|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Junior Member (Idle past 2753 days) Posts: 11 From: Infiltrating Earth Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evolution is True Because Life Needs It | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 1576 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: |
Ok, so then you're in the same boat as the rest of us; you don't commit immoral acts because you're not immoral.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 19071 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 3.2
|
Gregor Mendel was not a creationist but a scientist and Augustinian friar, i.e., a Catholic. And he didn't discover natural selection. He discovered genes and inheritance.
How do you know all dogs are the same kind? How do you know that each dog breed, and the wolf, is not a separate kind? If your answer is that they are all mutually interfertile then I guess we finally have a definition of kind.
Given mutation, how does one run out of variation?
Is it a fundamental flaw when chemists mix chemicals in the lab with purposeful intelligence to figure out how nature works? You would answer no, right? Was it a fundamental flaw when Mendel bred his pea plants himself with purposeful intelligence to figure out how nature works? You would answer no, right? Then why is it a fundamental flaw when breeders mix animals in the barn or the lab with purposeful intelligence to figure out how nature works?
Except that this isn't true. Breeders of long-lived species like dogs and cows can only produce a small amount of change, but breeders of short-lived species like fruit flies, mosquitoes and bacteria can produce a large amount of change through many generations and thereby new species.
But pigeons are a family, not a species. What for you defines the pigeon kind? Is it being interfertile like dogs and wolves? There are over 300 different species of pigeon, and they definitely do not interbreed. And with so many species, are you sure no new species have emerged over the past 10,000 years?
This is untrue. The peppered moth is presented as an example of natural selection in the wild, not of macroevolution. So is the finch's beak.
Tell you what, you present your scientific evidence for dust of the ground being transformed into a man, and we'll present our evidence for natural processes being responsible for everything ever observed. But not in this thread, it would be off-topic. --Percy Edited by Percy, : Typo.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 2051 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined:
|
Hi Portillo.
Thanks for the reply, but it doesn't seem to address my question. So...
could evolve into this:
? If I were you And I wish that I were you All the things I'd do To make myself turn blue
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 160 days) Posts: 3183 Joined:
|
The others have poked this wide open, so I'll just address your first line:
So is a wolf of the dog kind too? What of a fox? Coyote? Dingo? Are ALL of these just different "kinds" of dogs? "There is no refutation of Darwinian evolution in existence. If a refutation ever were to come about, it would come from a scientist, and not an idiot." -Dawkins
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member Posts: 20326 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: Member Rating: 3.6 |
Hi Percy,
quote: Note that the ones that breed true mean that the genes for the breed type have been isolated, and that these are like the pure breeds of peas that Mendel isolated in his experiments; that they are new means that they have one or more mutations that were not previously isolated in a breeding population. These are new variations within the dog clade, and it seems the process of mutation and variation is still operating. Certainly these new breeds have added to the diversity of dogs. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : clrty by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 8207 Joined: Member Rating: 3.9
|
This is most certainly true. A good example are dachsunds. They carry a mutation in their FGRF3 gene causing them to have stunted limbs, otherwise known as achondroplasia. Humans with mutations in the homologous gene also have achondroplasia (i.e. dwarfism). This is a dominant trait meaning that you only need one copy of the gene in order to have the condition. Obviously, this mutation could not have come from their wolf ancestors. Instead, this trait was isolated and bred to homozygosity by breeders after the mutation occurred in their breeding stocks.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member Posts: 20326 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: Member Rating: 3.6 |
Hi hooah212002,
Personally I find the easiest way to discuss kinds is by using cladistics, as this avoids the question of what level of taxonomy is involved (which seems to change with moods). quote: Note that extinct species, such as the Dire Wolf, are not shown in the cladogram, only currently living species. So the questions for creationists are ...
This chart also does not show the silver fox, which is a melanistic form of red fox that was subjected to 50 years of selective breeding in Siberia to develop a tame variety for the fox farming industry ... and ended up with a domesticated variety with traits similar to the domestic dog ... so does that mean that foxes must be a member of the dog kind? Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : dire wold link by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 160 days) Posts: 3183 Joined:
|
Ahh, but "kind" is their term so it is up to them to define it. What you are doing is called "making sense" using fact and evidence: something unfamiliar with creationists. Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given. "There is no refutation of Darwinian evolution in existence. If a refutation ever were to come about, it would come from a scientist, and not an idiot." -Dawkins
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member Posts: 20326 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: Member Rating: 3.6 |
Hi again hooah212002,
What I have done is take what creationist say about kinds and noted that this is similar to the way biologists talk about clades. They don't care about genus and family etc classifications, just that a specific group of species form a kind that evolved from an original common ancestor. The disagreement between biology and creationism is that they claim there were a number of common ancestors, while biologists are happy with a small group of bacteria interchanging (via horizontal transfer) soon after life appeared. Personally I find clade to be a good working definition for kinds in these discussions, something that can be agreed on .... Enjoy. by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10285 From: London England Joined:
|
I suspect that in practise a "kind" is whatever creationists think evolution is unable to result in.
It will vary from creationist to creationists depending on their own individual misapprehensions about what evolution is.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member Posts: 20326 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: Member Rating: 3.6 |
Hi Straggler,
And that is the basis for the thread Dogs will be Dogs wil be ??? which does not appear to attract any creationist involvement, even though, imho, it should be of interest to them ... Enjoy by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 160 days) Posts: 3183 Joined: |
If you can get creationists to agree with you, I'd be all for it. However, that would entail them dropping the use of kind which doesn't seem to be happening. There is no sense in evolutionists assuming they mean clade but say kind, especially since it is not up to us to define their terms.
"There is no refutation of Darwinian evolution in existence. If a refutation ever were to come about, it would come from a scientist, and not an idiot." -Dawkins
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 2051 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
I am thinking that my previous reply could possibly be construed as sarcastic or something.
So I thought I would explicitly state that it was not meant in a derogatory (or whatever) sense. I truly see no clear answer to my question in your reply. And looking at your summary sentence:
"We dont observe life arising from non-life" - 'non-life' to 'life': clearly not related to a cat evolving into a fox. So, to summarise: I'll ask again...
could evolve into this:
? If I were you And I wish that I were you All the things I'd do To make myself turn blue
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Invader Scooch Junior Member (Idle past 2753 days) Posts: 11 From: Infiltrating Earth Joined: |
Well, I came to an Evolution vs. Creation forum, what else should I expect.
We as human beings are naturally draw to conflict in all forms, whether it is shooting one another in real life, or in a video game, or in any other game, in the buisness world, and in just plain living. EVC does not escape the bounds of these tenants, and to come here expecting people wanting to flesh out new ideas instead of arguing over the old appears to have been a foolish propisition. Never the less, thank you for participating. Edited by Invader Scooch, : Ambiguity
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 2051 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
Still no answer.
Is there some aspect of my question that you are having trouble understanding or is there some aspect of your answer that you are having trouble expressing? If I were you And I wish that I were you All the things I'd do To make myself turn blue
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019