Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9057 total)
338 online now:
DrJones*, nwr, PaulK, Theodoric (4 members, 334 visitors)
Newest Member: drlove
Post Volume: Total: 889,940 Year: 1,052/6,534 Month: 1,052/682 Week: 105/182 Day: 0/26 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What would a transitional fossil look like?
RAZD
Member (Idle past 523 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(3)
Message 17 of 403 (850317)
04-06-2019 7:30 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Faith
04-05-2019 8:05 PM


comic relief
... The only way macroevolution, or anything that would change its genetic makeup in the direction of a fish, or anything not-cow for that matter, is massive mutations of some very unlikely sort, and they'd have to change the structural genetic stuff for a cow along with the usual variations on superficial traits such as fur color. ...

Thanks for the comic relief, faith. This part in particular. Hysterical.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Faith, posted 04-05-2019 8:05 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Faith, posted 04-06-2019 10:31 AM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 523 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(2)
Message 19 of 403 (850323)
04-06-2019 11:23 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Faith
04-06-2019 10:31 AM


Re: comic relief
... The genome of any given creature has the genetic stuff for making that particular creature, and if you want to get from that creature to some other creature for which the genetic instructions do not exist in the genome in question, something really genetically drastic has to happen to change that genome, so drastic that it is really impossible.

Something like mutation and selection occurring in a breeding population over several generations ... ie - your basic evolution.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Faith, posted 04-06-2019 10:31 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 523 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 38 of 403 (850352)
04-06-2019 4:40 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Faith
04-06-2019 3:39 PM


more comic relief
Randomn variation plus selection gets you a version of the same creature, it's nothing but microevolution or standard variation. You can't get macroevolution out of any such events. ...

And yet, curiously, it happens. Speciation has been observed, and that (with the formation of a nested hierarchy) is the essence of macroevolution according to the scientific definition of the term ... as opposed to the creationist definition and misuse of the term (they actually mean magic transformation, which doesn't occur).

... The reason it doesn't work is that macroevolution requires something completely new to be formed. All those mechanisms do is rearrange what already exists.

Nope. Macroevolution only requires speciation and the formation of nested hierarchies as each breeding population continues to microevolve, diverging from their ancestral population.

... All those mechanisms do is rearrange what already exists.

Plus mutations that produce novel variations.

... macroevolution requires something completely new ...

What is "something completely new" in your view? For me it is novel variations produced by mutations, ones that are selected via normal breeding because they are not deleterious. These occur regularly and have been observed.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Faith, posted 04-06-2019 3:39 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Faith, posted 04-06-2019 5:42 PM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 523 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 53 of 403 (850399)
04-07-2019 7:46 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by Faith
04-06-2019 5:42 PM


still more comic relief
Something you CALL "macroevolution" happens. It's all word magic, semantics, nothing in physical reality that deserves the name at all.

Something you CALL "speciation" occurs. ...

Correction: how science defines "macroevolution" and "speciation" ... rather than what you think they are, happens. It's not word magic or semantics, it's using words properly with their technical definitions. Anything else is misuse and misguided argument.

Message 49 (faith): ... Macroevolution would need something outside the genome to create a new creature.

Message 42 (faith): ... Something completely new would be scales instead of fur perhaps, or a completely different kind of eye.

These comments typify creationist misuse of the term "macroevolution" and the misguided argument that results from using an incorrect definition of the word. This is imaginary magical transformation, not any kind of evolution as discussed in the biological sciences. This strawman argument against something that does not exist does not refute the actual processes observed and documented by actual scientists using the terms correctly.

It reminds me of the Monty Python show line

Something so offbeat that it is hilarious.

... it is not speciation at all that you are calling by that name. It is a variation on the genetic stuff built into a creature's genome that occurs at a point in a series of variations where a lot of homozygosity has occurred, making breeding very iffy with the new variation. That's all it is. If you examined the DNA of every "speciation" event I'm very sure you'd find out that it has less rather than more ability to vary further, which is hardly a precondition for bringing about a new species. I don't trust science to do this honestly of course.

Nope. The "speciation" has produced something that has much LESS ability to go on evolving, so it isn't going to "continue to microevolve" except in the fevered imagination of evos. You assume it. Except for short time when the variation may play out to the very end of its capacity to vary you've never actually seen this. It's all theory. You imagine it happens because the theory says it happens. The most likely end result of the event you call speciation is extinction though it may survive for a while without any further evolution at all or just a couple of changes before the end comes.

That's the thing. You can't GET any truly novel variations. All you can get is variations on whatever already exists. You may get something that is novel in that context just because it's already fairly depleted, but you won't get anything truly novel, merely a variation on whatever exists in the genome.

This is your typical fantasy rant devoid of any actual evidence that there is any kind of limit to what mutation and selection can develop out of an existing genome. The claimed loss of genetic "ability" to evolve is completely offset by the introduction of new variations via mutations. This has been observed to happen and denial is just your way of deluding yourself.

Anything that isn't already in the stock of variations of the genome. Something the particular gene doesn't code for. Say a human shaped nose with human skin color for the chimpanzee's flat black nose or something like that. Something that is not in the creature's genome. Or an extra chamber to get from the reptile ear to the mammalian ear, and in the right place. Yes you have to have that kind of newness or you can't get a new creature. And that sort of newness isn't going to happen.

Anything that isn't already in the stock of variations of the genome is supplied by mutation and selection. The evidence shows this to be the case.

But that sort of variation is within the existing genetic stuff of the genome. It is not truly novel, it is just another variation on an existing trait. You cannot get a new creature with this sort of variation even if you have millions of them over millions of years. You will only get variations on the same creature. The genome itself has to be changed.

Except that the new mutations were not within the previous existing genetic stuff. All you have is an argument from incredulity and denial of actual evidence.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : .


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Faith, posted 04-06-2019 5:42 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Faith, posted 04-07-2019 11:43 AM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 523 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 61 of 403 (850421)
04-07-2019 2:32 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Faith
04-07-2019 11:43 AM


Re: still more comic relief
Sorry but when an alternative theory is in competition with yours -- you know, it's called "paradigm conflict -- definitions have to change because meanings change. ...

No, the alternative theory proponents need new terminology to describe what happens.

... Macroevolution has to refer to a new creature outside the variations of a particular genome or it means absolutely nothing and just makes a mockery of the whole ToE claim that species evolve from other species. ...

Sadly, for you, scientists will continue to use the term as defined by the biological science. But let's see if we can discuss the process without using the controversial terminology.

We can agree, I believe, that "microevolution" can be defined as follows:

(1) The process of evolution involves changes in the composition of hereditary traits, and changes to the frequency of their distributions within breeding populations from generation to generation, in response to ecological challenges and opportunities for growth, development, survival and reproductive success in changing or different habitats.

If we look at the continued effects of (micro)evolution over many generations, the accumulation of changes from generation to generation may become sufficient for individuals to develop combinations of traits that are observably different from the ancestral parent population.

(2) The process of lineal change within species is sometimes called phyletic speciation, or anagenesis.

If anagenesis was all that occurred, then all life would be one species, readily sharing DNA via horizontal transfer (asexual) and interbreeding (sexual) and various combinations. This is not the case, however, because there is a second process that results in multiple species and increases the diversity of life.

(3) The process of divergent speciation, or cladogenesis, involves the division of a parent population into two or more reproductively isolated daughter populations, which then are free to (micro) evolve independently of each other.

The reduction or loss of interbreeding (gene flow, sharing of mutations) between the sub-populations results in different evolutionary responses within the separated sub-populations, each then responds independently to their different ecological challenges and opportunities, and this leads to divergence of hereditary traits between the subpopulations and the frequency of their distributions within the sub-populations.

We see this divergence happening in the crows in Two species of crow evolving ... and in the greenish warblers ring species and we see the fossil record of it happening in pelycodus, so this is observed fact that such divergence occurs.

Both anagenesis and cladogenesis occur due to (micro)evolution. Both of them can end up with descendant species notably different from an ancestral breeding population. This is how the science of evolution describes "macroevolution" ... the result of "microevolution" observed over many generations.

Based of the observations of these processes occurring we can form a theory of evolution as follows:

(4) The Theory of Evolution (ToE), stated in simple terms, is that the process of anagenesis, and the process of cladogenesis, are sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it, from the fossil record, from the genetic record, from the historic record, and from everyday record of the life we observe in the world all around us.

This theory is tested by experiments and field observations carried out as part of the science of evolution.

So far this theory has not been falsified.

Anything that isn't already in the stock of variations of the genome is supplied by mutation and selection. The evidence shows this to be the case.

OK, give the evidence. ...

You've seen it before, but one good example is documented in Richard Lenski's E. coli Long-term Experimental Evolution Project.

The processes listed above explain the evidence known, and they explain the E.coli evolution of a new ability not present in the original population. If you have an "alternate theory" then it is incumbent on you to show how it explains the evidence as well or better. Then you can quibble about definitions.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : .


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Faith, posted 04-07-2019 11:43 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Faith, posted 04-07-2019 7:08 PM RAZD has responded
 Message 65 by Faith, posted 04-08-2019 12:14 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply
 Message 70 by Faith, posted 04-08-2019 3:54 PM RAZD has responded
 Message 76 by Faith, posted 04-08-2019 11:47 PM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 523 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 67 of 403 (850444)
04-08-2019 9:22 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by Faith
04-07-2019 7:08 PM


Re: still more comic relief
o, the alternative theory proponents need new terminology to describe what happens.

I've pretty much been using different terminology and then I'm told I have to stick to the establishment definitions. Make up your mind. ...

Perhaps the point is to use very specific terminology instead of ones that are confusing. For instance I can discuss evolution without using either microevolution or macroevolution to explain what I mean. I essentially did this in Message 61, using the process of evolution, anagenesis and cladogenesis. This clarifies what I mean without getting into a debate on the meaning of macroevolution or who has the "right" to define it.

One thing I was taught was that you should be able to substitute the definition of a term for that term and still maintain your meaning.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Faith, posted 04-07-2019 7:08 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 523 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 80 of 403 (850497)
04-09-2019 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Faith
04-08-2019 11:47 PM


combined response
to Message 70

The amount of variation possible in any given genome of a given species is very large as long as there is still a lot of genetic variability available (usually meaning heterozygosity at a great number of gene loci). The differences will never ever be of a sort that is not clearly within the parameters defined by that genome, producing interesting variations on the species and nothing outside the species. New combinations of traits, even quite dramatically new and different, is what happens when a small part of a population gets isolated from the rest, otherwise known as selection. The differences from the parent population can be dramatic as the new population gets homogenized by breeding in isolation, all the result of built-in variations on the traits of that species and nothing else.

Of course but this is not speciation, just standard variation. the parent population can be equally split or there can be any number of smaller parts of it that can split off and whatever new gene frequencies exist in each will " (micro) evolve independently of each other. " I've discussed these phenomena over and over on many threads here. I often imagine a large wild population of cattle, small numbers of individuals get isolated and domesticated over time, each new group developing its own typical character from selection, isolation and inbreeding. That is how all the different cattle breeds must have developed. In Africa there are millions of wild wildebeests, divided into a couple of different subpopulations that must have developed by isolation of the subpopulation at some point. That overall population has not been split by domestication but it might develop a similar range of different breeds if it were.

I've also used ring species as examples many time to show the large range of differences that can develop through mere separation and isolation of small numbers off the parent population. Such divergences are built into the genome of the species.

This is your pet concept to cram reality into your faith, faith. You have no evidence to support it. This has been argued to death imho. What you are doing is a shell game with terminology to fool yourself.

Unfortunately, for you, the evidence shows speciation happening and the development of new traits from mutations.

Again you are using scientific terminology to mean something different from what biological scientists mean. For instance not all members of the cat family are one species.

Message 76

No, since YECs believe there are many separate Kinds each with its own genome, and it's only within each Kind that the kind of variation occurs that I'm talking about.

It is not the case because there are separate Kinds each of which possesses its own genome for its own characteristics.

Yes, this occurs with each Kind. It's a form of selection which promotes new populations with new phenotypes.

To explain what we see all around us all that is needed is the separately created Kinds each varying according to the programming of the DNA that defines itself and only itself.

Again, unfortunately for you, the evidence shows ancestry beyond normally classified "kinds" ... common ancestors for the canines (dogs) and felines (cats). In fact there is no point in the fossil record where you can find a distinct beginning point for what couod be called a "kind" ... and this is your bigger problem than whether or not speciation occurs. Not one creationist in over 150 years has identified a starting fossil for a "kind" that I am aware of.

As I understand Lenski's experiment, despite far more generations than are needed to test the reality of the ToE all he ever got was variations on more of the same.

What you got was a new feature, a new ability, that did not exist before in the genetic material of the parent population, and which occurred as a result of two mutations to the genome. That was the issue.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : .


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Faith, posted 04-08-2019 11:47 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Faith, posted 04-10-2019 2:24 PM RAZD has responded
 Message 87 by Faith, posted 04-10-2019 2:30 PM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 523 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 81 of 403 (850498)
04-09-2019 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Faith
04-08-2019 3:54 PM


Re: It's all simple variation built into a species
see Message 80

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Faith, posted 04-08-2019 3:54 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 523 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 94 of 403 (850611)
04-11-2019 8:31 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by Faith
04-10-2019 2:24 PM


another combined response
New features that occur within the genome of the creature are just variations on what is already there, not truly new. ...

Or in the words scientists use, they are due to mutations of what was there in the parent/s DNA.

... Not new in any sense that could justify the claims of the ToE with its species-to-species assumptions. ...

Nor necessary for speciation alone. That generally requires an accumulation of mutations that differentiate the result from the ancestral population.

... Nothing has ever demonstrated any such thing. ...

Speciation has been observed. We see the process well under way with Two species of crow evolving ...:

quote:
Now, genomic analysis has revealed that C. corone and C. cornix are actually almost indistinguishable from a genetic standpoint. The only significant genetic difference between them can be found in the gene responsible for colouration.

"Only two major effect genes which together encode the feather colour differ sharply on either side of the hybrid zone - the gray alleles are not found to the west of the zone and the black allele is absent in the eastern region," Wolf said.

"That's a very strong indication that there is rigorous selection on the basis of colour."

This suggests the crows are choosing mates based on colour. Birds of a feather literally, in this instance, flock together - carrion crows prefer black mates and hooded crows prefer grey ones.


Sexual selection causing genetic (reproductive) isolation of the two groups of crows. Isolation is all that is required for the two populations to evolve independently from each other, resulting in speciation.

... You get only varfiations within the genome of any creature ...

You get variations in every breeding cycle of a population. This too is observed.

... but if they meet some questionable standard of newness you call them evolution in the ToE sense. ...

The "standard" is simple: did it exist before in the breeding population? If *no*, then it is new. Not difficult.

... Just the usual semantics that keep the ToE alive in your mind although if the actual facts were recognized it would be shown to be dead.

Says the person in denial of actual facts of mutations observed and speciation observed:

Message 87

Unfortunately, for you, the evidence shows speciation happening and the development of new traits from mutations.

Not really. All that happens is that new combinations of existing alleles produce new phenotypes. If the new reproductively isolated population is small enough the new combinations may be very rare, giving the impression of newness to evos who just have to believe that's what it is.

Rareness has nothing to do with it. Again from Two species of crow evolving ...:

quote:
"Defining speciation as the buildup of reproductive isolation, carrion crows and hooded crows are in the process of speciation," said evolutionary biologist Jochen Wolf of Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität in Munich.

Exactly what was keeping the two populations apart was unclear - so Wolf and his colleagues performed genetic analyses of around 400 birds. These were selected from within the hybrid zone, as well as the zones on either side, where the species' territories don't overlap.

"Only two major effect genes which together encode the feather colour differ sharply on either side of the hybrid zone - the gray alleles are not found to the west of the zone and the black allele is absent in the eastern region," Wolf said.


In the process of speciation due to sexual selection based on feather coloration resulting in reproductivly isolated daughter populations. That is what the evidence shows, Faith, all you need to do is think about the evidence before your eyes to see that it -- speciation (as defined by science) -- is happening.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : *no* was yes, thanks Tanypteryx,


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Faith, posted 04-10-2019 2:24 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Tanypteryx, posted 04-11-2019 11:25 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply
 Message 97 by Faith, posted 04-11-2019 12:38 PM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 523 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 95 of 403 (850613)
04-11-2019 8:33 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by Faith
04-10-2019 2:30 PM


another combined response
see Message 94

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Faith, posted 04-10-2019 2:30 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 523 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 101 of 403 (850666)
04-11-2019 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by Faith
04-11-2019 12:38 PM


speciation occurs
... resulting in two reproductively isolated populations of crows, which is ...

speciation according biological science.

... Or would you call a population of human beings isolated on an island for a couple hundred years speciation? I thought not.

Except that such isolation is not necessarily reproductive isolation. Will they breed if given the opportunity? As we have seen with human history the predilection for reproduction between groups that have been separated for many generations (Europeans and Indigenous Americans) shows that such isolation is not reproductive.

The crows in Two species of crow evolving ... on the other hand show reproductive isolation by the lack of of mixing outside the small hybrid zone:

quote:
"Only two major effect genes which together encode the feather colour differ sharply on either side of the hybrid zone - the gray alleles are not found to the west of the zone and the black allele is absent in the eastern region," Wolf said.

"That's a very strong indication that there is rigorous selection on the basis of colour."


We do see some of this behavioral isolation between ethnic groups in humans (consider the bias against "half-breeds"), but not the the extent documented in the crows. The crows have the opportunity to interbreed but choose not to. Similar with the Asian Greenish Warblers at the close of the ring - the overlapping varieties tend to not mate.

We can also look at horses, donkeys and zebras, which are further along in the process of speciation, in that hybrids are rarely fertile.

Personally I think that this behavioral isolation, where different varietals choose to not mate, is the first stage of speciation, rather than some mating incompatibility, which can occur later but is not necessary for independent evolution of the daughter populations.

To further complicate the issue we do see instances where physical isolation has occurred and then the daughter populations rejoin, interbreed, and produce hybrid offspring that are as, or more, robust than the parent populations. This results in a mosaic of traits. See Interweaving Evolution & Hybrid Vigor for more.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Faith, posted 04-11-2019 12:38 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 523 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 102 of 403 (850667)
04-11-2019 3:43 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by Taq
04-11-2019 3:11 PM


Re: still more comic relief
Humans and chimps are separated by 40 million mutations. Why couldn't the accumulation of mutations over millions of years accomplish this?

Last I saw, the time from a common ancestor ape is ~10 million years, so that's 4 fixed mutations a year on average. Hardly restrictive.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Taq, posted 04-11-2019 3:11 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Taq, posted 04-11-2019 4:51 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 523 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(3)
Message 119 of 403 (850712)
04-13-2019 2:37 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by Faith
04-12-2019 6:38 PM


Comparisons by Faith, the fun continues
... I've also given descriptions of the body structure of chimpanzees and cats and dogs to make my point about those creatures. ...

The hilarious thing is that there is more skeletal variation within dogs than between cats and dogs. The skull of a Bulldog and a Whippet are more different than the skulls of chimp and human. The legs of a Great Dane and a Dachshund are more different than the legs of chimp and human.

You know next to nothing about this subject. One problem is that you think you know more than scientists that study the subjects you choose to natter on about, so you don't study the science to learn the facts: you make stuff up ... Hysterical.

The bigger problem is that these differences have nothing to do with whether or not speciation can or cannot occur. So it's a silly argument.

Speciation occurs when there is reproductive isolation and a mechanism that maintains the isolation when opportunity to commingle occurs. Pretending it isn't speciation just so you can keep nattering on about your pet concepts is self deceit. Claiming it isn't speciation is not your role:

you
do not
get
to
redefine
scientific
terms

You only get to use them, and then only when you use them correctly.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Faith, posted 04-12-2019 6:38 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by Faith, posted 04-13-2019 12:37 PM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 523 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 149 of 403 (850766)
04-14-2019 7:38 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by Faith
04-13-2019 12:37 PM


Re: Comparisons by Faith, the fun still continues
You aren't thinking and there is nothing hilarious about any of this except your refusal to think about what I'm saying. The bulldog and the whippit body structures differ in an overall way, the bulldog more squashed, the whippet more elongated, but nevertheless the basic structure is similar in the sense I was talking about it: ...

You aren't thinking and here is more hilarious stuff about your refusal to think about what I'm saying. The specific differences you so readily acknowledge for Bulldog and Whippet are equal or more than between human and chimp. The basic structure is similar in the sense I was talking about it ...

... Differences in size, length etc., don't matter in my frame of reference which I would think would be obvious from the fact that I was clearly referring to ALL dog breeds. The basic shape is the same. Actually considering what I said would help. ...

Just as they don't matter in my frame of reference which I would think would be obvious from the fact that I was clearly referring to the minor differences in size, length, etc. between human and chimp. The basic shape is the same. Actually considering what I said would help.

For all I know and for all you said the scientists don't say anything appreciably different on this subject than I'm saying.

Agreed, that's why I've been pointing out your hilarious position of human and chimp being different regarding such features.

Think about it.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : .


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Faith, posted 04-13-2019 12:37 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by Faith, posted 04-14-2019 11:51 AM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 523 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(3)
Message 187 of 403 (850832)
04-15-2019 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by Faith
04-14-2019 11:51 AM


Re: Comparisons by Faith, the fun still continues
LOL

You aren't getting it and obviously don't care, and neither do I any more.

You're problem is that I do get it. I get how wrong you are in spite of being told so many many times, and that you will continue to be wrong because you think you are right because god.

You never cared about what evolution actually says nor how it actually works, and that's what makes your posts so funny.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by Faith, posted 04-14-2019 11:51 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022