Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 76 (8908 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-20-2019 4:55 PM
20 online now:
dwise1, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), Taq (4 members, 16 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WeloTemo
Happy Birthday: Percy
Post Volume:
Total: 851,659 Year: 6,696/19,786 Month: 1,237/1,581 Week: 59/393 Day: 42/17 Hour: 10/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
2Next
Author Topic:   Definition of Species
Huntard
Member (Idle past 431 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 89 of 450 (570212)
07-26-2010 9:50 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by Big_Al35
07-26-2010 9:37 AM


Re: Complexity of an organism
Big_Al35 writes:

You must agree also that humans are not more complex than monkeys, apes or fish.


YEs.

Listening to evolutionary arguments you could be forgiven for thinking that we evolved from monkeys or apes or fish.

I don't think that. Neither does Dr. A.

But the argument continues that we evolved from ape like creatures or fish like creatures rather than actually from apes or fish.

Yes.

Modern apes could equally argue that they evolved from human-like creatures.

I've never seen a modern ape,aside from humans, argue, let alone about what it's ancestors were.

Both species are perfectly adapted to their niches right?

Maybe not perfectly, but rather well.

Modern day fish could also argue that they evolved from monkeys.

They couldn't. Not only do they lack a big enough brain needed for arguing, they'd also be wrong.

Fish are perfectly adapted to their niche right.

I wouldn't say perfectly, but pretty good, yes.

And they are the height/pinnacle of complexity as we all are.

No one said this.

So this argument seems to have some missing holes.

Your arguments sure have.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Big_Al35, posted 07-26-2010 9:37 AM Big_Al35 has not yet responded

    
Huntard
Member (Idle past 431 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 91 of 450 (570214)
07-26-2010 10:08 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by Big_Al35
07-26-2010 9:59 AM


Re: Complexity of an organism
Big_Al35 writes:

If you can't believe that fish evolved from monkeys, can you believe that monkeys evolved from fish?


Of course, since all evidence points in that direction.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Big_Al35, posted 07-26-2010 9:59 AM Big_Al35 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Big_Al35, posted 07-26-2010 10:15 AM Huntard has responded

    
Huntard
Member (Idle past 431 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 93 of 450 (570219)
07-26-2010 10:30 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by Big_Al35
07-26-2010 10:15 AM


Re: Complexity of an organism
Big_Al35 writes:

But the ToE states that monkeys didn't evolve from fish...but fish-like creatures.


You do this stuff on purpose don't you?

Ok, fine I should've corrected you on that in your previous post. There, happy now? I didn't correct a mistake you made.

It's still dumb to say that fish evolved from monkeys.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Big_Al35, posted 07-26-2010 10:15 AM Big_Al35 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Big_Al35, posted 07-26-2010 10:36 AM Huntard has responded

    
Huntard
Member (Idle past 431 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 97 of 450 (570224)
07-26-2010 10:44 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 could, but you'd probably misrepresent or misinterpret it and ask another stupid question or make a dumb statement. So no, thanks.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Big_Al35, posted 07-26-2010 10:36 AM Big_Al35 has not yet responded

    
Huntard
Member (Idle past 431 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 105 of 450 (570350)
07-27-2010 7:15 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by Big_Al35
07-27-2010 6:45 AM


Re: Complexity of an organism
Big_Al35 writes:

However, when I suggest that a fish might have evolved from a monkey you baulk at this idea.


Only because the evidence shows that it happened the other way around.

You can only see evolution going one way...ie from a fish to a monkey.

Yes, the evidence only shows this.

This suggests to me that a monkey is more complex than a fish. If it wasn't then evolution, which is directionless, should have the capacity to go both ways.

It has, look at whales for example. Land animals "returning" to the sea. Of course, whales aren't fish, but it shows that evolution isn't bound to go in one driection.

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. However, if I gave any example of this you would no doubt claim I was raving mad. I see huge holes in the logic being applied.

It's not about logic, it's about what the evidence shows. And the evidence shows that there were fish first, and monkeys later, there is no denying this.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Big_Al35, posted 07-27-2010 6:45 AM Big_Al35 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by Big_Al35, posted 07-27-2010 7:32 AM Huntard has responded

    
Huntard
Member (Idle past 431 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 107 of 450 (570355)
07-27-2010 7:38 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by Big_Al35
07-27-2010 7:32 AM


Re: Complexity of an organism
Big_Al35 writes:

Not in all cases. The red colobus monkey is no longer. However, we still have fish in the sea. Does this mean that the red colobus has evolved into a form of fish?


No. It's not about what is around today and what isn't. There were never monkeys before there were fish. Unless you can show evidence that monkeys evolved into fish, all you have is the evidence that fish evolved into monkeys. And until that time, saying that monkeys evolved into fish is not waranted by anything.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Big_Al35, posted 07-27-2010 7:32 AM Big_Al35 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Big_Al35, posted 07-27-2010 8:54 AM Huntard has responded

    
Huntard
Member (Idle past 431 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 109 of 450 (570370)
07-27-2010 9:05 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by Big_Al35
07-27-2010 8:54 AM


Re: Complexity of an organism
Big_Al35 writes:

But clearly the red colobus monkey failed to adapt to the modern world.


Yes.

Its cousins, the fish, however have continued to thrive and demonstrated that they don't need this relics attributes or features.

Not in their environment, no. Put it in a tree, however, and I gurantee you it will die out more quickly than that monkey did.

Surely, this is evolution in action. Survival of the fittest!

Uhm yes. However, since the two envirnoments are so far apart, there's no real competition between the two, and so, comparing them is rather pointless. They either continue to adapt to their environment, or they go extinct, it's as simple as that.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Big_Al35, posted 07-27-2010 8:54 AM Big_Al35 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by Big_Al35, posted 07-27-2010 9:18 AM Huntard has responded

    
Huntard
Member (Idle past 431 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 112 of 450 (570381)
07-27-2010 9:37 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by Big_Al35
07-27-2010 9:18 AM


Re: Complexity of an organism
Big_Al35 writes:

I think this is clear evidence then that a monkey can evolve into a fish and that at least one has evolved into a fish.


I'm sorry what? Could you please explain to me how you reached that conclusion from anyhting I said?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Big_Al35, posted 07-27-2010 9:18 AM Big_Al35 has not yet responded

    
Huntard
Member (Idle past 431 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 121 of 450 (570425)
07-27-2010 11:29 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by Big_Al35
07-27-2010 10:48 AM


Re: Not even tangential to the original direction.
Big_Al35 writes:

So there might be a living common ancestor for fish and monkeys right?


Not likely. It would be an ancestor of modern fish, in any case.

Can't we track this down?

How much do you think that will cost? And finding an ancestor to modern fish isn't really what we need, we've got those already.

DNA evidence should do the trick.

DNA evidence points to the fact that the common ancestor of modern fish and monkeys was an ancestor of the modern fish.

You see, modern fish aren't related to monkeys as monkeys are related to say, apes. There are many more steps to get from a fish to a monkey, then from a monkey to an ape. In fact, (and guys more knowledgeable than me would need to confirm this), I feel pretty confident to say that no fish species alive today is descendant from the same branch of the tree of life that brought us monkeys. But like I said, I could have this wrong.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Big_Al35, posted 07-27-2010 10:48 AM Big_Al35 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by Big_Al35, posted 07-28-2010 6:11 AM Huntard has responded

    
Huntard
Member (Idle past 431 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 126 of 450 (570663)
07-28-2010 7:46 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by Big_Al35
07-28-2010 6:11 AM


Re: Not even tangential to the original direction.
Big_Al35 writes:

Ok...so the ancestor for a modern fish is just another fish by anyones understanding.


Yes.

And the ancestor of a monkey is a fish based on the arguments here.

Not directly, there are more intermediate stages, amfibians and reptiles, for example.

So if we found the common ancestor we could probably just assume that it was infact only the ancestor for a fish.

No, since Fish eventually evolved into monkeys, therefore the ancestor of all fish is also the ancestor to all monkeys. It's therefore their common ancestor.

I am guessing that there must be thousands or millions of pieces of evidence showing that the ancestors of fish were infact fish.

Well, we have fossil fish, so yes.

Would I be wrong in thinking that we couldn't actually deduce anything from this at all?

Yes, you would be wrong.

I'll try to visualize it for you.

As you can see, the common abcestor for all modern fish and monkeys is a fish. This is what you asked for. Keep in mind though that this is a very very very simplistic representation, I left out a lot of intermediate forms everywhere.

Edited by Huntard, : Changed a bit for clarity


This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Big_Al35, posted 07-28-2010 6:11 AM Big_Al35 has not yet responded

    
Huntard
Member (Idle past 431 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 133 of 450 (570855)
07-29-2010 8:19 AM
Reply to: Message 132 by Big_Al35
07-29-2010 7:27 AM


Re: Not even tangential to the original direction.
Big_Al35 writes:

Let's consider three creatures A, B and C where A is the parent of B and C and all of these creatures are fish.


Ok.

Imagine that C's lineage produces a rabbit and B's lineage on the other hand remains a fish.

Ok.

Furthermore lets imagine that A, B and C share some genes X, Y and Z that are not found amongst other fish.

Ok.

Now imagine that those genes appear in all rabbits.

Ok.

Your assumption is that the B's lineage should be lumped together with a rabbits.

No. We should say that all rabits and everything that B produces shares a common ancestor, A, which it does, according to your example.

This is a false assertion as the genes X,Y and Z clearly don't define a species of rabbit nor do they define a species of fish.

So?

They are irrelevant genes because a fish with X,Y,Z genes will not evolve into a rabbit as evidenced by B's lineage.

It can, you said so yourself, remember? C turns into a rabbit, and C was a fish.

Similarly a rabbit with X,Y,Z will never evolve into a fish as evidenced by the fact that rabbits always give birth to rabbits.

Nobody said a rabbit evolved into a fish. This statement is irrelevant to your example. It's also wrong, if rabits gave birth to something other than rabits it would falsify ToE.

So there must be some other genes say P,Q,R which actually make a rabbit a rabbit.

Yes. So?

The P,Q and R genes will only appear in rabbit and never in a fish.

It's your example, so sure.

If they did appear in a fish the fish would become a rabbit.

Again, if you say so.

These genes have effectively appeared by magic.

Well, it's your example, so you're free to let them appear by magic. In nature though, they would appear through mutations.

These genes are proof that the rabbit could not have a fish ancestor as no fish have this sequence.

No they're not.

Go figure....

That you not only contraddicted yourself, but also your logic is wrong? I just did.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by Big_Al35, posted 07-29-2010 7:27 AM Big_Al35 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by Big_Al35, posted 07-29-2010 8:52 AM Huntard has responded

    
Huntard
Member (Idle past 431 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 135 of 450 (570861)
07-29-2010 9:02 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by Big_Al35
07-29-2010 8:52 AM


Re: Not even tangential to the original direction.
Big_Al35 writes:

Mutations have nothing to do with natural selection or survival of the fittest...which is what I am talking about.


No you weren't. You were talking about the appearance of "new genes" in your species C. New genes appear through mutations, natural selection is the thing that determines if they get to propogate or not.

If you have another theory of evolution please be sure to share that with us.

I don't. Mutations are part of the current ToE.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Big_Al35, posted 07-29-2010 8:52 AM Big_Al35 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by Big_Al35, posted 07-29-2010 9:27 AM Huntard has responded

    
Huntard
Member (Idle past 431 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 137 of 450 (570871)
07-29-2010 9:36 AM
Reply to: Message 136 by Big_Al35
07-29-2010 9:27 AM


Re: Not even tangential to the original direction.
Big_Al35 writes:

Migration, genetic drift and selection all decrease biodiversity. If your theory of mutations has the capacity of increasing biodiversity please share that with us?


It's not my theory. It's the normal ToE. I suggest reading up on that if you want to find out about mutations.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Big_Al35, posted 07-29-2010 9:27 AM Big_Al35 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by Big_Al35, posted 07-29-2010 9:52 AM Huntard has responded

    
Huntard
Member (Idle past 431 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 139 of 450 (570876)
07-29-2010 10:02 AM
Reply to: Message 138 by Big_Al35
07-29-2010 9:52 AM


Re: Not even tangential to the original direction.
Big_Al35 writes:

If you are relying on mutations to solve your evolutionary dilemmas, this doesn't help with the problem given. A mutant gene, as in the example given, leaves no indication of ancestry or lineage. P, Q, and R, in the example, offer no trace as to who the parent was. Was it a fish, was it a bird was it a plane? Dunno....


No, but genes X, Y and Z do.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by Big_Al35, posted 07-29-2010 9:52 AM Big_Al35 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by Big_Al35, posted 07-29-2010 10:06 AM Huntard has responded

    
Huntard
Member (Idle past 431 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 141 of 450 (570881)
07-29-2010 10:09 AM
Reply to: Message 140 by Big_Al35
07-29-2010 10:06 AM


Re: Not even tangential to the original direction.
Big_Al35 writes:

No because X, Y, Z are unrelated to lineage...


No they're not, you said so yourself in the example. A, B and C all have the X,Y and Z genes, as do all the rabits.

...or to species identification.

So?

Edited by Huntard, : Added a bit for clarity.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Big_Al35, posted 07-29-2010 10:06 AM Big_Al35 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by Big_Al35, posted 07-29-2010 10:18 AM Huntard has responded

    
1
2Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019