Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   "Best" evidence for evolution.
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


(1)
Message 476 of 830 (870799)
01-25-2020 5:09 AM
Reply to: Message 474 by Faith
01-24-2020 6:31 PM


Re: Same Species #2
quote:
... all I'm trying to do is sketch out the basic way I think of species: birds are one, cats are one, dogs are one, horses are one and so on
I.e. taxonomic groupings above species, containing a number of species. It’s essentially the Creationist kind complete with the biologically arbitrary boundaries.
So why call it a species when it clearly isn’t? Is it just to hide your acceptance of macroevolution?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 474 by Faith, posted 01-24-2020 6:31 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 477 by Faith, posted 01-25-2020 8:23 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 483 of 830 (870811)
01-25-2020 9:29 AM
Reply to: Message 477 by Faith
01-25-2020 8:23 AM


Re: Same Species #2
quote:
You come up with some of the strangest ways of interpreting what I think
I don’t think that there is anything strange there. Your weird aversion to the word macroevolution has been demonstrated.
quote:
Yes Species is really the creationist Kind in my mind. I guess I should have said that.
Yes, and you should start calling them kinds for the sake of communication since they aren’t species as the term is currently used.
quote:
To me there's nothing arbitrary about it, it's determined by the particular characteristics of the creatures. I think those characteristics are very specific and easily recognized myself but I guess if one is steeped in the evolutionist way of looking at it all they seem arbitrary.
Obviously it is biologically arbitrary since you count humans and chimpanzees as different kinds while counting more dissimilar creatures - like hummingbirds and ostriches - as the same kind. In phenotype and genotype humans and chimpanzees are the closer of the two. It is clearly and obviously arbitrary.
quote:
But as I said above defining the Kind/Species isn't really the problem dwise was getting at, it's what happens when I try to describe my view of the development of new opulations.
So it’s not a problem of understanding, it’s just that we don’t agree with your opinions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 477 by Faith, posted 01-25-2020 8:23 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 484 by Faith, posted 01-25-2020 9:43 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 487 of 830 (870827)
01-25-2020 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 484 by Faith
01-25-2020 9:43 AM


Re: Same Species #2
quote:
It COULD be mostly a problem of disagreement since this is a paradigm clash at root, one model opposing another, but such a clash usually also involves redefinition of terms and therefore a lot of misunderstanding.
I don’t think there has been any misunderstanding other than that created by your abuse of the term species.
You assume that all variety within a kind is a result of selection alone, with mutation playing no role. And that is about it. And you still have no real case for that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 484 by Faith, posted 01-25-2020 9:43 AM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 498 of 830 (870865)
01-25-2020 3:18 PM
Reply to: Message 497 by Faith
01-25-2020 3:13 PM


Re: what is "something brand new" if a new specie isn't enough?
quote:
Gosh, beaks, wings, bird legs, feathers and you can't see them as one species?
No. Because there are taxonomic groups linked by shared characteristics larger than species. So why a species rather than a genus, a family or an order ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 497 by Faith, posted 01-25-2020 3:13 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 500 by Faith, posted 01-25-2020 4:09 PM PaulK has replied
 Message 502 by Faith, posted 01-25-2020 4:52 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


(1)
Message 501 of 830 (870871)
01-25-2020 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 500 by Faith
01-25-2020 4:09 PM


Re: Bird species
quote:
Oh and besides beaks, wings, bird legs and feathers there's the basic body shape, the fact that if you have long legs you also have a long neck and vice versa. They also have pretty distinctly bird eyes. All of them share these characteristics.
As an aside there are plenty of birds with long necks and short legs. Most waterfowl for instance. Some birds of prey have surprisingly long legs without especially long necks.
But none of that addresses the question of why birds should be taken to be a species rather than a genus, a family or an order.
And the A bird is a bird is a bird and nothing else applies equally well no matter what taxonomic level the birds are taken to be.
So all in all you offer no answer at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 500 by Faith, posted 01-25-2020 4:09 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 503 by Faith, posted 01-25-2020 4:53 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 504 of 830 (870883)
01-25-2020 5:01 PM
Reply to: Message 503 by Faith
01-25-2020 4:53 PM


Re: Bird species
quote:
I took a look at ducks, geese, swans and hawks and don't really see any great discrepancy between length of necks and legs in any of them as you suggest.
Odd that. Swans have long necks and short legs. Ducks keep their necks tucked in when swimming but you can see the length when they fly and even geese don’t have really long legs.
As for birds of prey, it’s only some (or at least I only know of some) and you need to see the legs extended. Take a look at the length of this owl’s legs. owl (Facebook)
But anyway this is tangential. What justifies labelling birds as a species rather than a larger taxonomic group? That is the question. I’m still waiting for an answer.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 503 by Faith, posted 01-25-2020 4:53 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 507 by Faith, posted 01-25-2020 11:40 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


(1)
Message 505 of 830 (870884)
01-25-2020 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 502 by Faith
01-25-2020 4:52 PM


Re: what is "something brand new" if a new specie isn't enough?
quote:
Those other taxonomic groups do not share all their charaacteristics as birds do.
This is errant nonsense. Taxonomic groups are DEFINED by shared traits. ALL of them. That is the hierarchy as originally defined by Linnaeus.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 502 by Faith, posted 01-25-2020 4:52 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 509 by Faith, posted 01-26-2020 12:21 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 511 of 830 (870894)
01-26-2020 2:09 AM
Reply to: Message 507 by Faith
01-25-2020 11:40 PM


Re: Bird species
quote:
To address your last question first: There's too much in the higher taxonomic groups that doesn't fit the characteristics of birds while the bird group share just about everything in common. The only real differences among them do seem to be the claw feet versus the paddle feet.
You are literally insane. The specialised adaptions of beaks alone are significant differences. And you obviously haven’t looked at the specialisations of owls or woodpeckers either. But what can I expect of someone who can’t even see that swans have long necks and short legs?
quote:
Swans don't really have short legs, and actually their necks aren't even as long as I at least ... expected anyway. they seem longer than they are because of the way they are folded back. I'll try to find pictures to post.
This is just nonsense. Swan’s necks are not folded back so the length is visible, and their legs are proportionately nowhere near the length of a heron’s or a flamingo’s let alone a stilt’s.
ABE: seem Philip Schwarz’s images on this page compare the leg and neck lengths of the trumpeter swans and the sandhill cranes.
Swan:
Crane:
Proportionately the swan’s neck is no shorter but the legs are much shorter. It’s so obvious I can’t think why you’d deny it.
quote:
Birds of prey look like they have shorter necks than they do because of the way their wings fold up near their heads when at rest. They may still be shorter than their legs but I'll have to look again.
I would be very surprised if you found any relationship between length of leg and length of neck. Vultures do have long necks, but their legs aren’t especially long.
quote:
Probably the best way to assess this is to find skeletons of each bird. the skeleton of penguins was a real eye opener to me because it's a true bird body that is revealed that way, that is not evident under their feather padding.
Good luck, but it won’t help you.
Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 507 by Faith, posted 01-25-2020 11:40 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 516 by Faith, posted 01-26-2020 1:08 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


(1)
Message 512 of 830 (870895)
01-26-2020 2:11 AM
Reply to: Message 509 by Faith
01-26-2020 12:21 AM


Re: what is "something brand new" if a new specie isn't enough?
quote:
So I looked up the Linnaean taxonomy for birds and they are in the Class Aves. That's the Bird Kind as I see it. What I call Species, but the taxonomic system only uses that term for very specific species of birds, such as Robin.
What a surprise - the Linnaean system uses species in the same way as everyone else,

This message is a reply to:
 Message 509 by Faith, posted 01-26-2020 12:21 AM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 518 of 830 (870916)
01-26-2020 1:30 PM
Reply to: Message 516 by Faith
01-26-2020 1:08 PM


Re: Bird species
quote:
Thanks, those are good pictures. Yes they give a different impression than I had from the picture I saw at Google Image, but still, those are creatures with long necks and long legs.
The swans certainly do not have long legs as you can clearly see.
quote:
the general statement is still true that the birds with the long necks also have the long legs and those with shorter necks also shorter legs.
Obviously it does not. Despite having a shorter neck, the owl in the earlier picture clearly has proportionately longer legs than the swan.
quote:
Meaning you won't find a bird with a very short neck and very long legs or vice versa.
The swan seems to fit the latter description quite well.
quote:
If the swan had truly short legs it would waddle
They do.
quote:
It's legs are long but not as long as a flamingo or crane's.
They are certainly not long. You can see that. Everyone can see that.
If you want to dispute this, fine, it really doesn't matter a lot. It just looks to me that in general creatures are designed to some principle of proportionality and it makes me wonder how this is determined by the genome.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 516 by Faith, posted 01-26-2020 1:08 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 519 by Faith, posted 01-26-2020 1:38 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


(1)
Message 520 of 830 (870920)
01-26-2020 1:57 PM
Reply to: Message 519 by Faith
01-26-2020 1:38 PM


Re: Bird species
Reality disputes it. Swans waddle. If you don’t like it, that’s your problem.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 519 by Faith, posted 01-26-2020 1:38 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 521 by Faith, posted 01-26-2020 2:15 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 522 of 830 (870923)
01-26-2020 2:18 PM
Reply to: Message 521 by Faith
01-26-2020 2:15 PM


Re: Bird species
They waddle because they have short legs. As you can see in the pictures.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 521 by Faith, posted 01-26-2020 2:15 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 523 by Faith, posted 01-26-2020 2:20 PM PaulK has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 535 of 830 (871041)
01-27-2020 2:56 PM
Reply to: Message 534 by Faith
01-27-2020 2:28 PM


Re: re the Linnaean taxonomy for birds
quote:
Well I've many times shown that there is such a barrier and it's only a dogmatic blind adherence to the "science" that refuses to recognize it cuz it blows the ToE to smithereens.
Have you considered that the reason we don’t believe it is because it’s a silly lie? You haven’t proved any such thing. You know that.
Indeed you know that I disproved your argument, that you lack any significant evidence and that you have no sound theoretical basis either. All you have is the lying boast that you proved it. Even though you very obviously didn’t do any such thing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 534 by Faith, posted 01-27-2020 2:28 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 536 by Faith, posted 01-27-2020 3:01 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


(1)
Message 537 of 830 (871045)
01-27-2020 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 536 by Faith
01-27-2020 3:01 PM


Re: Oh you betcha selection kills evolution
quote:
Oh I've proved it all right and all you are doing is trying to obscure it by calling me a llar.
Oh yes, I’m trying to sabotage your lying by telling the truth.
quote:
You tried to say mutations destroy the idea but I answered effectively that they don't because selection always overrides any increase in genetic divewrsity by any means, by always reducing genetic diversity from any source
At best that is an unsupported opinion, contrary to the available evidence. Hardly an effective answer.
quote:
And mutation doesn't happen anyway in these populations or no composite phenotype in the wild or breed in domestic programs could ever maintain their integrity...
Obviously false of wild species and those domestic breeds that are strongly defined that it might conceivably be an issue are maintained by artificial selection anyway.
quote:
.... and the cheetah and the elephant seal would not be on the verge of extinction
Yes they would. At least to the extent that they are.
quote:
Sorry, I've proved you wrong over and over and over, you just refuse to recognize it.
No you haven’t. You just offer unsupported opinions. You have NEVER got the data that you would need to make a real case for any of it. You would rather pretend to have proof and hope that we get a sudden attack of gullibility and believe your lies. Well no. We won’t.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 536 by Faith, posted 01-27-2020 3:01 PM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 550 of 830 (871188)
01-29-2020 4:19 PM
Reply to: Message 549 by Faith
01-29-2020 4:00 PM


Re: re the Linnaean taxonomy for birds
quote:
It's not an assumption, I've worked it out
As we will see, you haven’t.
quote:
First you can't maintain a species in the wild or a breed in artificial selection if you have any kind of increase in genetic diversity, wether through gene flow or mutation.
That is obviously false. Maybe there is some sort of maximum to diversity but it is far from clear that any species has come close to reaching it. And if they have not then more diversity can be added.
quote:
Since both breeds and species in the wild maintain an identifiable characteristics we know that neither of these sources of increase occur, or that they are extremely rare.
Species are not breeds. Breeds are derived from species and the breeds in aggregate will show greater phenotypic variation. Even if the breeds have less genetic diversity than the wild species they were derived from. Clearly it is NOT a simple matter of genetic diversity.
quote:
Second, if such increases do occur, usually from resumed gene flow rather than mutation, since mutation doesn't contribute much change in a short period of time, then if a population split occurs or any other kind of selection we will again have reduced genetic diversity which always occurs when new traits form a new composite phenotype.
Why assume only a short period of time? Not that population splits tend to greatly reduce diversity even if we consider the sub-populations against the combined population.
quote:
Selection IS the driving force of evolution and it always decreases genetic diversity.
Selection is the guiding force. Mutation drives it by providing the necessary diversity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 549 by Faith, posted 01-29-2020 4:00 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 551 by Faith, posted 01-29-2020 4:26 PM PaulK has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024