Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
9 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Missing Link
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 7 of 80 (96726)
04-01-2004 6:48 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Mnenth
04-01-2004 5:53 PM


So why aren't there millions of finds showing macroevolution from one specie to another?
You have a dad, right? And you're different than your dad, at least a little bit, right?
So where's the missing link between you and your father? Since there isn't one, is that proof that you're not your father's child?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Mnenth, posted 04-01-2004 5:53 PM Mnenth has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Mnenth, posted 04-01-2004 7:05 PM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 23 of 80 (96787)
04-01-2004 9:55 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Mnenth
04-01-2004 7:05 PM


my father didnt evolve into me.
No, but he did give rise to you.
Perhaps you don't understand that evolution happens to populations, not to individuals. You're born with all the adaptations you'll ever have; whether or not those adaptations persist in the populations is a function of natural selection.
Evolution isn't a process where creatures morph from one to another, like on TV. It's a process that changes the ratio of one gene to another in a population's gene pool.
What I'm saying is, that there should be so many more fossils found that are undeniable one specie evolving into another.
What we're telling you is that you don't know how to recognize such a fossil. It's not a half-and-half chimera of indeterminate species. It's a well-formed example of it's own species. Transitional species are still species.
And that would be represented in the fossils we find. But it isnt. Why?
It is, though. Every species that wasn't a dead-end is a transitional species. You're the transitional between your father and your son. If you don't understand how you can be a transitional and still a human, then you need to hit the books.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Mnenth, posted 04-01-2004 7:05 PM Mnenth has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Coragyps, posted 04-01-2004 9:57 PM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 27 by Mnenth, posted 04-01-2004 10:15 PM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 26 of 80 (96792)
04-01-2004 10:01 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Mnenth
04-01-2004 9:57 PM


To COMPLETELY change to another specie i.e. would require that entirely new genetic material be added, which your body can't create.
How do you come to that conclusion? Given that the shapes of bodies appear to be controlled by relatively few genes, why do you think we would need new ones?
And of course you're wrong about the new genetic material. There's a number of processes by which new genetic material is added to chromosomes, and they're all random. It's called "mutation."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Mnenth, posted 04-01-2004 9:57 PM Mnenth has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Mnenth, posted 04-01-2004 10:22 PM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 30 of 80 (96805)
04-01-2004 10:24 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Mnenth
04-01-2004 10:15 PM


A transitional specie between two species would have physical characteristics of both species.
Sure. For instance, amphibians have characteristics of both fish and reptiles. Hippopotami have characteristics of both cetaceans and land mammals. So I know what you're talking about.
And there would be hundreds, if not thousands of transitional species (each having varying amounts of each of the "parent" species characteristics) in the process of one specie evolving into another far down the road
And there is. For instance, every species currently experiencing natural selection is a transitional species, because their eventual decendants will be better adapted to their environments. The current populations are the transition between the past population and the future population.
They find one, and call it good.
They hardly "call it good." The evolutionary lineage that links dinosaurs and birds is a hotly contested area of paleontology, because the fossil record is so sketchy in that area. But any student can look at bird skeletons and dinosaur skeletons and see that birds are the probable decendants of dinosaurs, so the fact of the decent isn't in question, just the specifics.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Mnenth, posted 04-01-2004 10:15 PM Mnenth has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Mnenth, posted 04-01-2004 10:26 PM crashfrog has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 33 of 80 (96809)
04-01-2004 10:30 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Mnenth
04-01-2004 10:22 PM


crashfrog, in mutation, the genetic material is slightly changed. It is slightly different, but still basically the same.
And in evolution, the population is slightly changed. It's slightly different, but still basically the same.
When you take a number, and add one to it, you've only slightly changed it. It's only a slight change to go from 2 to 3. But keep adding one, and you can go from 1 to 100. That's a pretty big change.
And of course we would need new genes to add any new body part.
There's not too many new body parts in evolution. Look at the vertebrate fossil record and you'll see that variation on a pre-existing body part is the rule, not new body parts. Arms are specialized legs. Wings are arms with feathers. Fins are feet with webs.
Adding things like body parts, or getting rid of body parts requires a great deal of genetic information.
Says you. Experiments with Hox genes, however, prove you wrong.
Even if it did, it would take a great deal of time, and the limb would slowly get smaller, and smaller, then finally dissapear.
No. In invertebrates, legs are turned on and off with single genes.
Then that would create your "chimera", which you so vehemotly are against.
I'm not against them. I'm just telling you that chimeras account for only a small fraction of transitional species.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Mnenth, posted 04-01-2004 10:22 PM Mnenth has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Mnenth, posted 04-01-2004 10:37 PM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 36 of 80 (96816)
04-01-2004 10:41 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Mnenth
04-01-2004 10:37 PM


THERE"S NOT TO MANY NEW BODY PARTS IN EVOLUTION?
Yeah, it happened how many times? Once? Twice?
we arent invertabrates.
No. But we're decended from them.
Sure invertabrates legs turn on and off with a single gene, but you say dinosaurs evolved into birds, and their limbs are far more intrecate than an insects.
Does that mean that it takes more genes to control them? Would you care to prove that, or are we supposed to assume you have a degree in genetics?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Mnenth, posted 04-01-2004 10:37 PM Mnenth has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 39 of 80 (96828)
04-01-2004 10:58 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by teen15m6
04-01-2004 10:49 PM


it's still a rat.
So what? We're still primates. And mammals. And vertebrates. And metazoans. And living things.
Maybe you're not aware that the species classification taxa are hierarcheal? Because I can't think of any other reason you'd say something so pointless.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by teen15m6, posted 04-01-2004 10:49 PM teen15m6 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by teen15m6, posted 04-01-2004 11:03 PM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 44 of 80 (96838)
04-01-2004 11:11 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by teen15m6
04-01-2004 11:03 PM


thats like saying arnold schawrtsanigger (however u spell it)
Not like that, dude. Trust me.
just because its bigger and stronger and faster dosnt mean its a new species
No. But because it can't mate with any other population of rats, does mean it's a new species. That's the definition of species, after all - a reproductive community.
evolution is one this becomes another, a dinosaur to a bird, not a rat to a rat, and not just different but better right?
Wrong. Here's an idea - if you want to learn about evolution, why don't you read a textbook on the subject? Everything you've heard about it from creationists is wrong.
Evolution is a process by which allele frequencies in populations change as a result of natural selection. This process results in organisms that are adapted to their environments and species that lose the ability to mate with populations they become isolated from.
Keep asking questions though.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by teen15m6, posted 04-01-2004 11:03 PM teen15m6 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by coffee_addict, posted 04-01-2004 11:22 PM crashfrog has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 70 of 80 (96874)
04-01-2004 11:59 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Mnenth
04-01-2004 11:30 PM


And its been proven that in general, species tend to grow larger with a higher amount of qxygen present
Not that I've heard. Do you have the evidence somewhere at hand?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Mnenth, posted 04-01-2004 11:30 PM Mnenth has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 73 of 80 (96880)
04-02-2004 12:05 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by Mnenth
04-02-2004 12:02 AM


where aer all the transitional species, and my question hasnt been anwered satisfactly.
You don't seem to understand that a "satisfactory answer" doesn't mean "the answer I wanted to hear."
We've shown you where the transitionals are, and shown you that the reason you don't see them is because you don't know what a transitional is in the first place.
Pardon us if we're not too sympathetic to your complaints. It's obvious that learning more about the world is the farthest thing from your mind - you're too busy trying to bouy outdated dogma.
Good luck with that. You'll need it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Mnenth, posted 04-02-2004 12:02 AM Mnenth has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Mnenth, posted 04-02-2004 12:07 AM crashfrog has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024