Evolution is True Because Life Needs It

quote:

---

I'll ask again...
Do you accept that this:

​

could evolve into this: ?

---

Yes, I think so. Variation within a kind is what I would call it.If a bunch of cats were left in a harsh climate for some reason they could have a gene that allows them to adapt that was already present in their DNA. Although i'm not really sure how it works. The envioronment would have to suit atleast some to pass on a dominant gene that lets them survive. I guess it's all about location and the felines that are located there?Extinction is possible too.I'm not talking so much about - (macro) as I am (micro) - for a lack of better terms.Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

Hi Chuck77 Would you expect one to become exactly like the other, or through convergent evolution to have similar behavior and appearance, as we see with the sugar glider (australian marsupial) and the flying squirrel (north american placental)? From Dogs will be Dogs will be ???:

quote:

---

Red Fox
Red fox - Wikipedia
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Carnivora
Family: Canidae
Genus: Vulpes
Species: V. vulpes

​

House Cat
Cat - Wikipedia
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Carnivora
Family: Felidae
Genus: Felis
Species: F. silvestris
Subspecies: F. s. catus

​

The taxon level where cats and foxes (and dogs and wolves) are related is in the Order Carnivora.

---

Do you mean that they are the same kind? If so, you're being very kind. If these critters are of the same kind then all carnivora are also one kind, yes? Can you tell me what (you think) happens in macroevolution that is not included in microevolution?Enjoy.

Who are you responding to?--Percy

And to ask you the same initial question I asked Portillo...Do you accept that this: evolved into this: ?

Im not sure about those specific examples, but if a fox is part of the canine family and the cat is part of the feline family, then the answer is no.Edited by Portillo, : No reason given.

Thats true, with few exceptions, animals can breed with each other if they are part of the same species. Thats why with the cat, you can get ligers and leopons. With the horse, you can get zonkeys and zorses. Change and variation within a fundamentally stable species. Living fossils are a perfect example. Coelacanths lived 300 million years ago and were thought to be extinct. When they were found in modern times, they were more or less exactly the same. The fossil record is filled with animals that have stayed the same for hundreds of millions of years. Why is it that living fossils like the cockroach and horseshoe crab stayed the same, while concurrently, there was a mammalian ancestor that was evolving into a whale, porpoise, seal, polar bear, bat, monkey, cat, pig, opossum and cattle?Heres an example of the almost infinite change and variation possible within a species. Theres an orchestra with a conducter. They have beautiful instruments and are talented musicians. A scientist has discovered that this orchestra with 100 musicians and a conductor, can play 2 distinct symphonies a day, 5 days a week, 50 weeks a year, for millions of years, and never have to play the same symphony twice. The variation and potential is almost infinite. But after a few million of years, the conductor gets bored with soundwaves and decides to evolve. What do they have to do to evolve into ultraviolet waves, infrared waves or x-rays? They have to have a mutation. The conductor then starts moving his musicians around, destroys a few instruments, throws a few rocks and rearranges the orchestra. Well guess what happened? A radical change and a drastic mutation. Edited by Portillo, : No reason given.

But could a cat evolve into an animal that looks exactly like a fox?

Hi Portillo. Classifications to me is not the barrier stopping the animals from evolving into one another. The classes really don't matter in the grand scheme of things I dont think.What's to say that feline and canine can't be merged into one class based on similiar features and genetics? Just because they are classed differently doesn't mean a cat can't evolve into a fox or vice versa. Maybe they actually are the same "kind" just classed seperatly.That's why I think it's a good start to try and see if we can define what a "kind" is. It's going to be broader possibly (in a sense) than the current classifications I think.Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

I was wondering how creationists like yourself know when different species are members of the same kind, so I asked whether mutual fertility were the criteria. Your answer is a bit confusing. When you labeled ligers, leopons, zonkeys and zorses as "Change and variation within a fundamentally stable species" did you mean to say "a fundamentally stable *kind*?" Except that modern coelacanths are not "more or less exactly the same" as coelacanths 300 million years ago. Coelacanth is an order, not a species, here's the full classification:

Kingdom	Anamilia
Phylum	Chordata
Class	Osteichthyes (bony fishes)
Order	Coelacanthini
Family	Sarcopterygii
Genus	Latimeria
Species	chalumnae

It is the order coelacanth that has survived for 300 million years, not the species. There is no such thing as a species of coelacanth. If you want to claim that the order coelacanthini is the same thing as a kind then you contradict your earlier claim that kind means mutually interfertile.There is only one species of modern coelacanth, the Latimeria chalumnae. Fossil coelacanths are of different species, genera and families. We haven't even found any fossil coelacanths in the same genus as the modern coelacanth, see the section on the fossil record in the Widipedia article on the coelacanth. Well, if you apply the same criteria you used for the coelacanth and the horseshoe crab (which was either thinking that "looks pretty much the same" means "is the same," or trusting creationist websites, or both) then I guess you're right. But if you instead apply the criteria you earlier defined for kind, mutual interfertility, then this is dead wrong and the fossil record contains no examples of animals that have stayed the same for hundreds of millions of years. If you check out the Wikipedia article on Horseshoe Crabs and the Wikipedia article on Xiphosura (order that includes the modern horseshoe crab), then you'll find that all existing species of horseshoe crab reside in a biological family (Limulidae) that didn't even exist hundreds of millions of years ago. Evolution reacts to environmental change, which includes the local climate, terrain and all other life. Species in environments with little change (much more common in the ocean than on land) will change little in comparison to species living in changing environments. And as your examples of the coelacanth and horseshoe crab make clear, even creatures that have experienced relative stability in their environments undergo considerable change after millions of years, even though their appearance might seem little affected.So living fossils are not examples of species running out of variation. DNA's biggest enemy is imperfect copying. Millions of generations mean millions and millions and millions of mutations, and as a species underlying DNA changes even species in a stable environment will change.Of course, the irony is that although DNA's biggest enemy is imperfect copying, it is life's biggest friend because without the plasticity provided by mutational change life could not adapt to the inevitably changing circumstances of our planet.--Percy

Portillo I wanted to add something to my comment. I don't believe it was God who catagorized the classifications. So there is room for wiggle room IMO. But one thing that you or I can't do (IMO) is say that certain animals cannot "change over" into other classifications that were classified by scientists that developed the classifications themselves.Its not consistent with our position. If advocates for evolution are responsible for the classifications themselves then we cannot apply our own limits to them when arguing for what can evolve into what. Do you see what I mean?I'm not arguing against what your saying just clarifying it. That's why I think there needs to be a broader yet more precise definition of kinds and the classifications can be viewed in not such a strict manner. Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

The point is that the similarities end with the order, Carnivora, the 2 families differentiated into the progenitors of the current families. Each genus within the family differs in the same manner and the individual species the same way. They are merges at the order level and that is where the similarity ends. At the class level they are merged with all other mammals. Percy point this out in his chart of the coelacanth.

I’m sure we can all agree life is more complex than a 350 Chevy engine. My proposal to the evolutionist, take a 350 Chevy put it on an engine dino run it up to peak performance rpm and rebuild it in to a Duramax diesel the hole time never missing a beat. You boys get that one done and we can talk.

Hello, barnes! Welcome to EvC!When was the last time you saw a 350 Chevy engine, or even a 287, that had children? Grandchildren? Did you get the long-form birth certificate if you met those kids?Find me a engine that reproduces and yes, we can talk.

Thank you for the hello.Chevy reproducre engine everyday, and some with imperfections, they tend to break and get fixed under warranty. Never seen one break and turn into a Ford.

Please don't post identical off-topic messages to different threads. If you'd like to propose a new thread then you can do that over at the Proposed New Topics forum.