|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Ready When Made | |||||||||||||||||||
Rei Member (Idle past 7012 days) Posts: 1546 From: Iowa City, IA Joined: |
I don't get what you're trying to argue, either. We see just as about as many species dissapear in the fossil record as we see appear in the fossil record. While the variety of species follows a heavy boom and bust cycle, we see an overall increase invariety in the precambrian, and then a slow overall increase in variety as we get into more modern sediments - exactly what one would expect to find. What would you expect to find?
New species are being discovered all of the time. It is your *assumption* because of your creationist viewpoint that all of them were already there, waiting to be discovered. While in very remote locations, this may be the case for most of them; however, new species (and especially subspecies) (occasionally even genuses and families) are regularly found in heavily studied areas, as well. The rate of such findings is roughly relative to the frequency of the animal's reproduction - for example, we can witness speciation in a vat of bacteria at a phenominal rate (in fact, familial transitions have been observed - in one case that I'm familiar with, a non-colonial species developed into a colonial species). In larger animals, it is more rare, because of the slower breeding rate. I'm not aware of any large mammal species for which species-level cladogenesis has been observed to occur, although there are numerous subspecies-level developments. And I know of several of small mammal species-level transitions that have been observed. Given the time frame, this is about what is expected. ------------------"Illuminant light, illuminate me." [This message has been edited by Rei, 10-15-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rei Member (Idle past 7012 days) Posts: 1546 From: Iowa City, IA Joined: |
You're not understanding the most basic elements of the evolutionist viewpoint. When a species dies out, it is replaced by other species living at the same time - nature abhors a vaccum. If there is a food supply not being utilized, or a weakness in the chain, species move in to exploit it. The species that replace it tend to split via cladogenesis.
What your point boils down to is an argument that they're not radiating fast enough. The fossil record clearly shows quite the opposite. ------------------"Illuminant light, illuminate me." [This message has been edited by Rei, 10-15-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rei Member (Idle past 7012 days) Posts: 1546 From: Iowa City, IA Joined: |
Where do you get that even a measurable percentage of species in the world are going extinct currently, let alone historically? Large mammals are going extinct faster than they're developing, but that's mostly our fault. We've only been here for the past couple tens of thousands of years. The fossil record shows no overall "extinction" trend, just boom and bust cycles.
------------------"Illuminant light, illuminate me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rei Member (Idle past 7012 days) Posts: 1546 From: Iowa City, IA Joined: |
quote: Once again: Then they go extinct if they cannot adapt quickly enough. You seen not to be catching on: there are between 10 and 100 million species on Earth. A species going extinct is a drop in the bucket. 10 species is nothing. 100 is nothing. 1,000 is nothing. 10,000 is nothing. Do you get the picture? Yes, due to humans, which have been around for a few tens of thousands of years, in particular large animals have been going extinct during these past few tens of thousands of years at a faster rate. This is a "bust" period, as we have described. There are hundred of major boom and bust cycles in global diversity in the evolutionary record. Rapid climate change is another major cause of such effects. But with tens of millions of species, there are *plenty* to move in and fill the void (and consequently, diversify through cladogenesis, as their new niches will be quite different) when an extinction occurs. What part of this do you not understand? ------------------"Illuminant light, illuminate me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rei Member (Idle past 7012 days) Posts: 1546 From: Iowa City, IA Joined: |
Mike, you're skipping the issues.
1) Address the issue of the number of extinctions relative to the number of total species2) Address the issue that we're in a recent bust period due to *humans* - otherwise, evidence the fact that large numbers of extinctions are coming from something other than humans. 3) If your claim is that you feel we're not witnessing new species, then state so, so that I can cite articles on speciation events. ------------------"Illuminant light, illuminate me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rei Member (Idle past 7012 days) Posts: 1546 From: Iowa City, IA Joined: |
quote: 1) I don't understand how you think that "developing longer hair" is even a remotely difficult task, mutation-wise. I wouldn't be surprised if it only took a few BP mutation at one of any of several places in the genome. 2) You forget about atavisms. Most genes that dissapear aren't "lost", they just become inactive due to slight mutations, and can reactivate. ------------------"Illuminant light, illuminate me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rei Member (Idle past 7012 days) Posts: 1546 From: Iowa City, IA Joined: |
quote: The ability of evolution to occur even though the vast majority of mutations are harmful is demonstrated here. You need to show that *no* mutations are beneficial.
quote: Ah, so this (as an example) isn't beneficial: Single mutation at the intersubunit interface confers extra efficiency to Cu,Zn superoxide dismutase - PubMed Want more? I'll give you as many as you want - there's an encylopedia's worth of observed examples of beneficial mutations out there.
quote: http://EvC Forum: Evolution has been Disproven
quote: http://EvC Forum: Irreducible complexity- the challenges have been rebutted (if not refuted)
quote: What are you talking about? Your offspring are the ones that carry your genes on - self-sacrifice for them is *utterly necessary* if you want your genes passed on to future generations. In social species, the success of the tribe/troop/flock/pride/whatever is necessary for the individuals in it to pass their genes on; otherwise, all will perish (they share much of the same genetics anyway). If you have a troop of chimpanzees that becomes severely weakened by a lack of unity, there's always another tribe of chimpanzees ready to sieze their territory and kill/injure them in the process. ------------------"Illuminant light, illuminate me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rei Member (Idle past 7012 days) Posts: 1546 From: Iowa City, IA Joined: |
quote: Defender, nylon didn't exist until modern times. So, quite obviously, something evolved the ability to digest it, whether it was flavobacteria or other. By adding the ability to digest it, it now has a brand new niche that it can fill, much the same as how if a non-photosynthetic bacteria in the early earth became able to harness energy from light - even weakly - it would spread to fill the Earth. Virtually everything is give and take (although there was essentially no "give" in the link I presented above); however, replication + mutation means that the original ability is retained, and a new ability is added; replication + mutation occurs all the time, and in fact, the copy tends to mutate at a different rate than the parent. ------------------"Illuminant light, illuminate me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rei Member (Idle past 7012 days) Posts: 1546 From: Iowa City, IA Joined: |
quote: 1) That's not at all how things work. Polymers have different properties than their component materials. 2) That would be an *improvement* in the organism, to be able to handle a wider variety of food sources.
quote: In what manner? Nylon is polyamide - that is, a long chain of subunits of: H O| | N --- C --- (CH2)5 Proteins are long chains of amino acids. Not at all related, except that they use carbon to make long chains.
quote: Please explain how having a brand new food source is "not in the long run beneficial". If humans in a 3rd-world country suddenly became able to eat dirt, would that somehow be "not in the long run beneficial"? The enzyme that breaks down nylon doesn't just attack random things. It breaks down nylon, and gets energy from it, which it gives to the cell. ------------------"Illuminant light, illuminate me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rei Member (Idle past 7012 days) Posts: 1546 From: Iowa City, IA Joined: |
quote: Wow, if you think something as simple as gaining and losing hair are "macroevolution", what do you think of these pigeons (and yes, they are real): There's plenty more where these came from... by putting selective breeding forces on pigeons, people have created the most bizarre forms imaginable. Now, even though humans use a 100% selection criteria, as I demonstrate in this thread, it need not be even close to 100%. ------------------"Illuminant light, illuminate me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rei Member (Idle past 7012 days) Posts: 1546 From: Iowa City, IA Joined: |
Ah, my bad, thanks. Chains of amino acids are polyamides.
------------------"Illuminant light, illuminate me."
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024