|
Author
|
Topic: Definition of Species
|
jar
Member (Idle past 100 days) Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
Message 88 of 450 (570211)
07-26-2010 9:43 AM
|
Reply to: Message 87 by Big_Al35
07-26-2010 9:37 AM
|
|
Re: Complexity of an organism
Big_Al35 writes: Modern apes could equally argue that they evolved from human-like creatures. Both species are perfectly adapted to their niches right? Well first, no, no critter seems to be perfectly adapted to their niche, rather just good enough to get by. BUT how could a modern ape claim they are descended from a human-like critter? That makes little sense.
Big_Al35 writes: Modern day fish could also argue that they evolved from monkeys. Huh? Sorry but exactly how would that work?
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 87 by Big_Al35, posted 07-26-2010 9:37 AM | | Big_Al35 has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 90 by Big_Al35, posted 07-26-2010 9:59 AM | | jar has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 100 days) Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 94 of 450 (570220)
07-26-2010 10:32 AM
|
Reply to: Message 90 by Big_Al35
07-26-2010 9:59 AM
|
|
Re: Complexity of an organism
Big_Al35 writes: Big_Al35 writes: Modern day fish could also argue that they evolved from monkeys. jar writes: Huh? Sorry but exactly how would that work? If you can't believe that fish evolved from monkeys, can you believe that monkeys evolved from fish? It is not a matter of belief. It is a conclusion based on the evidence. The evidence shows that there was life in the seas before any life on land. The evidence shows that there is some common fish ancestor(s) that made a transition to land. All amphibians and mammals are descended from those earlier critters.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 90 by Big_Al35, posted 07-26-2010 9:59 AM | | Big_Al35 has not replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 100 days) Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 98 of 450 (570225)
07-26-2010 10:48 AM
|
Reply to: Message 95 by Big_Al35
07-26-2010 10:36 AM
|
|
Re: Complexity of an organism
Big_Al35 writes: Can anyone tell me what a fish-like creature is? We can try. A short sequence of some of the critters that existed during the transitional phase from water to land would be: Eusthenopteron Panderichthys Tiktaalik Acanthosega Ichtheostega These are all critters that show transitional feature, some traits common to land animals, others common to fish.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 95 by Big_Al35, posted 07-26-2010 10:36 AM | | Big_Al35 has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 100 days) Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 101 of 450 (570230)
07-26-2010 11:24 AM
|
Reply to: Message 100 by Big_Al35
07-26-2010 11:05 AM
|
|
Transitional critters
Big_Al35 writes: So would I be right in saying that none of the examples given are actually ancestors of modern day fish? Since you had asked for examples of fish-like critters I don't see how that question is even relevant.
Big_Al35 in Message 95 asks "Can anyone tell me what a fish-like creature is?" The examples I listed are critters that have traits common to fish but also traits not seen in modern fish but seen in modern land animals. Edited by jar, : change subtitle
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 100 by Big_Al35, posted 07-26-2010 11:05 AM | | Big_Al35 has not replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 100 days) Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 114 of 450 (570395)
07-27-2010 10:02 AM
|
Reply to: Message 104 by Big_Al35
07-27-2010 6:45 AM
|
|
Evolution and direction
Big_Al35 writes: You can only see evolution going one way...ie from a fish to a monkey. That is because that is what the evidence shows. There were critters in the seas before there were any land critters. It really is that simple.
Big_Al35 writes: Now if you suggested that a complex creature could evolve into a simpler creature where its very survival depended on it I might understand this. And guess what. There are examples of critters becoming less complex as they evolve. Hell, even in humans you can see that. All of us Primates are becoming less complex, losing our tails as one obvious example.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 104 by Big_Al35, posted 07-27-2010 6:45 AM | | Big_Al35 has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 100 days) Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 115 of 450 (570397)
07-27-2010 10:04 AM
|
Reply to: Message 113 by Big_Al35
07-27-2010 9:52 AM
|
|
Re: Not even tangential to the original direction.
Big_Al35 writes: You use extinct fish to conclude that they evolved into monkeys. I am using an extinct monkey to conclude that it evolved into a fish. Same logic. Why should either conclusion be wrong. Because the evidence shows that there was life in the sea before there was life on land. It is not a matter of logic, it is a conclusion based on the evidence.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 113 by Big_Al35, posted 07-27-2010 9:52 AM | | Big_Al35 has not replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 100 days) Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 119 of 450 (570410)
07-27-2010 10:39 AM
|
Reply to: Message 117 by Big_Al35
07-27-2010 10:15 AM
|
|
Re: Evolution and direction
Big_Al35 writes: jar writes: And guess what. There are examples of critters becoming less complex as they evolve. I think Dr Adequate would disagree about the complexity issue. He's already stated that one species is not more complex than another. They are simply more adapted to their particular niche. I do wish you scientists would at least maintain some meaningful set of rules or axioms whenever you discuss these topics. Are some species more complex than others or not? I wish you would read what I write. I gave you an example of one species becoming less complex. That has nothing to do with whether it is more or less complex then any other critter. The point is that you are factually wrong in almost everything you post. The evidence shows that there was life in the seas before life on land so the idea that fish evolved from monkeys is refuted. The fact is that evolution can move from less complex to more complex or from more complex to less complex and so the idea that evolution is directional is refuted. The question of whether some critter is more or less complex than another is not just irrelevant, it is silly; pretty much meaningless. The evidence shows that as long as a critter is "just barely good enough to live long enough to reproduce" all is fine.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 117 by Big_Al35, posted 07-27-2010 10:15 AM | | Big_Al35 has not replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 100 days) Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 128 of 450 (570680)
07-28-2010 9:43 AM
|
Reply to: Message 127 by Big_Al35
07-28-2010 9:19 AM
|
|
Re: Not even tangential to the original direction.
Big_Al35 writes: That's the whole point though. We DON'T have access to ancestral DNA so we can't deduce what you have deduced above. Excuse me? Why can't we assume that with a very high degree of confidence in fact?
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 127 by Big_Al35, posted 07-28-2010 9:19 AM | | Big_Al35 has not replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 100 days) Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 166 of 450 (572340)
08-05-2010 10:10 AM
|
Reply to: Message 164 by Big_Al35
08-05-2010 9:43 AM
|
|
Re: Species Definition
Big_Al35 writes: We don't even know if TRex was a top predator or just a scavenger. And that is related to species how exactly?
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 164 by Big_Al35, posted 08-05-2010 9:43 AM | | Big_Al35 has not replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 100 days) Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 172 of 450 (572362)
08-05-2010 11:42 AM
|
Reply to: Message 170 by Big_Al35
08-05-2010 11:05 AM
|
|
Defining fossil critters
Kingdom: Animalia Phylum: Chordata Class: Reptilia Superorder: Dinosauria Order: Saurischia Suborder: Theropoda (unranked): Coelurosauria Superfamily: Tyrannosauroidea Family: Tyrannosauridae Subfamily: Tyrannosaurinae Genus: Tyrannosaurus Osborn, 1905 Species * T. rex (type) Osborn, 1905 Classifications get increasingly reliable as you move up the ordering while they get more specific (and possibly less reliable) as you move down the ordering. There is absolutely no doubt that T. rex belongs in these groupings. Kingdom: Animalia Phylum: Chordata Class: Reptilia Superorder: Dinosauria Order: Saurischia Suborder: Theropoda Now as we get to more detailed classification can there be more mistakes? Certainly. One such example is being discussed right now. Are Torosaurus and Triceratops actually the same critter but seen at different life stages? Right now the question remains undecided but the evidence is pointing towards the two being the same species. BUT... we can say the following with a very high degree of confidence. Classification of Fossil Critters| Name | Torosaurus | Triceratops | | Kingdom | Animalia | Animalia | | Phylum | Chordata
| Chordata | | Class | Reptilia | Reptilia | | Superorder | Dinosauria | Dinosauria | | Order | Ornithis chia
| Ornithischia | | Infraorder | Ceratopsia | Ceratopsia | | Family | Ceratopsidae | Ceratopsidae
| | Subfamily | Ceratopsinae | Ceratopsinae | | Genus | Torosaurus | Triceratops? | Note, that it is ONLY when we get to Genus and species that there is a question. Edited by jar, : trying to get rid of extra space Edited by jar, : fix sub-title and still trying to get rid of blank space Edited by jar, : still working on space Edited by jar, : No reason given. Edited by jar, : got it. Silly restriction. Edited by jar, : still fixin Edited by Admin, : Fix table format.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 170 by Big_Al35, posted 08-05-2010 11:05 AM | | Big_Al35 has not replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 100 days) Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 197 of 450 (572534)
08-06-2010 11:23 AM
|
Reply to: Message 196 by Big_Al35
08-06-2010 11:21 AM
|
|
Re: Species Definition vs what matters (and why)
Big_Al35 writes: I think you need to read that article again if you believe there has been a misconstrual. He clearly talks about the roots of our lineage and the earliest Homo found. What species are we? Are you under the impression that we are of a species called "Homo"? Maybe that is your problem?
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 196 by Big_Al35, posted 08-06-2010 11:21 AM | | Big_Al35 has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2