Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-25-2019 6:19 PM
19 online now:
dwise1, JonF, PaulK, vimesey (4 members, 15 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 850,242 Year: 5,279/19,786 Month: 1,401/873 Week: 297/460 Day: 49/64 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
67
8
910
...
30NextFF
Author Topic:   Definition of Species
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

    
Huntard
Member (Idle past 406 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 107 of 450 (570355)
07-27-2010 7:38 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by Big_Al35
07-27-2010 7:32 AM


Re: Complexity of an organism
Big_Al35 writes:

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?


No. It's not about what is around today and what isn't. There were never monkeys before there were fish. Unless you can show evidence that monkeys evolved into fish, all you have is the evidence that fish evolved into monkeys. And until that time, saying that monkeys evolved into fish is not waranted by anything.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Big_Al35, posted 07-27-2010 7:32 AM Big_Al35 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Big_Al35, posted 07-27-2010 8:54 AM Huntard 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

    
Huntard
Member (Idle past 406 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 109 of 450 (570370)
07-27-2010 9:05 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by Big_Al35
07-27-2010 8:54 AM


Re: Complexity of an organism
Big_Al35 writes:

But clearly the red colobus monkey failed to adapt to the modern world.


Yes.

Its cousins, the fish, however have continued to thrive and demonstrated that they don't need this relics attributes or features.

Not in their environment, no. Put it in a tree, however, and I gurantee you it will die out more quickly than that monkey did.

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

Uhm yes. However, since the two envirnoments are so far apart, there's no real competition between the two, and so, comparing them is rather pointless. They either continue to adapt to their environment, or they go extinct, it's as simple as that.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Big_Al35, posted 07-27-2010 8:54 AM Big_Al35 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by Big_Al35, posted 07-27-2010 9:18 AM Huntard has responded

    
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2205 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 110 of 450 (570372)
07-27-2010 9:08 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by Big_Al35
07-27-2010 8:54 AM


Not even tangential to the original direction.
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!

You seem to be becoming a master of the non sequitur, What you have written here is in fact entirely correct, but has absolutely no connection to Huntard's point that the red colobus monkey was not an ancestor of modern fish just because it became extinct while modern fish survive. So the use of the word 'but' at the start of your post is confusing.

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.

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Big_Al35, posted 07-27-2010 8:54 AM Big_Al35 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by Big_Al35, posted 07-27-2010 9:52 AM Wounded King 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

    
Huntard
Member (Idle past 406 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 112 of 450 (570381)
07-27-2010 9:37 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by Big_Al35
07-27-2010 9:18 AM


Re: Complexity of an organism
Big_Al35 writes:

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.


I'm sorry what? Could you please explain to me how you reached that conclusion from anyhting I said?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Big_Al35, posted 07-27-2010 9:18 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

    
jar
Member
Posts: 30936
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 114 of 450 (570395)
07-27-2010 10:02 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by Big_Al35
07-27-2010 6:45 AM


Evolution and direction
Big_Al35 writes:

You can only see evolution going one way...ie from a fish to a monkey.

That is because that is what the evidence shows. There were critters in the seas before there were any land critters.

It really is that simple.

Big_Al35 writes:

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.

And guess what. There are examples of critters becoming less complex as they evolve. Hell, even in humans you can see that. All of us Primates are becoming less complex, losing our tails as one obvious example.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Big_Al35, posted 07-27-2010 6:45 AM Big_Al35 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by Big_Al35, posted 07-27-2010 10:15 AM jar has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30936
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 115 of 450 (570397)
07-27-2010 10:04 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by Big_Al35
07-27-2010 9:52 AM


Re: Not even tangential to the original direction.
Big_Al35 writes:

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.

Because the evidence shows that there was life in the sea before there was life on land. It is not a matter of logic, it is a conclusion based on the evidence.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Big_Al35, posted 07-27-2010 9:52 AM Big_Al35 has not yet responded

  
caffeine
Member
Posts: 1624
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 116 of 450 (570400)
07-27-2010 10:09 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by Big_Al35
07-27-2010 6:45 AM


Re: Complexity of an organism
Things can evolve into simpler forms if this turns out to be better for them. There was a famous experiment conducted with the virus Q-beta, which in the wild normal has a genome length of about 4,500 base pairs, and which creates four different proteins to do its work. Scientists watched it evolve after putting it in environment which already contained the enzyme and the nutrients it needed to replicate itself. Without any necessicity to make any proteins to deal with the challenges it normally faced, the genome eventually reproduced to only a couple of hundred base pairs - not enough to make any proteins and about the minimum necessary to replicate itself. Simplicity was selected for rather than complexity.

The reason people balk at the idea of fish evolving from monkeys isn't because they don't believe animals can get simpler. It's because fish have been around for hundreds of millions of years, while monkeys don't appear in the fossil record until about 35 million years ago. For fish to have evolved from monkeys, there would have to have been monkeys around for about 500 million years without leaving any trace of their existence, monkeys which evolved from ancestors who also left no trace, and who evolved into fish without leaving any trace of animals transitional between fish and monkeys. And then, of course, the rest of the terrestrial verebrates would have somehow had to evolve so as to look exactly as if monkeys were one of them when they finally appear - fitting on neatly to the primate branch of the tree, even at the molecular level.

This is how we know fish never evolved from monkeys.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Big_Al35, posted 07-27-2010 6:45 AM Big_Al35 has not yet 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

    
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2205 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 118 of 450 (570408)
07-27-2010 10:16 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by Big_Al35
07-27-2010 9:52 AM


Re: Not even tangential to the original direction.
You use extinct fish to conclude that they evolved into monkeys.

You seem confused. As Jar points out the key fact isn't that the fish are extinct, the key facts are when fish start to appear in the fossil record and their morphological features.

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.

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Big_Al35, posted 07-27-2010 9:52 AM Big_Al35 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by Big_Al35, posted 07-27-2010 10:48 AM Wounded King has responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 30936
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 119 of 450 (570410)
07-27-2010 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 117 by Big_Al35
07-27-2010 10:15 AM


Re: Evolution and direction
Big_Al35 writes:

jar writes:

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?

I wish you would read what I write.

I gave you an example of one species becoming less complex. That has nothing to do with whether it is more or less complex then any other critter.

The point is that you are factually wrong in almost everything you post.

The evidence shows that there was life in the seas before life on land so the idea that fish evolved from monkeys is refuted.

The fact is that evolution can move from less complex to more complex or from more complex to less complex and so the idea that evolution is directional is refuted.

The question of whether some critter is more or less complex than another is not just irrelevant, it is silly; pretty much meaningless.

The evidence shows that as long as a critter is "just barely good enough to live long enough to reproduce" all is fine.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Big_Al35, posted 07-27-2010 10:15 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

    
Prev1
...
67
8
910
...
30NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019