Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-19-2019 6:15 AM
21 online now:
PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), Tangle (3 members, 18 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 849,819 Year: 4,856/19,786 Month: 978/873 Week: 334/376 Day: 11/116 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
Author Topic:   Ring species
frako
Member
Posts: 2813
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 16 of 22 (619380)
06-09-2011 3:56 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by New Cat's Eye
06-09-2011 3:43 PM


Re: Is an 'Ape' a 'kind'...
Well, one way is if they aren't capable of reproducing, then they cannot be the same kind.

But the birds in question cannot reproduce so how come they are the same kind?

And theoretically an a chimp/human hybrid is possible so are we the same kind?

Like I said, though, its going to depend on how much micro-evolution is possible. If it isn't possible for the two types to have evolved from a common ancestor, then they must be different kinds.

So we are all the same kind??

And by your definition it is impossible to produce a new kind because it would always have a common ancestor no matter how different it looks, or how large the genetic barrier it has to its cousins or ancestors that make it impossible for it to reproduce with them.

Edited by frako, : No reason given.

Edited by frako, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-09-2011 3:43 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-09-2011 4:23 PM frako has responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 22 (619388)
06-09-2011 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by frako
06-09-2011 3:56 PM


Re: Is an 'Ape' a 'kind'...
But the birds in question cannot reproduce so how come they are the same kind?

Can't, or just don't?

On the other hand, if all those other groups of warblers do reproduce, then why are they called different species?

And theoretically an a chimp/human hybrid is possible so are we the same kind?

I don't believe that.

So we are all the same kind??

According to evolutionists we would be.

And by your definition it is impossible to produce a new kind because it would always have a common ancestor no matter how different it looks, or how large the genetic barrier it has to its cousins or ancestors that make it impossible for it to reproduce with them.

That's correct. Under creationism, no new kinds are being created these days.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by frako, posted 06-09-2011 3:56 PM frako has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by frako, posted 06-09-2011 6:27 PM New Cat's Eye has acknowledged this reply

  
DBlevins
Member (Idle past 1880 days)
Posts: 652
From: Puyallup, WA.
Joined: 02-04-2003


Message 18 of 22 (619391)
06-09-2011 4:27 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by New Cat's Eye
06-09-2011 3:43 PM


Re: Is an 'Ape' a 'kind'...
It looked to me like you were expecting some sort of parallel to the evolutionary biological classification.

Nope. Just looking for a clear definition of what constitutes a "kind".

Well, one way is if they aren't capable of reproducing, then they cannot be the same kind. (but the contrapositive isn't necessarily true).

Then we have examples of salamanders Ensatina eschscholtzii, fly's, birds Greenish Warbler, etc of not being able to reproduce even though they look remarkably similar to each other. But that just obscures the big idea, that being unable to reproduce seperates kinds. If that is the case, then there would be 1000's of kinds even among the birds.

Like I said, though, its going to depend on how much micro-evolution is possible. If it isn't possible for the two types to have evolved from a common ancestor, then they must be different kinds.

What do you mean when you say, "...how much micro-evolution is possible"? You appear to be saying that there is some arbitrary limit to micro-evolution. If so, what is that limitation?

You're traveling dangerously close to the Theory of Evolution when you say, "If it isn't possible for the two types to have evolved from a common ancestor, then they must be different kinds". Common ancestry is a central pillar of the ToE. ie. We share a common ancestor with the chimpanzees.

If we share common ancestry with the chimpanzees, then we are of the same kind?

The proverbial we... the royal we.

Cute. I wasn't aware you were royalty. Is there anyone else who, "...know[s] that humans and chimps must be different kinds..."? Are you the only one that "knows" chimpanzees must be different kinds?

Obviously though, if an amount of genetic change is impossible then it couldn't have taken place.

How do you determine how much genetic change is impossible? You seem to suggest that nature does, but it is clear from the fossil record that speciation is still going on even after 100's of millions of years.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-09-2011 3:43 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-09-2011 4:39 PM DBlevins has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 22 (619396)
06-09-2011 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by DBlevins
06-09-2011 4:27 PM


Re: Is an 'Ape' a 'kind'...
Then we have examples of salamanders Ensatina eschscholtzii, fly's, birds Greenish Warbler, etc of not being able to reproduce even though they look remarkably similar to each other

Has there been studies on whether or not those warblers are capable of reproduction but simply do not?

I thought they didn't mate because of differences in either mating calls or color patterns or something but not because of some genetic barrier.

But that just obscures the big idea, that being unable to reproduce seperates kinds. If that is the case, then there would be 1000's of kinds even among the birds.

Yeah, that makes sense.

What do you mean when you say, "...how much micro-evolution is possible"? You appear to be saying that there is some arbitrary limit to micro-evolution. If so, what is that limitation?

Under creationism, there has to be some limit to how much micro-evolution can happen in order for there to be disctinct kinds that could not have evolved from each other. I don't know enough about it to say exactly what that limitation is, but I'd guess it have something to do with accumulating enough deleterious mutations to halt reporduction. Heh, although that probably won't make sense because if they're deleterious then we wouldn't expect them to be passed on and build up.

You're traveling dangerously close to the Theory of Evolution when you say, "If it isn't possible for the two types to have evolved from a common ancestor, then they must be different kinds". Common ancestry is a central pillar of the ToE. ie. We share a common ancestor with the chimpanzees.

If we share common ancestry with the chimpanzees, then we are of the same kind?

Yeah, if we do share a common ancestor then it would make sense that we are the same kind and that would imply an amount of micro-evolution that is possible.

Cute. I wasn't aware you were royalty.

Is there anyone else who, "...know[s] that humans and chimps must be different kinds..."? Are you the only one that "knows" chimpanzees must be different kinds?

Anybody who knows anything about creationism knows that humans have to be in a special place as a seperate kind.

How do you determine how much genetic change is impossible?

I dunno. You could probably determine a max amount given a certain amount of time. Don't you think there's got to be some upper limit on a mutation rate?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by DBlevins, posted 06-09-2011 4:27 PM DBlevins has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by DBlevins, posted 06-09-2011 6:09 PM New Cat's Eye has acknowledged this reply

  
DBlevins
Member (Idle past 1880 days)
Posts: 652
From: Puyallup, WA.
Joined: 02-04-2003


Message 20 of 22 (619421)
06-09-2011 6:09 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by New Cat's Eye
06-09-2011 4:39 PM


Re: Is an 'Ape' a 'kind'...
Has there been studies on whether or not those warblers are capable of reproduction but simply do not?

You might want to take the time to read this from Darren Irwin's website.

As far as determining the ability to reproduce of ring species, there have been other studies as well that show ring species who's hybridization attempts were unsuccessful or had low viability rates.

In any case, the point is that small genetic changes accumulate until there is a point when the species splits and form a distinct and seperate species. The papaer I site above goes into the species concept and possible alternatives to the allopatric species concept.

Under creationism, there has to be some limit to how much micro-evolution can happen in order for there to be disctinct kinds that could not have evolved from each other. I don't know enough about it to say exactly what that limitation is, but I'd guess it have something to do with accumulating enough deleterious mutations to halt reporduction. Heh, although that probably won't make sense because if they're deleterious then we wouldn't expect them to be passed on and build up.

Species that are genetically isolated from each other but share a recent common ancestor, such as ring species, are reproductively viable among their respective groups. If such was the case that deleterious genes built up then we would expect that reproductive viability would decline. ie We would expect to see a statistically significant amount of dead/mutated birds as we move along to different hybridization zones and not viable communities.

To take things further, we would expect that as evolution progressed, we would not see new groups develop because of the tremendous amount of deleterious genes that were built up during speciation. Unless you think it is a much slower process than that? Of course that would be a problem if you believed in Creationism, because that would still allow for evolution to have taken place.

me writes:

How do you determine how much genetic change is impossible?

CS writes:

I dunno. You could probably determine a max amount given a certain amount of time. Don't you think there's got to be some upper limit on a mutation rate?

If, such as in my case, I understand that the Earth has had living organisms for 100's of millions of years, then I don't see a limit to the accumulation of mutations other than the viability of the earth to sustain life. Why could you not allow for a SLOW rate of change over a very LONG time? If, over a long time, the genetic change continues then more mutations will be evident and what was once a homogenous groups will split and become a new group. If my group is reproductively isolated from the parent group, for whatever reason, for 10's of million's of years, what do you think will happen?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-09-2011 4:39 PM New Cat's Eye has acknowledged this reply

  
frako
Member
Posts: 2813
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 21 of 22 (619426)
06-09-2011 6:27 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by New Cat's Eye
06-09-2011 4:23 PM


Re: Is an 'Ape' a 'kind'...
I don't believe that.

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

Well it was tried by one scientists 90 years ago but he failed before he could start and later got exiled from Russia. I said theoreticly possible even if i got funding and permission to do such experiments i doubt i would conduct them or any other scientist. There are too many ethical considerations.

Not to mention one would become the churches enemy nr 1 if one would try, probably Muslim enemy nr 1 too.

But so fare there is no reason why it should not work.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-09-2011 4:23 PM New Cat's Eye has acknowledged this reply

    
Ronken 
Suspended Junior Member (Idle past 2695 days)
Posts: 5
From: China
Joined: 09-02-2011


Message 22 of 22 (631763)
09-02-2011 10:23 PM


Spammer
what you are adage afterwards all of our evolutionary changes we are still apes still the aforementioned affectionate ?

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Spam links deleted.


    
Prev1
2
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019