|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,788 Year: 4,045/9,624 Month: 916/974 Week: 243/286 Day: 4/46 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Ring species | ||||||||||||||||||||
frako Member (Idle past 332 days) Posts: 2932 From: slovenija Joined: |
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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||
DBlevins Member (Idle past 3802 days) Posts: 652 From: Puyallup, WA. Joined: |
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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
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.
[qs]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?[/qs] 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?
|
||||||||||||||||||||
DBlevins Member (Idle past 3802 days) Posts: 652 From: Puyallup, WA. Joined: |
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?
|
||||||||||||||||||||
frako Member (Idle past 332 days) Posts: 2932 From: slovenija Joined: |
I don't believe that. Humanzee - Wikipedia 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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Ronken  Suspended Junior Member (Idle past 4617 days) Posts: 5 From: China Joined: |
what you are adage afterwards all of our evolutionary changes we are still apes still the aforementioned affectionate ?
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Spam links deleted.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024