Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 76 (8908 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-19-2019 5:10 PM
28 online now:
AZPaul3, Coragyps, marc9000, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Tangle (6 members, 22 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WeloTemo
Upcoming Birthdays: Percy
Post Volume:
Total: 851,612 Year: 6,649/19,786 Month: 1,190/1,581 Week: 12/393 Day: 12/30 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
234567Next
Author Topic:   Definition of Species
Big_Al35
Member
Posts: 384
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 87 of 450 (570209)
07-26-2010 9:37 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Dr Adequate
10-18-2007 7:53 PM


Re: Complexity of an organism
Dr Adequate writes:

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 yet responded

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

    
Big_Al35
Member
Posts: 384
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 90 of 450 (570213)
07-26-2010 9:59 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by jar
07-26-2010 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 responded

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

    
Big_Al35
Member
Posts: 384
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 92 of 450 (570218)
07-26-2010 10:15 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by Huntard
07-26-2010 10:08 AM


Re: Complexity of an organism
Huntard writes:

Of course, since all evidence points in that direction.

But the ToE states that monkeys didn't evolve from fish...but fish-like creatures.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Huntard, posted 07-26-2010 10:08 AM Huntard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Huntard, posted 07-26-2010 10:30 AM Big_Al35 has responded
 Message 102 by caffeine, posted 07-26-2010 11:58 AM Big_Al35 has not yet responded

    
Big_Al35
Member
Posts: 384
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 95 of 450 (570221)
07-26-2010 10:36 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by Huntard
07-26-2010 10:30 AM


Re: Complexity of an organism
Huntard writes:

You do this stuff on purpose don't you?

So monkeys evolved from fish-like creatures?
Humans evolved from fish-like creatures?
Fish evolved from fish-like creatures?

Can anyone tell me what a fish-like creature is?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Huntard, posted 07-26-2010 10:30 AM Huntard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Coyote, posted 07-26-2010 10:41 AM Big_Al35 has not yet responded
 Message 97 by Huntard, posted 07-26-2010 10:44 AM Big_Al35 has not yet responded
 Message 98 by jar, posted 07-26-2010 10:48 AM Big_Al35 has responded
 Message 103 by Blue Jay, posted 07-26-2010 6:21 PM Big_Al35 has responded

    
Big_Al35
Member
Posts: 384
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 100 of 450 (570229)
07-26-2010 11:05 AM
Reply to: Message 98 by jar
07-26-2010 10:48 AM


Re: Complexity of an organism
jar writes:

These are all critters that show transitional feature, some traits common to land animals, others common to fish.

So would I be right in saying that none of the examples given are actually ancestors of modern day fish?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by jar, posted 07-26-2010 10:48 AM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by jar, posted 07-26-2010 11:24 AM Big_Al35 has not yet responded

    
Big_Al35
Member
Posts: 384
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 104 of 450 (570345)
07-27-2010 6:45 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by Blue Jay
07-26-2010 6:21 PM


Re: Complexity of an organism
Bluejay writes:

By the way, how can we relate this back to the definition of species (which is what we're supposed to be discussing here)?

The issue I am raising here is one of complexity. Dr Adequate argues that he is not more complex than say a lobster. Extrapolating this argument a monkey is not more complex than a fish. However, when I suggest that a fish might have evolved from a monkey you baulk at this idea. You can only see evolution going one way...ie from a fish to a monkey. This suggests to me that a monkey is more complex than a fish. If it wasn't then evolution, which is directionless, should have the capacity to go both ways.

Now if you suggested that a complex creature could evolve into a simpler creature where its very survival depended on it I might understand this. However, if I gave any example of this you would no doubt claim I was raving mad. I see huge holes in the logic being applied.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Blue Jay, posted 07-26-2010 6:21 PM Blue Jay has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Huntard, posted 07-27-2010 7:15 AM Big_Al35 has responded
 Message 114 by jar, posted 07-27-2010 10:02 AM Big_Al35 has responded
 Message 116 by caffeine, posted 07-27-2010 10:09 AM Big_Al35 has not yet responded
 Message 123 by Blue Jay, posted 07-27-2010 3:23 PM Big_Al35 has not yet responded

    
Big_Al35
Member
Posts: 384
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 106 of 450 (570352)
07-27-2010 7:32 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by Huntard
07-27-2010 7:15 AM


Re: Complexity of an organism
Huntard writes:

It's not about logic, it's about what the evidence shows. And the evidence shows that there were fish first, and monkeys later, there is no denying this.

Not in all cases. The red colobus monkey is no longer. However, we still have fish in the sea. Does this mean that the red colobus has evolved into a form of fish?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Huntard, posted 07-27-2010 7:15 AM Huntard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by Huntard, posted 07-27-2010 7:38 AM Big_Al35 has responded

    
Big_Al35
Member
Posts: 384
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 108 of 450 (570366)
07-27-2010 8:54 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by Huntard
07-27-2010 7:38 AM


Re: Complexity of an organism
And until that time, saying that monkeys evolved into fish is not waranted by anything.

But clearly the red colobus monkey failed to adapt to the modern world. Its cousins, the fish, however have continued to thrive and demonstrated that they don't need this relics attributes or features. Surely, this is evolution in action. Survival of the fittest!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Huntard, posted 07-27-2010 7:38 AM Huntard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by Huntard, posted 07-27-2010 9:05 AM Big_Al35 has responded
 Message 110 by Wounded King, posted 07-27-2010 9:08 AM Big_Al35 has responded

    
Big_Al35
Member
Posts: 384
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 111 of 450 (570376)
07-27-2010 9:18 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by Huntard
07-27-2010 9:05 AM


Re: Complexity of an organism
Big_Al35 writes:

Surely, this is evolution in action. Survival of the fittest!

Huntard writes:

Uhm yes.

I think this is clear evidence then that a monkey can evolve into a fish and that at least one has evolved into a fish.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Huntard, posted 07-27-2010 9:05 AM Huntard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by Huntard, posted 07-27-2010 9:37 AM Big_Al35 has not yet responded

    
Big_Al35
Member
Posts: 384
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 113 of 450 (570390)
07-27-2010 9:52 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by Wounded King
07-27-2010 9:08 AM


Re: Not even tangential to the original direction.
Wounded King writes:

Of course you ignore the fact that many species of fish have also become extinct, clearly showing their evolutionary inferiority to all extant species of monkey,but then it wouldn't be cherry picking if you actually tried to accurately evaluate the evidence I guess.

You use extinct fish to conclude that they evolved into monkeys. I am using an extinct monkey to conclude that it evolved into a fish. Same logic. Why should either conclusion be wrong.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Wounded King, posted 07-27-2010 9:08 AM Wounded King has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by jar, posted 07-27-2010 10:04 AM Big_Al35 has not yet responded
 Message 118 by Wounded King, posted 07-27-2010 10:16 AM Big_Al35 has responded

    
Big_Al35
Member
Posts: 384
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 117 of 450 (570407)
07-27-2010 10:15 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by jar
07-27-2010 10:02 AM


Re: Evolution and direction
And guess what. There are examples of critters becoming less complex as they evolve.

I think Dr Adequate would disagree about the complexity issue. He's already stated that one species is not more complex than another. They are simply more adapted to their particular niche.

I do wish you scientists would at least maintain some meaningful set of rules or axioms whenever you discuss these topics. Are some species more complex than others or not?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by jar, posted 07-27-2010 10:02 AM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by jar, posted 07-27-2010 10:39 AM Big_Al35 has not yet responded

    
Big_Al35
Member
Posts: 384
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 120 of 450 (570413)
07-27-2010 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by Wounded King
07-27-2010 10:16 AM


Re: Not even tangential to the original direction.
Wounded King writes:

It isn't that the fish are extinct that means they are ancestral, it is their morphology and what we know of stratigraphy. Even if there was still an extant morphospecies identical to the putative latest common ancestor of fish and monkeys it wouldn't change the conclusions.

I appreciate that fish appear before monkeys in the rock layers. So there might be a living common ancestor for fish and monkeys right? Can't we track this down? DNA evidence should do the trick.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Wounded King, posted 07-27-2010 10:16 AM Wounded King has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by Huntard, posted 07-27-2010 11:29 AM Big_Al35 has responded
 Message 122 by Wounded King, posted 07-27-2010 11:30 AM Big_Al35 has not yet responded

    
Big_Al35
Member
Posts: 384
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 124 of 450 (570659)
07-28-2010 6:11 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by Huntard
07-27-2010 11:29 AM


Re: Not even tangential to the original direction.
So there might be a living common ancestor for fish and monkeys right?

Huntard writes:

Not likely. It would be an ancestor of modern fish, in any case.

Ok...so the ancestor for a modern fish is just another fish by anyones understanding.
And the ancestor of a monkey is a fish based on the arguments here.
So if we found the common ancestor we could probably just assume that it was infact only the ancestor for a fish. I am guessing that there must be thousands or millions of pieces of evidence showing that the ancestors of fish were infact fish.

Would I be wrong in thinking that we couldn't actually deduce anything from this at all?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Huntard, posted 07-27-2010 11:29 AM Huntard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by caffeine, posted 07-28-2010 6:51 AM Big_Al35 has responded
 Message 126 by Huntard, posted 07-28-2010 7:46 AM Big_Al35 has not yet responded

    
Big_Al35
Member
Posts: 384
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 127 of 450 (570671)
07-28-2010 9:19 AM
Reply to: Message 125 by caffeine
07-28-2010 6:51 AM


Re: Not even tangential to the original direction.
caffeine writes:

Why would you assume this? We know from DNA evidence, and from morphological similarities, that some fish are more closely related to land animals than they are to other fish. So, if we found the common ancestor of all fish, we'd know that it was also the ancestor of land vertrebrates.

That's the whole point though. We DON'T have access to ancestral DNA so we can't deduce what you have deduced above.
If you are suggesting that it would make more sense to assume that an ancestral fish was a direct ancestor of say a rabbit I could equally ask you why you have assumed this.

My point is that an ancestral fish was a fish and will have DNA to match this. It will also be more closely related to a modern fish than say a rabbit in terms of its DNA. So it would be safe to assume that an ancient fish was an ancestor of the modern fish.

Now, if you are suggesting that the DNA of some modern fish is more closely related to a rabbits than it is to other fish then dare I say it.....fishy pun.....this would be a red herring. Because these fish are NOT the ancestors of rabbits. They are infact modern fish.

Ofcourse, all of this is indeterminate without the ancestral DNA.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by caffeine, posted 07-28-2010 6:51 AM caffeine has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by jar, posted 07-28-2010 9:43 AM Big_Al35 has not yet responded
 Message 129 by caffeine, posted 07-28-2010 10:07 AM Big_Al35 has responded
 Message 130 by crashfrog, posted 07-28-2010 2:11 PM Big_Al35 has not yet responded

    
Big_Al35
Member
Posts: 384
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 132 of 450 (570850)
07-29-2010 7:27 AM
Reply to: Message 129 by caffeine
07-28-2010 10:07 AM


Re: Not even tangential to the original direction.
caffeine writes:

The genomes of A and B turn out to be much more similar to each other than either is to the genome of C. We assume, then, that A and B share a common ancestor

Why would you assume this? Does this sound familiar?

Let's consider three creatures A, B and C where A is the parent of B and C and all of these creatures are fish. Imagine that C's lineage produces a rabbit and B's lineage on the other hand remains a fish. Furthermore lets imagine that A, B and C share some genes X, Y and Z that are not found amongst other fish. Now imagine that those genes appear in all rabbits. Your assumption is that the B's lineage should be lumped together with a rabbits. This is a false assertion as the genes X,Y and Z clearly don't define a species of rabbit nor do they define a species of fish. They are irrelevant genes because a fish with X,Y,Z genes will not evolve into a rabbit as evidenced by B's lineage. Similarly a rabbit with X,Y,Z will never evolve into a fish as evidenced by the fact that rabbits always give birth to rabbits.

So there must be some other genes say P,Q,R which actually make a rabbit a rabbit. The P,Q and R genes will only appear in rabbit and never in a fish. If they did appear in a fish the fish would become a rabbit. These genes have effectively appeared by magic. These genes are proof that the rabbit could not have a fish ancestor as no fish have this sequence.

Go figure....


This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by caffeine, posted 07-28-2010 10:07 AM caffeine has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by Huntard, posted 07-29-2010 8:19 AM Big_Al35 has responded

    
1
234567Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019