Dogs will be Dogs will be ???

Hi RAZD, Welcome back. Sounds good. I'm not so sure about the science side of things concerning micro macro. I didn't even think advocates of evolution liked those terms and really it doesn't matter so much if we use them. First of all I don't like the terms micro or macro. If I say I accept "micro" it seems like I am accepting evolution as a whole, which I don't. Tho for sake of argument "micro" to me is: observed genetic variation within a kind of animal."Macro" to me would be land mammal to sea mammal or vice versa. Much much more change. Hoping for a beneficial mutation will account for the many changes needed to make the (change)?(i'm not sure what exactly would be needed for such a change) Whereas micro would not need to depend on random mutations to evolve because it would already be included in the original DNA e.g. finch beaks. I can't say. Like I said I don't use the terms really. To me Macro is unseen change over thousands millions of years that cannot be observed. I concede micro cannot really be observed either (as none of us are witnessing Wolves slowly becoming Poodles - same kind) but atleast we see the same kinds of animals producing the same kinds of animals. So I think it's a stretch to assume they change out of that kind. Why should they? Why would they? Why can't that kind adapt to the evironment into another species of the same kind? What is the need for "macro" evolution. I accept evolution of the same kind of animal, just not the TOE's version of it e.g. transitional, intermediates, PE, etc.I think extinction is a possible cause for the fossil record looking the way it does instead of some of them being transitionals (IMO). I think tho, that there are transitional fossils within the same kind that make up a part of the fossil record too. How couldn't there be if I accept "micro" evolution?So could some of those "micro" intermediates be confused for "macro" intermediates? A lot? I'm not sure. 50,000 - 100,000 morphological changes? How many ever are needed to adapt. It would seem much easier for a Fox to Cat than Horse to Whale?Incidently as ignorant as it may sound that's what I think "macro" would be - horse to whale - for a lack of better example. Again it may be ignorant of me to define things the way I am but i'm just letting you know what my knowledge of these things are. Because their the same kind (feline). I wouldn't consider it "macro" but "micro". Cool.Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

Hi RAZD. I brought this post over here to respond to. You can work it into one comment with my other post if you like so we don't have multiple comments going at the same time.Well, that's a good question. I'm not sure. Maybe the same kind but a different species? On the face of it I would say they were the same kind. Although i'm not sure. I don't think location of animals is what determines kinds. I think a bird in Australia could be same kind of bird in America, etc.Although in your example they could be different kinds sure.I guess I could ask what helps you determine what a kind is? How do you classify certain animals, species? I'm not so sure I have a great definition to be honest. I don't think it's easy to say just based on similar behavior and appearance. A lion could have simliar apperances as a dog but one would be feline and the other canine.So maybe we should work on a good definition of kind before we go further.Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

Ooops. Yes, I made a mistake. Foxes are canine? I thought they were feline(felidae).Would it be ok then to say I don't believe the fox can evolve "into" a cat then?Of course I don't mind you commenting. Thanks for the info.ABE: It seems like these - kinds- are already set up. I can accept these catagories you posted all evolving into each (except chimp to man).For now can we leave chimp to man out of it and focus on the feline canine families?This is a little confusing for me. So the flying squirrel is a rodent and the sugar slider is marsupial?Why are they classified different? What sets them apart? I need to look at all the classifications I think and maybe go from there for my own good.ABE: decided to just make it a seperate post.Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

Thanks Huntard, i'll watch it now.Also, what I meant to say above (what I said was I can accept these catagories evolving into eachother) was the felidae classification (for example) all evolving within that family - Lion, cat, tiger I accept...not canine with feline just for clarification.The Hominidae family I disagree with also. Chimp to man.I know it seems i'm being picky choosey here but i'm just sharing my thoughts trying to determine how these classifications are determined.Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

How about starting here:Canidae - Wikipedia: Can we call the family Canidae a "kind"?ABE: I'm not sure I really understand what evolution predicts.Does it say that all these catagories evolve within themselves?Is the only one I have a problem with is the hominade family then? Chimp to man?Sorry man, I really don't know.So is my idea of "macro" not what the TOE teaches? Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

I'm actually trying to wrap my brain around all of this information trying to learn about the different catagories that I have no idea about whatsoever and you come at me with this response?Do you really feel that threatend by my complete and utter lack of knowledge on evolution and the taxonomic catagories?I'm having a hard enough time after watching that video trying to figure out what he was talking about and researching this subject.I'm sorry for insulting you as my comments are in no way directed at you but Huntard and RAZD who seem to be willing to engage me. Thanks.Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

I don't know. It might be a little more complicated than Ithought (imagine that).You're saying there aren't such a thing as kinds right? What do you call them then, species, sub-species?What do you think we mean by kinds? Heheheh...I think it would be good to start by the certain catagories already set in place and go from there maybe. Tho you say where do kinds end? Does evolution teach there is no end, that we are all connected so to speak?Then what do we think, that we aren't all connected? If evolution says common ancestory and we say common designer, no matter what we must all be connected...right? That our DNA is a "universal" like code?So what's our contention, the whole we are apes thingy? If I feel we just are not evolved along with apes perse and that all species evolved within (the yet undefined term of kinds) then we are trying to find the mechanism now?I'm just trying to find the dividing line of where my contention is at.Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

Hi RAZD. Definition one reads fine except it doesn't say how long the changes take or how many.Definition two is a little confusing. One form to another that are simliar? (I will read the whole page as you recommend). Ok. I think I understand. So a wolf for instance passes down herditary traits and maybe 4 generations later a species can look entirely different form the wolf? It's actually a new species. Micro evolution right? What do you mean by daughter population? Females in the area?
So in order for this to take place a lot of factors are involved mainley location and the daughter population in that area? Ok, this actually sounds familiar but is a little confusing. A lot of this is.Speciation seems important. I always thought speciation was two of the same kind (until I get a better grasp of everything I hope you don't mind me using the word kind) but different species reproducing? Like say a sparrow and a robin? Both birds...different species? Is that speciation or does it go deeper than that?Would you call speciation micro or macro? This may already be obvious but some things are gonna go over my head here. Hmmm. Well sure. I mean if it were to happen there is no denying it right? Wouldn't there be a trail leading both to eachother?(For sake of argument I have to bring some things up that I don't yet agree with so don't take it as me believing it now but it will help the conversation go forward)For instance we would see dog traits in the horse and horse traits in the dog? They look alike from a distance, both run on 4 legs...tails, no tails etc etc. Yeah I could go with it. So why aren't they in the same family you think? Are they that far apart? Even if they are that far apart what is to say to seperate them anyway?

Hi Crashfrog, excellent thanks. How can you tell if they are of the same reproductive population? What do you mean? Not all canines can mate with all canines right? Is there something reproductivly that associates them then and that's why they are classified together? Ok. So winged species in this corner, winged with tail over here, winged with tail beak over here? Whoa. Interesting. I'm no sure I knew that. What do you mean there is no such thing as a "reproductive community"?Don't animals usually stay within there own limitations? Don't they know who to reproduce with? I don't know what you mean and I also and confused about there are really no species.IOW you're saying this is life, we are all here, all connected all the same yet different? Really interesting. So I could actually say that a we are all of the same kind, different species, subspecies all the way down the line? Then, group then together the best we can based on genetics, looks, behavior and thats what makes up taxonomy? I'm just trying to determine why some are catagorized in different families. Like the sugar glider and flying squirrel...Do you think they should be in the same classification?Plants, animals, trees, anything alive is catagorized? Then broken down and placed into other catagories with similiar features etc?

Ahh, we do? I wonder why? Really? Wow. Yet they look almost exactly the same. How? One stray trait on looks got passed thru somehow? So it's more than just looks as far as taxonomy. Genetics plays a larger role then? So those two a two utter and completly different species like us and kangaroos? Well this is going to hard to define what a kind is then, it seems.Could they be classified different is we had different qualifications for the classifications? What actualy determines the classifications themselves? Again, it seems genetics is at the top of the list. Yeah interesting. I get it but at the same time I don't, but I do.

Hi RAZD So could they actually mate at one time?Are they are analogous? In contrast to homologous?ABE: The above statement about analogous and homologous was from searching for "convergent evolution". This is what I found: Convergent evolution - WikipediaSo they don't have a common origin? The sugar glider and flying squirrel? Yeah, works for me. So far yeah. It seems it would. B and C would be other species of the "A" kind. Yes. That sounds good. Clade then would the "kind" I am taking about. What I don't get is when A,B or C of that clade...then jumps, to D,E and F. That's where I get lost. How could they?How could they genectically? Do you understand what I mean? Like I said to Huntard, i'm trying to find where my point of contention lies. Yep, sounds good. Yeah, it's a big question. I don't know. Hmm, well a Wolf isn't a dog but is canine. No one would call a bunch of wolves roaming around in the fields a bunch of dogs if they knew they were wolves. So if the Wolf is "A" and a horse was "B" or "C" then sure. What's the difference.The queston is does that happen...such a huge change in appearence and genetically? Tho i'm not sure that works either because many species are different sizes. I don't know (again). What determines it if the horse should be grouped with the dog?Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

Hi RAZD. Yes, it probably would now. One thing I would say/ask you RAZD is this: If the fox and cat are closer in changes than some dogs are why are they classified differently? Shouldn't they both be in either the canine or feline clade? Why are they not classified together while dogs who are farther apart in changes are? Ok. i'm confused a little. Why are you putting canine with feline in the same clade? Aren't they a little to close together?I thought we were saying clades (for understanding you better and me grasping it better) was a kind - so to speak. Are you putting feline with canine?Shouldn't it be "A" wolf "B" dog "C" poddle...and so on down the canine clade? d,e,f,g,h...Then totally seperate would be "A" lion "B" tiger" "C" cat? Ok I see. I wonder why they are classified differently. Do you know what the bigger difference are within the dogs? Is it much more than +3? I understand what you're saying. You're saying if I accpet wolf to dog (which has more changes in some than fox to cat) then I should accept fox to cat (different "kinds" tho less changes) who are classified differently? See above. I understand RAZD. I do and thank you for explaining it to me. I think tho, were moving a little fast. I'm not so sure I agree with the way the taxonomic catagories are set up. Tho i'm not sure it really matters. As crash said it's only to help guide us.To answer your question about convergent evolution I can't right now. I need to understand more what convergent evolution is. Maybe our (my) definition of kinds ahould be expanded a little more.ABE: I think I missed this RAZD when you said: Do you think this could or did happen? Since one is marsupial and the other placental? So they are related(?) but not classified together? Genetically their very different right?How many changes do you think they are away from dog to wolf or fox to cat?ABE(again): RAZD I skipped over this because I didn't understand what your meant:What do you mean?Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

Hi Percy Well first i'd like to see if I can come to a definition that works before I abandon it. Tho it's not going to be a tight as I thought.

Hi RAZD, Crashfrog, Percy, Huntard and others. I need to do some reading before moving forward here I think.I wanted to let you know i'm still looking to participate here and will respond to your posts soon.Also, Taq, I think you're right. As RAZD has said: Message 288and, in the same message: I think were all on the same page, so far.Although crashfrogs posts about defining what a species is (and caffeine's) are duly noted. It doesn't seem like the easiest thing to do.Admittingly tho, i'm not too familiar with Linnaean taxonomy as compared to Cladistics, (or with Linnaean taxonimy at all) but from what has been talked about concerning Cladistics, it seems a good route to go.Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

I would like to try and keep up here I just don't think it's possible.
I think I should focus on one thing at a time. The thing that jumps out the most is Cladistics and how that works.If species hasn't really been defined to a tee then it seems there is room to work. Although I would really like to see if it's possible to catagorize "kinds". Inevitably tho, the Human - ape connection is going to come up and that is where the problem lies, I think.So if someone wants to take the lead here that's fine. There is a lot of reading to do on all of this and maybe we can go as we go here without me reading 150 years of the TOE.Keep it simple maybe? If possible.Micro-Macro, species, kinds, and where the line is for the seperations of each species, sub-species whether land or water.