
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.0

 Message 80 of 450 (546258) 02-09-2010 3:00 PM Reply to: Message 79 by herebedragons02-09-2010 2:33 PM

Re: mutations, possibilities and opportunity continued
Everything that happens within a cell is highly organized and incredibly precise. Cells take in materials, synthesize proteins and other compounds, expel waste and produce energy in precisely the amounts needed. Out of hundreds of theoretically possible amino acids that could exist, only 20 are used for building proteins. And these are arranged in exactly the correct order and in exactly the proper quantities for sustaining the organism. E.coli bacterium have 600 to 800 proteins active at any one time and complex multi-cellular organisms have several thousands. Each protein has a specific function and is specifically suited for that function. Cells have an elaborate system of communication that allows substances to move throughout the organism precisely where they are needed.
Can you support any of these claims with any evidence? If what you claim is true then there shouldn't be disease or aging. There wouldn't be any birth defects. Also, if proteins are specified as you claim then you should really tell the people at the HapMap program (http://www.hapmap.org). They are mapping genetic variation in humans and guess what? A lot of that variation includes proteins that differ at the amino acid level.
Then from that knowledge and observation (or despite it), we introduce the mechanism for adaptation as a random, undirected process.
Evolution is not undirected. Evolution is directed by selection. If evolution were truly random then detrimental mutations would be passed on at the same rate as neutral or beneficial mutations. This is not what we see.
They don’t change for just no reason, otherwise there wouldn’t so much stasis in the fossil record. Coleanthus is a simple example. Why didn’t this species change over millions of years? It didn’t need to.
The rate of mutation in the coelacanth lineage is roughly the same for all other lineages. The difference here is that mutations which didn't change morphology were selected for.
The problem with supposing a mechanism that is not random is that you can’t go very far with it before you are forced to conclude that some intelligence designed it.
How so?
Again, what I am suggesting is that perhaps, the mechanism for change is not random and undirected, but in fact, controlled by the cell. The cells genetic structure has certain built in adaptation mechanisms that allow the organism to change in response to its environment. That such mechanisms exist is a fact.
Regulation of Bacterial Metabolism
You are confusing phenotype plasticity with evolution. Gene regulation can not explain how a bacteria that lacks an enzyme for metabolizing a specific sugar can acquire this enzyme through changing it's DNA sequence. Gene regulation does not involve a change in DNA sequence.
How can we observe and acknowledge the above and then conclude that the mechanism the brought all that about is random and undirected?
Because that is exactly what we observe. For example, the Lederbergs were able to show that the mutations which confer antibiotic resistance in bacteria occur in the absence of bacteria (source). Luria and Delbruck were able to demonstrate that mutations which confer phage resistance occurs in the absence of phage (source). Both of these experiments demonstrate that there is no link between the processes which produce mutations and the needs of the organism. IOW, these experiments demonstrate that mutations are random with respect to fitness.
So why do biologists claim that mutations are random? Because that is what they observe.
This is an argument of improbability, . . .
No, it is an argument from incredulity which is a logical fallacy. If it was about probability you would have done the math for us. You haven't. Instead, you express how you can't believe it. That is incredulity, not improbability.

 This message is a reply to: Message 79 by herebedragons, posted 02-09-2010 2:33 PM herebedragons has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1536 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004

 Message 81 of 450 (546316) 02-09-2010 10:17 PM Reply to: Message 78 by herebedragons02-08-2010 11:08 AM

Re: mutations, possibilities and opportunity
Hi again herebedragons,
I probably shouldn’t have responded the way I did, but I felt the question how much more change is needed? was a bit condescending and begged a needed for what? reaction. I do feel an obligation to accept evidence from observation, what I do not feel obligated to is interpretation of those observations.
We need to remember that the focus of this topic is the definition of species rather than a generic ramble about evolution. We started to get offtrack with your claim:
Message 64: What I've learned so far about species and speciation has been pretty unimpressive (and by unimpressive, I mean in an evolutionary sense - there are some truly remarkable things to learn about our world). I am looking for observations that I believe are clues to larger scale changes.
And now we seem to be sidetracked with the issue of how much change is necessary.
Message 72:
How much more change is needed?
Needed for what? To convince me that the ToE is accurate and is the best explanation for life on this planet?
Let's look at what type of change is needed for speciation first. I would agree that the amount of change necessary for speciation is unimpressive: as noted in Message 62 there is very little difference between the varieties of asian greenish warbler, yet we have a situation where two varieties don't interbreed. These varieties are all descended from a single ancestral population, so if we did not have the intermediate varieties we would have a clear unambiguous speciation event.
Therefore large change is not needed for speciation to occur, and the issue of larger change is not really on topic for a thread on the definition of species.
To discuss larger change then I think we need to move to another thread.
Message 62: You can think of the "Theory of Evolution" as the hypothesis that evolution - the change in the frequncy of hereditary traits in breeding populations from generation to generation - and the process of speciation - the division of a parent population into two or more reproductively isolated daughter populations - is sufficient to explain (a) the fossil record, and (b) the genetic record. As such the fossil record and the genetic record become tests of the theory, tests capable of falsifying the theory.
If you want to discuss how these can be applied to the fossil record in order to judge the validity of the evolutionary explanation, another of my threads addresses this in a different format:
Dogs will be Dogs will be ??? - this uses the variation within the dog species as a metric to compare the variation between different fossil species, assuming that the variation seen in dog species is the maximum that can occur in a species, and then seeing if the difference between two or more closely related (in time and space and morphology) exhibit more or less variation than we see in dogs.
There we can explore the evidence that shows a dog-like ancestral organism evolving into the modern horse, and see if that shows how larger changes occur.
I understand that the rate of error in DNA reproduction ...
This and Message 79 should probably be a new thread.
I don't mean to put you off, just trying to maintain the topic of this thread.
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 78 by herebedragons, posted 02-08-2010 11:08 AM herebedragons has not replied

 Replies to this message: Message 82 by Wounded King, posted 02-10-2010 4:10 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Wounded King
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003

 Message 82 of 450 (546329) 02-10-2010 4:10 AM Reply to: Message 81 by RAZD02-09-2010 10:17 PM

Re: mutations, possibilities and opportunity
I think it is usually a pretty safe bet that any IDist/creationist when they talk about species is talking about morphospecies rather than anything resembling the biological species concept of a species.
Admittedly Kaichos man seems to be making a break with tradition, I look forward to his arguing that even if a dog did give birth to a cat there is no reason not to think this is just a rare but natural part of the ecotypic morphocline.
TTFN,
WK

 This message is a reply to: Message 81 by RAZD, posted 02-09-2010 10:17 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

barbara
Member (Idle past 4933 days)
Posts: 167
Joined: 07-19-2010

 (1)
 Message 83 of 450 (569716) 07-23-2010 1:11 PM Reply to: Message 72 by herebedragons01-22-2010 11:15 AM

Re: Speciation discussion, expectations and reality
I don't know how science can build their models of speciation since humans have directly or indirectly affected the course of natural evolution. Humans have directly changed the entire globe's landscaping to fit their needs and all species had to evolve with it.
There is no doubt that human influence caused all of the large mammals that once existed to become extinct or mutate to look like modern species of today.
We have moved so many species from their natural environment to other parts of the world that would definitely create a chain reaction for speciation to occur in that environment.
What I am saying is to compare what we observe now in nature due to human influence can't give you an accurate interpretation compared to life before us.
DNA that is currently the model we are using to trace today's living organisms back to their ancestors is going to be difficult and very confusing and it is not going to make sense since human influence has changed the normal flow of gene mutation and natural selection is now not natural in many species that we share this planet of today.
Organisms indirectly create the circumstances for other organisms to evolve or die. The big difference between humans and all other organisms is that we know we are directly responsible for many extinctions and because we know this, we already have a list of species that will not be here anymore after 2050.
Just this fact alone, we have to consider if humans have the ability to affect and alter nature, then some other mechanism also had the ability to alter global landscaping and all of the organisms that supported it in the past.

 This message is a reply to: Message 72 by herebedragons, posted 01-22-2010 11:15 AM herebedragons has not replied

 Replies to this message: Message 84 by Coyote, posted 07-23-2010 1:48 PM barbara has not replied Message 85 by crashfrog, posted 07-23-2010 3:41 PM barbara has not replied Message 86 by RAZD, posted 07-23-2010 8:53 PM barbara has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2237 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008

 Message 84 of 450 (569722) 07-23-2010 1:48 PM Reply to: Message 83 by barbara07-23-2010 1:11 PM

Re: Speciation discussion, expectations and reality
There is no doubt that human influence caused all of the large mammals that once existed to become extinct or mutate to look like modern species of today.
Sorry, this is not correct. The causes of, for example, the megafaunal extinctions in North America are still hotly debated.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

 This message is a reply to: Message 83 by barbara, posted 07-23-2010 1:11 PM barbara has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1598 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003

 Message 85 of 450 (569740) 07-23-2010 3:41 PM Reply to: Message 83 by barbara07-23-2010 1:11 PM

Re: Speciation discussion, expectations and reality
I don't know how science can build their models of speciation since humans have directly or indirectly affected the course of natural evolution.
But, of course this was the great insight of Darwin - it doesn't matter. Darwin was observing a breeder of pigeons - watching the breeder select the best-suited individuals from his flock to be mated with each other, and the worst-suited individuals become the sunday roast - when he realized it works the same way in the natural world.
In the natural world, those that are possessed of the adaptations crucial for survival in their environment survive and prosper, and most importantly mate, and those that do not quickly become someone's lunch. It's no different than the selection by the pigeon breeder, except that it's the natural world doing it all on its own, so he called it "natural selection."
Humans do have an effect on the species around us. Frequently a detrimental one. But to the species themselves, it doesn't matter. They don't and can't distinguish between a "natural" change in their environment and a human one.
DNA that is currently the model we are using to trace today's living organisms back to their ancestors is going to be difficult and very confusing and it is not going to make sense since human influence has changed the normal flow of gene mutation and natural selection is now not natural in many species that we share this planet of today.
We haven't. And even if we have it doesn't matter. To DNA there's no difference at all between a change in the environment due to natural causes (say, a forest fire) and a change in the environment due to human causes (say, logging.)
To DNA there is only random mutation and natural selection. The same phenomenon used by the pigeon breeder to alter pigeon populations is at work in nature, altering species by natural, unguided means.
Just this fact alone, we have to consider if humans have the ability to affect and alter nature, then some other mechanism also had the ability to alter global landscaping and all of the organisms that supported it in the past.
That mechanism is natural selection and random mutation.

 This message is a reply to: Message 83 by barbara, posted 07-23-2010 1:11 PM barbara has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1536 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004

 Message 86 of 450 (569801) 07-23-2010 8:53 PM Reply to: Message 83 by barbara07-23-2010 1:11 PM

Re: Speciation discussion, expectations and reality
hi barbara, thanks for the questions.
I don't know how science can build their models of speciation since humans have directly or indirectly affected the course of natural evolution.
Scientists observe that a parent population divides into two sub-populations living in different ecologies and then sees that these daughter populations become incapable of interbreeding.
Thus speciation has occurred.
Humans have directly changed the entire globe's landscaping to fit their needs and all species had to evolve with it.
The ecologies within the oceans are largely untouched by direct human intervention, and a large amount of human effect is no different in the kind of change induced than what occurs naturally (extra CO2 in exhaust? similar to past levels?) -- it may be more a matter of degree of change than the type of change.
The only place I can think of where a type of change is induced by humans is chemical pollution.
The only real effect likely to be observed is that ecologies are changed more rapidly by human intervention, and thus the rate of evolution may be different.
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 83 by barbara, posted 07-23-2010 1:11 PM barbara has not replied

Big_Al35
Member (Idle past 931 days)
Posts: 389
Joined: 06-02-2010

 Message 87 of 450 (570209) 07-26-2010 9:37 AM Reply to: Message 16 by Dr Adequate10-18-2007 7:53 PM

Re: Complexity of an organism
I am a vertebrate, a lobster is an invertebrate. I can't see any reasonable biological sense in which one could declare that I am "more complex" than a lobster, we're just different organisms adapted to different environmental niches.
You must agree also that humans are not more complex than monkeys, apes or fish. Listening to evolutionary arguments you could be forgiven for thinking that we evolved from monkeys or apes or fish. But the argument continues that we evolved from ape like creatures or fish like creatures rather than actually from apes or fish.
Modern apes could equally argue that they evolved from human-like creatures. Both species are perfectly adapted to their niches right?
Modern day fish could also argue that they evolved from monkeys. Fish are perfectly adapted to their niche right. And they are the height/pinnacle of complexity as we all are. So this argument seems to have some missing holes.

 This message is a reply to: Message 16 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-18-2007 7:53 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

 Replies to this message: Message 88 by jar, posted 07-26-2010 9:43 AM Big_Al35 has replied Message 89 by Huntard, posted 07-26-2010 9:50 AM Big_Al35 has not replied Message 99 by ringo, posted 07-26-2010 10:57 AM Big_Al35 has not replied

jar
Member
Posts: 34136
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.5

 Message 88 of 450 (570211) 07-26-2010 9:43 AM Reply to: Message 87 by Big_Al3507-26-2010 9:37 AM

Re: Complexity of an organism
Big_Al35 writes:
Modern apes could equally argue that they evolved from human-like creatures. Both species are perfectly adapted to their niches right?
Well first, no, no critter seems to be perfectly adapted to their niche, rather just good enough to get by.
BUT how could a modern ape claim they are descended from a human-like critter?
That makes little sense.
Big_Al35 writes:
Modern day fish could also argue that they evolved from monkeys.
Huh?
Sorry but exactly how would that work?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

 This message is a reply to: Message 87 by Big_Al35, posted 07-26-2010 9:37 AM Big_Al35 has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 90 by Big_Al35, posted 07-26-2010 9:59 AM jar has replied

Huntard
Member (Idle past 2426 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008

 Message 89 of 450 (570212) 07-26-2010 9:50 AM Reply to: Message 87 by Big_Al3507-26-2010 9:37 AM

Re: Complexity of an organism
Big_Al35 writes:
You must agree also that humans are not more complex than monkeys, apes or fish.
YEs.
Listening to evolutionary arguments you could be forgiven for thinking that we evolved from monkeys or apes or fish.
I don't think that. Neither does Dr. A.
But the argument continues that we evolved from ape like creatures or fish like creatures rather than actually from apes or fish.
Yes.
Modern apes could equally argue that they evolved from human-like creatures.
I've never seen a modern ape,aside from humans, argue, let alone about what it's ancestors were.
Both species are perfectly adapted to their niches right?
Maybe not perfectly, but rather well.
Modern day fish could also argue that they evolved from monkeys.
They couldn't. Not only do they lack a big enough brain needed for arguing, they'd also be wrong.
Fish are perfectly adapted to their niche right.
I wouldn't say perfectly, but pretty good, yes.
And they are the height/pinnacle of complexity as we all are.
No one said this.
So this argument seems to have some missing holes.

 This message is a reply to: Message 87 by Big_Al35, posted 07-26-2010 9:37 AM Big_Al35 has not replied

Big_Al35
Member (Idle past 931 days)
Posts: 389
Joined: 06-02-2010

 (1)
 Message 90 of 450 (570213) 07-26-2010 9:59 AM Reply to: Message 88 by jar07-26-2010 9:43 AM

Re: Complexity of an organism
Big_Al35 writes:
Modern day fish could also argue that they evolved from monkeys.
jar writes:
Huh? Sorry but exactly how would that work?
If you can't believe that fish evolved from monkeys, can you believe that monkeys evolved from fish?

 This message is a reply to: Message 88 by jar, posted 07-26-2010 9:43 AM jar has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 91 by Huntard, posted 07-26-2010 10:08 AM Big_Al35 has replied Message 94 by jar, posted 07-26-2010 10:32 AM Big_Al35 has not replied

 Date format: mm-dd-yyyy Timezone: ET (US)