Can any of you give me the name of an animal that started as one animal, then became a completely different animal. As in catfish becomes seagull, or frog becomes sloth, or termite becomes turtle.
No-one, of course, claims that any of these things have happened.
Nope, I am very confident that you all will point out the millions of examples, but not actually name a single one. Why? Because the best you can do is find a bunch of similar fossils, or disfigured fossils and line them up so they look like one came from another.
Please do not tell us falsehoods about what we can and can't do.
I can do the same thing to prove that Beach balls come from peas.
No you can't.
Actually say the names of the animals and the records showing the evolution. Not lined up fossils but an actual recorded incident.
So, you want us to provide a "recorded incident" ... of something that we say takes millions of years.
Well then, I'm sorry, but we can't give you any evidence proving that we're wrong. This is because there is no evidence proving that we're wrong. This is because we're right.
Not to put too fine a point on it, if we ever observed a catfish becoming a seagull or a frog becoming a sloth then the Theory of Evolution would have to be thrown out, since it certainly doesn't cover the transformation of an individual catfish into a seagull within it's own lifetime. What you're asking for is an observed change, not just from one species to another, but from one class to another.
Evolution of classes has taken millions of years, the human life span is but a flash on these timescales so no-one will ever observe the evolution of a catfish into a seagull or a frog into a sloth.
I suggest you find out what the Theory of Evolution actually states before you try to "disprove" it. There's no point in attacking evolution by concentrating on stuff which the ToE doesn't claim in the first place. You're attacking a straw man here.
I'm not sure, but you may possibly be asking the wrong question. Evolution proceeds by minute changes from one generation to the next. Offspring differ from parents in only the most superficial of ways. There is no point in time where a catfish, frog or termite lays eggs from which hatch enormously different creatures like seagulls, sloths or turtles. If you're skeptical of evolution because you believe it asserts that transformations of this magnitude can happen in a single generation, then rest assured that it asserts no such thing. In fact, the theory of evolution pretty much rules out anything like that ever happening.
Since evolutionary change proceeds in tiny steps, it follows that a new species differs little from the old. Red squirrels, gray squirrels, flying squirrels, they're all different species, and they all evolved from a common ancestor that differed from them in only small ways, as they differ from each other in only small ways.
So when you ask us to "describe one of the millions of examples of one species evolving into a completely different species," we can't describe anything as spectacular as a catfish evolving into a seagull because the differences between closely related species will always be small. We can only provide evidence of things that have actually happened. Gradual change is what happens, so that's all we can provide evdience for. Closely related species will always differ in only small ways.
I guess the most important point I should make is that I'm sure we're all just as firmly convinced as you are that we'll never find evidence of anything like catfish becoming seagulls.
I'll have to ask again: could you define species? Secondly, could you define evolution? It appears that you are arguing against a strawman of evolution that exists only in your head.
I am sure you will just insult me and remind me of the millions of examples no one wants to actually describe.
Do creationists come pre-programmed with the persecution complex? Only 13 posts in and you're already making excuses why you won't be able to defend anything.
Lastly, you keep posting in the science section of EvC. In these sub-topics, there is a strict adherence to evidence based argument and so far all you've done is provide assertions. I think you'd be better suited to the faith and belief part of EvC.
“Mythology is what we call someone else’s religion.” Joseph Campbell
quote:Can any of you give me the name of an animal that started as one animal, then became a completely different animal. As in catfish becomes seagull, or frog becomes sloth, or termite becomes turtle.
you have fallen victim to one of the creationists silliest misrepresentations of evolution around. The best known example of this that I know of is the crocoduck. This is such a woeful twisting of the facts that I thought it was a parody at first. It is so wrong that it has become a joke amongst evolutionists around the world. I will attempt here to show you why...
Evolution doesn't claim that catfish become seagulls at all. This would be akin to me telling a christian that if Jesus rose from the dead than he must be a zombie. It is entirely misrepresenting the concept.
What it does claim is that catfish and seagulls have a common ancestor way back in their history. This would be like finding out that you and I share an ancestor a hundred generations back. This would not mean that we are particularly closely related or even be considered of the same race. Cousins of cousins about seven or so generations down aren't closely related enough for this to be considered inbreeding.
In the same fashion, somewhere down the track, the common ancestor of both the seagull and the catfish produced at least two successful offspring. One of those is an early ancestor of the catfish and one is the ancestor of the seagull. Although they are very slightly different, neither of these creatures looks anything like a catfish or a seagull or would be likely to be mistaken for one. They certainly wouldn't be different enough from each other to be considered different species.
This is a serious oversimplification of the way it works but it's good enough as an example.
If you want to find an example of the first ever mammal and had access to complete data on every individual in the line of descent (impossible), you'll have to split hairs at some point as to where the mammal has enough mammal features to be 'mammaly' enough to be a mammal. You can only hope to see this in hindsight. The first mammals wouldn't be looked at as different enough to be in a biological class of their own at the time. They would probably only be separated into a Genus or family of their own by contemporary biologists. These (imaginary) biologists wouldn't have seen a reptile suddenly turn into a mammal - they would have seen a population of synapsids with a few slight differences.
quote:Pea, jawbreaker, golf ball, baseball, softball, kickball, basketball, beach ball. All round, each one is larger and more complex than the next, yet no one has ever seen a pea evolve into a jawbreaker.
Your ball example I have seen before and also misrepresents how evolution works. Although it might seem to be a good analogy, the crucial missing factor is reproduction. Balls do not beget balls, if you will. For your suggestion to be viable, the balls have to create copies of themselves i.e. procreation. If a golf ball is a better ball for some reason and this gives it a better chance of reproducing itself,, then the golf balls children are more likely to be better at being reproducing balls themselves as some of them will have inherited the same trait. Gradually, the population of balls may evolve into beach balls but only if the above facts are true.
quote:DESCRIBE one of the millions of examples of one species evolving into a completely different species. Actually say the names of the animals and the records showing the evolution. Not lined up fossils but an actual recorded incident.
Dr Adequate writes:
So, you want us to provide a "recorded incident" ... of something that we say takes millions of years.
We cannot find examples of the things you are asking simply because they have died a long time ago and the changes happened over a great deal of time. If you study genealogy, would you demand to see your great, great, great grandmother alive before you accept that you are descended from her or that she even existed?
There are many examples of these sequences in the fossil record as I'm sure you know if you have taken the time to look into it. One of my favourites which is rarely mentioned is psittacosaurus, which is an intermediate form between earlier ornithischians, similar in form to hysphilodont and the later ceratopsians like triceratops.
I know you're going to say that these are just 'lined up fossils' but look at them. They are from the right times, the right places and we have excellent finds for all of them...
quote:I am sure you will just insult me and remind me of the millions of examples no one wants to actually describe.
Others have already responded in their own way. I'll bet that not one of them will shy away from helping you understand all of this if you genuinely want to learn. So far, I haven't seen anyone insult you but you must understand that we have all been asked this before and been treated like the devils tricksters for trying to help - it's easy to get frustrated with willful ignorance. We would all hope that you are willing to actually listen rather than begin the evidence shell game that many creationists love to play.
I suggest you find out what the Theory of Evolution actually states before you try to "disprove" it.
I agree with this entirely. Before you tell us what it is that is wrong about evolution, please be sure of your facts. If you ask, we will show you and have evidence to back it up. If you assert that everything we say is wrong and fail to provide a meaningful reason with back up, than you will deserve what you get.
Attitude begets attitude but golf balls beget nothing.
As in catfish becomes seagull, or frog becomes sloth, or termite becomes turtle.
evolution dosent work that way,
Can any of you give me the name of an animal that started as one animal, then became a completely different animal.
this is the taxonomy of humans
Biota [all life on Earth, including precellular life] Clade - Cytota [all cellular life; LUCA, Prokarya, Bacteria] Clade - Neomura [like Archaea, also included, oldest neomura, common ancestor with them] Domain - Eukarya [like Bikonta, also included, oldest eukaryotes, common ancestor with them; cellular nucleus; first eukaryotic multicellular organisms; plants] Clade - Unikonta [only one flagellum; like Amoebozoa, also included, common ancestor with them] Clade - Opisthokonta [like Fungi, also included, oldest opisthokonts, common ancestor with them] Clade - Holozoa Clade - Filozoa Kingdom - Animalia/Metazoa Subkingdom - Eumetazoa [remotest origin of animal motility] Clade - Bilateria [having bilateral symmetry] Superphylum - Deuterostomia [anus gets formed first, and mouth gets formed opposedly and after]
Phylum - Chordata Clade - Craniata [animals with skulls] Subphylum - Vertebrata [...and backbones] Infraphylum - Gnathostomata[...and jaws] Superclass - Osteichthyes Class - Sarcopterygii [Includes lobe-finned fish and all land vertebrates.] Infraclass - Tetrapodomorpha Superclass - Tetrapoda [...and four limbs for terrestrial locomotion] Clade - Amniota [...and amniotic eggs ("terrestrial" eggs)] Subclass - Synapsida Order - Therapsida Clade - Theriodontia Suborder - Cynodontia Clade - Epicynodontia Infraorder - Eucynodontia Clade - Probainognathia Clade - Chiniquodontoidea Clade - Mamaliamorpha Clade - Mammaliaformes
Order - Primates [arboreal prehensile locomotion; terrestrial bipedal leaping in some cases; Strepsirrhini, Prosimians, also included, oldest living primates, common ancestor with them] Suborder - Haplorrhini [anthropoidea; like Tarsiiformes, also included, oldest living haplorrhini, common ancestor with them] Infraorder - Simiiformes [earliest documented tool ethology; like Platyrrhini, American Monkeys, also included, oldest living simiiformes; monkeys and apes included here] Parvorder - Catarrhini [land extended locomotion; like Cercopithecoidea, Old World Monkeys, also included, oldest living ones] Superfamily - Hominoidea [tail loss, arboreal locomotion reduced to forelimbs (Brachiation); apes, lesser apes, hominoids; like Hylobatidae, Gibbons, also included, oldest living ones]
Species - Proconsul africanus
Family - Hominidae [great apes, hominids; fist-walking; family with Ponginae, Orangutans, also included, oldest living ones, common ancestor with them] Subfamily - Homininae [or hominines; knuckle-walking; includes gorillas but not orangutans]
Species - Pierolapithecus catalaunicus
Tribe - Hominini [or hominins; includes chimpanzees but not gorillas]
Species - Sahelanthropus tchadensis, possible common ancestor with chimpanzees Species - Orrorin tugenensis, may be an early species after split with chimpanzees
Subtribe - Hominina [or hominans; orthograde (upright) bipedalism; humans are the only surviving species]
Genus - Ardipithecus [Human lineage] Genus - Kenyanthropus Genus - Australopithecus [Human lineage; made tools found]
Genus - Homo [or humans; specific and specialized development of memory/learning/teaching/learning application (learning driven ethology)]
Species - Homo habilis [refined stone technology; earliest fire control] Species - Homo ergaster [extensive language, complex articulate language] Species - Homo erectus [fire control, cooking; aesthetic/artistic refinement of tools] Species - Homo heidelbergensis [possible earliest sanitary burial of deads, accompanied with symbolic/formal supplement]
Species - Homo sapiens [further development and specialization of learning application; active environment transformation, acclimatization and control; infrastructures and advanced technology]
Subspecies - Homo sapiens idaltu
Subspecies - Homo sapiens sapiens
Natural Evolution cant turn humans in to frogs, it could change us to something like homo sapiesns "frogus", a human with amphibian abilities.
Edited by frako, : No reason given.
Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand
Can any of you give me the name of an animal that started as one animal, then became a completely different animal. As in catfish becomes seagull, or frog becomes sloth, or termite becomes turtle.
Now, if we were to present a creationist with that description of creationist beliefs, we would be harshly chastised for inventing ludicrous evolutionist strawman argument, like if we were to present the "why are there still apes?" argument. And yet you are not only presenting that exact same "evolutionist strawman" as a serious argument, but you have repeatedly insisted that we present you with evidence supporting that "evolutionist strawman".
You have already been informed many times over that what you describe is not at all what evolution says would happen. Not even close. But that begs the question that you need to answer: Why do you think that that describes how evolution should work? Where did you learn that? When you were taught that, how did they support what they were telling you? Could you please explain to us why what you have present describes how evolution should work?
There should be no reason for you to not answer those questions. You demand a straight answer (which you have received, even though you cannot recognize it as such), so you should be ready and willing to provide a straight answer to the questions asked of you. The difference between us is that my questions are very reasonable.
In the meantime -- and anticipating that Theodoric is correct in Message 48 and you're just a typical young creationist "run-by fruiting" (to borrow from Mrs. Doubtfire, though that term greatly elevates what you are thought to be doing) -- , I would like to try to summarize and add to what the others have tried to tell you. Especially Warthog and frako, the former for his great description and the latter for introducing you to the important realization and idea of nested hierarchies.
Your description of how evolution should work is sheer nonsense, so much so that you should not be the least bit surprised that it leaves us all staring at you as if antlers were growing out of your ears. I cannot even begin to imagine any misrepresentation of Christianity that any of us could come up with that would be the equal to your misrepresentation of evolution. "Completely and utterly bizarre" would be extremely mild.
An operative definition of evolution is "descent with modification from a common ancestor". If it would at all help, my own view of evolution is that it's the population-level cumulative effects of what happens when life does what life does. Your ludicrous "As in catfish becomes seagull, or frog becomes sloth, or termite becomes turtle" flies completely in the face of life doing what life does, along with everything else that the theory of evolution says.
In Message 66, frako presented you with the nested hierarchies of which we humans are a part. We humans are all animals, and nested within that we are also all chordates (vertebrates, those of us who actually have a backbone -- OK, actually, not all chordates, those with a dorsal notochord -- ie, a dorsal neural cord -- , have vertebrae), and nested within that we all have crania (skulls), and nested within that we all are tetrapods (have four limbs), and nested within that we all are mammals, and nested within that we all are primates (which itself is nested within nesting within nesting, etc, under the Theriiformes subclass of the class Mammalia), and nested within that we all are Haplorrhini, Simiiformes, Catarrhini, Hominoidea, Hominidae (narrowing down to the great apes), and nested within that we all are Homininae (narrowing down to a common ancestor with gorillas, but not with orangutans), and nested within that we all are Hominini (which includes chimpanzees, but not gorillas), and nested within that we all are Hominina, Homo, and finally the species Homo sapiens sapiens.
OK, here's a bit of creationist nonsense that I've heard shouted repeatedly over the years: whenever a new species of, say a moth, came into existence, creationists would always shout "But they are still moths!" Whiskey, Tango, Foxtrot, Oscar? What else would they be? According to your ridiculous claim, they should have become kitty-cats? Why? That doesn't make any sense whatsoever! HINT: this is the point where we have no other choice but to try to slap some kind of sense into your poor deluded head. The offspring of every generation is still part of the nested hierarchy of its parents. Very similar to its parents, yet also different. And as different sub-populations of those offspring diversify even further, some of them can go on to form their own sub-hierarchy within the parent hierarchy. And so on, which is the way that evolution is supposed to work.
In the ancestral chordata (dorsal notochord; the other body plan has a ventral notocord -- check out an insect or shrimp some day), what happened when they reproduced? All their offspring were also chordata. But over time, some of those offspring developed vertebrae (the bones that surround your spinal cord and form your spinal column, AKA "back-bone), while others did not. Did chordata give birth to non-chordata? No! And when the "stem reptiles" split off into the different branches of reptile, including Therapsida, which were ancestral to mammals, what were their offspring? The same as their parents, though slightly different as happens in every single generation. And so on.
I have so often seen creationists go on about "kinds only reproducing after their own kinds" and claiming that evolution is different. But it's not. Evolution follows that "rule" just as much and even more. The only difference is that while creationism arbitrarily defines completely separate "kinds", evolution uncovers the nested hierarchies of the actual "kinds". As verified through protein comparisons.
So then, "catfish becomes seagull"? Bullshit! Different nested hierarchies! "frog becomes sloth"? Bullshit! Different nested hierarchies! "termite becomes turtle"? Bullshit! Different nested hierarchies!
What part of "different nested hierarchies" do you not understand?
I took a long look at that, its a very long record of people finding variations in species (not one species becoming another)
Then you didn't actually read the list, because every single one of these is an example of one species becoming another. In fact, there's even a case where one family became another:
quote:Boraas (1983) reported the induction of multicellularity in a strain of Chlorella pyrenoidosa (since reclassified as C. vulgaris) by predation. He was growing the unicellular green alga in the first stage of a two stage continuous culture system as for food for a flagellate predator, Ochromonas sp., that was growing in the second stage. Due to the failure of a pump, flagellates washed back into the first stage. Within five days a colonial form of the Chlorella appeared. It rapidly came to dominate the culture. The colony size ranged from 4 cells to 32 cells. Eventually it stabilized at 8 cells. This colonial form has persisted in culture for about a decade. The new form has been keyed out using a number of algal taxonomic keys. They key out now as being in the genus Coelosphaerium, which is in a different family from Chlorella.
Recall from your biology classes that "family" is the third canonical taxonomic group up from species (species, genus, family.) A family-level shift means that both a species and a genus-level shift also occurred (in the same way that if you move from one state to another, you necessarily move from one town to another and from one address to another.)
DESCRIBE one of the millions of examples of one species evolving into a completely different species.
I gave you a list of dozens of examples of one species turning into another species, which is exactly what you asked for. Now you want examples of "peas turning into jawbreakers"? Jawbreakers are candy, they're not even alive. Why would peas evolve into them? That makes no sense. Why would a theory of gradual change produce examples of extreme change? That makes no sense.
It's like saying that "creationism must be false if you cannot provide even a single example of a Koran spontaneously turning into a Bible." Evolution, like creationism, has to be tested according to what it actually says, not according to ridiculous things that everybody knows are impossible.
I'm debating whether I should even bother checking back for a straight answer.
Why bother? You won't read any of the examples. After all, the easiest way for you to continue saying that "there are no examples" is to remain purposefully ignorant of all the examples we've already provided. We can show you the examples, Amp, but we can't make you read them, or convince you to stop lying about them.
Others have already pointed out several problems with your posts, however I'd like to add my 2¢s worth.
I just noticed that there is not one single reference to a species evolving into a completely different species.
All the evidence available is consilient with the concept of all species evolving from common ancestral populations, with many multitudes of branching events. After branching events have occurred the daughter populations are free to evolve independently, usually taking different paths due to being in different ecologies. Over time this can add up to noticeable differences between living offspring of those daughter populations.
I don't expect you to understand or accept this answer (or others given to you) because I don't believe you truly know what you are asking about.
Can you define what evolution is?
Can you define what speciation is?
Can you define what you mean by "a completely different species" and
Can you describe how you would expect this to occur through evolution?
As an example: is a red fox a completely different species from a wild cat?
Can you describe the biological differences that differentiate one species from the other?
How would you be able to tell that one is a different species from the other?
What is your standard for quantifying differences, your metric for measuring differences?
Is there any example anywhere in recorded history of one species mutating into a fully separate species?
In biological terms a "fully separate species" is an oxymoron. In biological terms speciation has occurred when two or more daughter populations no longer interbreed.
A living example of this is the greenish warbler in asia:
Greenish warblers (Phylloscopus trochiloides) inhabit forests across much of northern and central Asia. In central Siberia, two distinct forms of greenish warbler coexist without interbreeding, and therefore these forms can be considered distinct species.
Map of Asia showing the six subspecies of the greenish warbler described by Ticehurst in 1938. The crosshatched blue and red area in central Siberia shows the contact zone between viridanus and plumbeitarsus, which do not interbreed.
This shows how mutation and selection in different ecologies can produce sufficient variation for speciation -- the division of a parent population into two or more non-interbreeding daughter populations -- to occur. Eliminate the intermediates and you have two different species. Usually the intermediates are distributed in time rather than in space, and this can be shown with other evidence.
Message 60: ... Can any of you give me the name of an animal that started as one animal, then became a completely different animal. As in catfish becomes seagull, or frog becomes sloth, or termite becomes turtle. ...
Curiously, this has nothing to do with evolution, but it has everything to do with creationist falsehoods\lies. You are mixed up or misinformed, but happily this is curable: you can learn what evolution theory and biological science really says about the diversity of life on earth.
... I am sure you will just insult me ...
But the ones that really insulted you are the ones that told you lies and falsehoods about evolution, perhaps because they didn't think you could handle the truth.
Evolution is the change in the frequency distribution and composition of hereditary traits within breeding populations from generation to generation, in response to ecological challenges and opportunities.
Speciation is the division of a parent population into two or more reproductively isolated daughter populations that then evolve independently of each other.
The Theory of Evolution is that these two processes are sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it, from the fossil record, the genetic record, the historical record and the world around us.
If you are willing to learn the truth about evolution I can recommend some websites, such as:
You know, I'm not sure this answer is all that helpful, and some of it seems a little disingenuous.
It is important to explain to someone the nature of nested hierarchies, and that descendants of verterbrates will always be a part of Vertebrata (at least, it is if that someone is actually interested in learning, otherwise it might just be a waste of time). However, I think we have to be clear about what we mean by this.
To be a member of Veterbrata simply means to be a descendant of an organism arbitrarily defined as the last common ancestor of Vertebrata, But there's a bit of equivocation here with the traditional meaning of vertebrate, which predates evolutionary classifcations, that of 'an animal with a backbone'. If, in the distant future, there's eome species knocking about that descends from verterbrates, but which does not possess a backbone, it would still be a member of Vertebrata, still a vertebrate phylogenetically, but it wouldn't fit the original defining concept of vertebrate any more. This is the sort of thing creationists are looking for when they protest 'but it's still a moth' (though of course they wouldn't define the key transition explicitly, and they seem to expect it to happen in an afternoon).
While it might be difficult to imagine vertebrates evolving into something without a backbone, for an example of the kind of thing I mean, look at the tunicates below. These aren't vertebrates, but they are chordates, and so closely related. Chordata is those animals with a notochord - a cartilaginous rod which, in vertebrates, is replaced by the vertebrae. Tunicates have a notochord in their larval form, but metamorphose into an adult form which doesn't have one, and in fact looks nothing like we'd expect from a close relative of vertebrates. Were a tunicate to evolve that did away with it's larval stage and skipped straight to the adult, repodcutive form, it would still be a chordate phylogenetically, but it would no longer look anything like most chordates and would not fit any description you usually see of what a chordate is, except one which only used phylogenetic criteria.
The names we have for types of organisms are based on the organisms we see around us at present. Saying the descendants of moths will always be moths is not really true. They'll always be Heterocera, the moth clade, but if they evolve into a form that doesn't look like a moth they're not really moths any more. Similarly, cows aren't fish, even though they're nested within them phylogenetically.
A less fundamental criticism - shrimp do not have a ventral notochord, they have no notochord at all. Only chordates have notochords, that's where the term 'chordate' comes from.
Edited by caffeine, : Just wanted to point out that the picture is taken from wikipedia's page on tunicates.
For example, if a invertebrate evolved a backbone would it be classified as a vertebrate?
You can solve this problem by defining 'vertebrae' as the structure that makes up the backbone of vertebrates, so that even if another animal is found with a structurally and functionally identical organ, it's bits wouldn't be vertebrae since it's not homologous with the organ in vertebrates.
This is the type of thinking involved when people argue that we shouldn't call a male intromittent organ a penis in a bird, a reptile, or a spider, since it's not homologous with the mammalian penis. Or that flying cats have AIDOs instead of wings.