Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   "Best" evidence for evolution.
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 406 of 830 (870569)
01-22-2020 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 401 by dwise1
01-22-2020 3:04 AM


oops
double post
Edited by RAZD, : .

This message is a reply to:
 Message 401 by dwise1, posted 01-22-2020 3:04 AM dwise1 has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 411 of 830 (870582)
01-22-2020 1:16 PM
Reply to: Message 407 by Faith
01-22-2020 11:09 AM


what is "something brand new" if a new specie isn't enough?
changes to whole members like a foot couldn't possibly be sudden. The trial and error that must happen is going to make tiny changes over huge swaths of time, and my point is that these tiny changes can't contribute anything beneficial to the creature that could lead to a new kind of body part that would be useful. A human foot is not going to benefit a chimp.
But they do benefit those engaging in bi-pedal upright gait, as the intermediates I presented show you the transitions from a chimp like foot to a more human like foot: increasing foot pad area in the rear foot bones (bones get longer), shorter phalanges as gripping becomes less important than flat walking feet, and less curvatur to the metatarsals for the same reason.
Remember that evolution is a response mechanism, and moving from a jungle tree-climbing ecology to a ground walking ecology will cause changes to the feet and the locomotion behavior. Chimps evolved to knuckle walk while hominids evolved to bi-pedalism (the evidence shows that a likely common ancestor did neither, being more like monkeys in locomotion).
To get evolution beyond a species would mean getting something breand new from a genome, which reallyh is impossible but I play with the idea since it's the only way it COULD happen although it can't. ...
Except what you are neglecting is that the genome of a species changes with every generation, because that is how evolution works.
To get evolution beyond a species would mean getting something breand new ...
Like what Faith?
quote:
EvC Forum: Dogs will be Dogs will be ???
So what would you like this to become?
Would a horse be enough? Would you dispute that a horse is clearly not a dog?
How much change is necessary, and ... more importantly ... how do you quantify it?
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmericanZenDeist
... 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 407 by Faith, posted 01-22-2020 11:09 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 412 by Faith, posted 01-22-2020 1:33 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 430 of 830 (870645)
01-23-2020 12:25 PM
Reply to: Message 412 by Faith
01-22-2020 1:33 PM


oopsie
oopsie
Edited by RAZD, : double post

This message is a reply to:
 Message 412 by Faith, posted 01-22-2020 1:33 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 433 by caffeine, posted 01-23-2020 12:42 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 431 of 830 (870647)
01-23-2020 12:39 PM
Reply to: Message 412 by Faith
01-22-2020 1:33 PM


Re: what is "something brand new" if a new specie isn't enough?
Of course I'm not "neglecting" that, it's what happens with standard microevolutionary variation within a species which is what I'm always talkinga bout. You get a new set of gene frequencides with every new population split and that is a CHANGE IN THE GENOME for pete's sake. You'll never get anything BUT variations within the species through these normal processes. That was my whole point.
Except you are omitting the part where you say it can't evolve outside the species genome. Like the yellow circle bouncing around inside the blue circle but never getting outside it:
Whereas there is no boundary or limiting genetic distance for evolution, instead you get progressively further from an original parent genome as generations pass. Like the series of yellow circles for generation after generation evolution leaving the original parent genome behind:
This "drunken walk" of each generation adapting to their changing ecological conditions is how the human foot evolved from an ape foot through selection of mutation/variation for feet with better adaptations for walking. I drew it this way to show that it is not a straight line process, but one that changes with the stochasticly changing ecology
Curiously, I notice you didn't answer the main question of my last post:
quote:
To get evolution beyond a species would mean getting something breand new ...
Like what Faith?
quote:
EvC Forum: Dogs will be Dogs will be ???
So what would you like this to become?
Would a horse be enough? Would you dispute that a horse is clearly not a dog?
How much change is necessary, and ... more importantly ... how do you quantify it?
How much change do you think is necessary? How do you quantify it?
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : fix spell check's error

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmericanZenDeist
... 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 412 by Faith, posted 01-22-2020 1:33 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 437 by Faith, posted 01-23-2020 1:35 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 434 of 830 (870651)
01-23-2020 12:50 PM
Reply to: Message 433 by caffeine
01-23-2020 12:42 PM


Re: what is "something brand new" if a new specie isn't enough?
spell check did it

This message is a reply to:
 Message 433 by caffeine, posted 01-23-2020 12:42 PM caffeine has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 467 of 830 (870773)
01-24-2020 4:04 PM
Reply to: Message 437 by Faith
01-23-2020 1:35 PM


Same Species #1
As for what the animal in the picture would become I assume it is one variation on a specific species or Kind and would change in accord with the genetic material in the genome of that population.l
So do you think these are the same species?
They are about the same size. The one on the right dates from late Paleocene and early Eocene epochs, and here is another rendering of what it would look like:
Just curious how you include these in your taxonomy.
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : st

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmericanZenDeist
... 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 437 by Faith, posted 01-23-2020 1:35 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 468 by Faith, posted 01-24-2020 4:06 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 470 of 830 (870776)
01-24-2020 4:10 PM
Reply to: Message 437 by Faith
01-23-2020 1:35 PM


Same Species #2
As for what the animal in the picture would become I assume it is one variation on a specific species or Kind and would change in accord with the genetic material in the genome of that population.l
Following up on Message 467, do you think these are the same species?
Just variation within the genome, yes?
They currently live in similar habitats.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmericanZenDeist
... 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 437 by Faith, posted 01-23-2020 1:35 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 474 by Faith, posted 01-24-2020 6:31 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 472 of 830 (870780)
01-24-2020 4:45 PM
Reply to: Message 468 by Faith
01-24-2020 4:06 PM


Re: Same Species #1
I don't care about odd examples, i'm trying to define an overall concept. What are you trying to prove?
Just trying to understand your overall concept with examples.
Remember, to be scientific it must apply to all the evidence with no exclusion clauses.
So are they the same species according to your overall concept? Yes OR No
Inquiring minds want to know.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmericanZenDeist
... 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 468 by Faith, posted 01-24-2020 4:06 PM Faith has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 473 of 830 (870781)
01-24-2020 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 437 by Faith
01-23-2020 1:35 PM


Re: what is "something brand new" if a new specie isn't enough?
What do I mean by a "brand new" phenomenon.
That is the question. For biologists the answer is easy: a new species is something that didn't exist before, ergo it is a "brand new" phenomenon.
However it seems this isn't enough difference for you (hence you arbitrarily lump them into the same species to coincide with your claim in Message 407:
You will never get anything BUT variation on the species by this normal means.
To get evolution beyond a species would mean getting something breand new from a genome, ...
So what do you mean by "something breand new from a genome" Faith?
Just to try to give an example: Something brand new would be the change from reptilian hide or skin to the fur or hair covered mammals. Or the change to the mammalian ear from the reptilian. I know you say that is already evidenced in a transitional but the argument didn't get through to me.
Correct, it has been covered, we have the fossils, they leave a trail in the spatial/temporal matrix of their path from one to the other by evolutionary steps.
That the argument did not "get through" to you is not the fault of the evidence or the explanations of that evidence by the ToE.
I do have trouble following your post, but nothing you've said suggests evolution beyond the species, but only microevolution within the species, variations on the genes possessed by the species and nothing that would produce something "brand new."
Hence my post Message 431 where I compared your concept of variation only occurring within a "species genome" that has some ill described boundary to how far a species can evolve, with a standard evolutionary concept of species evolving over many generations, with a drunken walk (no goal) and becoming significantly different from the ancestral species, because there is no evidence of any kind on limitations to evolution ... other than that the current species survives and reproduces.
As for what the animal in the picture would become I assume it is one variation on a specific species or Kind and would change in accord with the genetic material in the genome of that population.
See Message 467 for more about it.
They have the same general sizes and bone structures as the wolf pictured: is that the criteria you use to say "I assume it is one variation on a specific species or Kind and would change in accord with the genetic material in the genome of that population."
If that isn't your criteria, then please explain what you do use.
Inquiring minds want to know.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmericanZenDeist
... 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 437 by Faith, posted 01-23-2020 1:35 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 478 by Faith, posted 01-25-2020 8:35 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 480 of 830 (870806)
01-25-2020 9:10 AM
Reply to: Message 474 by Faith
01-24-2020 6:31 PM


Get a clue
I'm sure you are trying to present unusual or exceptional examples that I'll misclassify somehow and you're probably right that I would, ...
Indeed I do expect you to misclassify them, but not because they are unusual or exceptional examples, but because your "classification" system is ad hoc and unusable by anyone else.
... but I'm just not that deeply into the classification issue even to try it. ...
Because that would entail actually having a systematic approach that isn't based solely on your intentionally misinformed opinion.
... because 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 . ...
These are renderings of Phenacodus look a lot like a dog, but:
quote:
Phenacodus - Wikipedia
The typical Phenacodus primaevus was a relatively small ungulate about 1.5 m (4.9 ft) long and weighted up to 56 kg, of slight build, with straight limbs each terminating in five complete toes, and walking in the digitigrade fashion of the modern tapir.[2][3] The middle toe was the largest, and the weight of the body was mainly supported on this and the two adjoining digits, which appear to have been encased in hooves, foreshadowing the tridactyl type common in perissodactyls and certain extinct groups of ungulates. The skull was small, with proportionately minute brain; and the arched back, strong lumbar vertebrae, long and powerful tail, and comparatively feeble fore-quarters all proclaim kinship with the primitive carnivores Creodonta. All the bones of the limbs are separate, and those of the carpus and tarsus do not alternate - each one in the upper row is placed immediately above the corresponding one in the row below. The full series of forty-four teeth was developed; and the upper molars were short-crowned, or brachyodont, with six low cusps, two internal, two intermediate and two external, so that they were of the typical primitive bunodont structure.
Phenacodus primaevus is the type species, there were 11 different Phenacodus species, all odd-toed ungulates (perissodactyls), and this one was ancestral to horses.
Curiously I consider dog-like Phenacodus primaevus evolving into a horse another incidence of something new evolving, definitely macro-evolution.
The two mammals
quote:
Test your understanding - Understanding Evolution
Sugar gliders and flying squirrels look amazingly similar. They are both furry animals of about the same size, with big eyes and a white belly. And they both glide from treetops using a thin piece of skin that is stretched between their legs. This piece of skin helps keep them stable while gliding.
However, these animals also have some key differences:
  • Sugar gliders live in Australia, and flying squirrels live in North America.
  • Sugar gliders have a pouch (like a kangaroo does), which provides shelter and safety for their tiny babies at birth, a baby sugar glider is smaller than a peanut! Flying squirrels, on the other hand, have much larger babies and no pouch.
By studying their genes and other traits, biologists have figured out that sugar gliders and flying squirrels are probably not very closely related. Sugar gliders are marsupial mammals and flying squirrels are placental mammals.
This is an example of convergent evolution, where different evolutionary paths end up at the same point. There are many examples of convergent evolution, which I consider to be evidence of a "cat becoming a dog" ...
... I might revise my views when I take the time to really think it through but this is just an attempt to give a general idea of what I mean by a species, that's all, and I'm not even sure it helps clarify the problem of how I use the word anyway.
The way you use it bears no resemblance to the way science uses the word, so whenever you use this term you are guilty of lying or misrepresenting the facts/reality, and you should use another term.
If there were any word you use commonly that should be ***'d out it should be species. Find a new word.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmericanZenDeist
... 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 474 by Faith, posted 01-24-2020 6:31 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 482 by Faith, posted 01-25-2020 9:21 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 494 of 830 (870848)
01-25-2020 1:16 PM
Reply to: Message 478 by Faith
01-25-2020 8:35 AM


Re: what is "something brand new" if a new specie isn't enough?
For biologists the answer is easy: a new species is something that didn't exist before, ergo it is a "brand new" phenomenon.
However it seems this isn't enough difference for you
Yes it's not enough, because you can get strikingly new phenotypes from the genome of any given species, ...
So?
With biology we test for reproductive compatibility to distinguish variety from species. We do run into some difficulties, as with ring species and single cell life forms, but by and large this test serves us well. It is also somewhat critical when we look at further generations of daughter species that no longer share mutations, and thus evolve independently, adapting to different ecologies they inhabit. Varieties do not do that.
We also know about Mimicry - Wikipedia, where one species has evolved to appear similar to another species. Your "solution" would likely be to claim they are all one species, but that doesn't explain the mimicry.
We also know about Convergent evolution - Wikipedia, as in the placental flying squirrel and the marsupial sugar glider. There are many others, like the example shown here:
Two succulent plant genera, Euphorbia and Astrophytum, are only distantly related,
but the species within each have converged on a similar body form.
Again, your likely "solution" would be to claim they are the same species ... as you did with the trilobytes, even though they had much more variety and many species.
And we know about Parallel evolution - Wikipedia, a special case of convergent evolution, where a trait passed down through daughter populations independently evolves in a similar manner after the daughter species diverged. Here you would likely claim that the trait lay hidden until the conditions arose for it to emerge, or some such nonsense.
And finally we know about [url=https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cryptic%20species]cryptic species, which are only distinguished by their inability to cross-breed. Again, your likely "solution" would be to claim they are the same species ... as you did with the trilobytes, even though they had much more variety and many species, many of which could not interbreed.
Yes it's not enough, because you can get strikingly new phenotypes from the genome of any given species, ...
And yet for biologists, as we can readily see from the above, a change in appearance is insufficient to say it is a different species, and your requirement of a radical change in appearance is inadequate to make the above distinctions (which is why you will try, wrongly, to lump them all into a single species)
I don't think evolution beyond the species/kind/genome is possible, just to get that said in case it's confusing, ...
Which is why, every time you are confronted with actual evidence of evolution beyond species, you claim it is variation within a species.
... but I've been hypothesizing that to get beyond the species genome would require so many mutations it's simply impossible. ...
Also wrong. What stops it? Please provide evidence for this assertion, if you can.
... Variations withihn a species genome get wonderful new phenotypes, all the different subspecies/breeds of dogs and birds and cattle and so on, but nothing beyond the characteristics of those species/kinds is genetically possible ...
Also wrong. What stops it? Please provide evidence for this assertion, if you can.
... AND, let me add here, these new varieties come at a genetic cost, you are always losing alleles or other genetic bases for other phenotypic characteristcs, whenever you get a new phenotype or composite phenotype for a population, which is at an extreme when you have mostly fixed loci for all the salient charactdristcs of the new phenotype.. ...
And also wrong. What stops mutations from providing additional new alleles/traits? Nothing, as you have been told so many times it's like a broken record.
The only way evolution beyond that could possibly happen would be through bazillions of mutations and the specific kinds of changes required plus the needed coordination with mutations all over the genome, are just impossible.
And once again, also wrong. Please provide your math and the evidence for it.
Bald assertions like this have no place in science.
Lots of false statements that are invalidated by facts of observed speciation according to the scientific definitions and proper use of terminology of science.
... species/kind/genome ...
Are not equivalent definitions.
In biology, a species is the basic unit of classification and a taxonomic rank of an organism, as well as a unit of biodiversity. A species is often defined as the largest group of organisms in which any two individuals of the appropriate sexes or mating types can produce fertile offspring,
In Christian and Jewish creationism, a religious view based on the creation account of the book of Genesis, created kinds are purported to be the original forms of life as they were created by God. .. eg -- no real, precise or applicable/usable definition provided.
In the fields of molecular biology and genetics, a genome is the genetic material of an organism. So strictly speaking, not identical to species. What is usually referenced is the Reference genome - Wikipedia.
Trying to mash them all together only creates misinformation and confusion.
Find a new word.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmericanZenDeist
... 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 478 by Faith, posted 01-25-2020 8:35 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 495 by Faith, posted 01-25-2020 2:44 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 499 of 830 (870867)
01-25-2020 3:39 PM
Reply to: Message 482 by Faith
01-25-2020 9:21 AM


Re: Get a clue
Specific creatures, especially if we kinow them in their fossil form and otherwise are unfamiliar with them, don't say anything at all about what I'm trying to do. ...
Because you ignore anything you can't explain. I said:
Indeed I do expect you to misclassify them, but not because they are unusual or exceptional examples, but because your "classification" system is ad hoc and unusable by anyone else.
And I should add that you are incapable of classifying them in any way that makes sense, while the biological/ecological/evolutionary system is perfectly capable of classifying not just these but all known forms of life, from the present day, the fossil record and the genetic record in a cohesive repeatable way ... because it is science instead of fantasy.
... I'm not trying to spell out a system so specific that others could use it, ...
Obviously, because you are incapable and unwilling of doing that, because it would leave you open to invalidation, unlike this variable, willow-the-wisp, ever changing ad hoc, moving target pile of assertions you try to pass off as a system ... one that is remarkable only for its lack of system.
... I'm trying to give a general idea of what I'm arguing in this discussion and nothing more. ...
Which is made up fantasy du jour and just keeps getting more and more ridiculous.
... I believe I've made a pretty good case for how evolution beyond the Kind or Species is not possible, ...
Nope.
Not a dent, not a scratch, not a blemish.
Because evidence has contradicted you every step of the way. We have evolution beyond species, we showed it to you ... and you proceeded to redefine species instead of admit it.
Because there is no definition of "Kind" that stands up to the evidence.
Because you continue to ignore or downplay the role of mutations, in spite of the evidence demonstrating their effect, both in short term and in long term.
There is no known limitation that stops evolution from continuing to adapt species to stochastic and cyclic changes in ecologies and the ever changing interactions of all species in an ecosystem.
... and the taxonomic question is completely secondary, irrelevant to that discussion.
Denialism is not a system of rationally dealing with the evidence. It just protects fantasy from reality.
"Convergent evolution" is just one of those concepts needed by the erroneous ToE, it has no independent factual status on its own.
So if a species cannot evolve beyond what you call the "species genome" then how do you get similar organisms on the opposite sides of the earth -- one a placental mammal flying squirrel and the other a marsupial mammal sugar glider, occupying similar habitats with similar behaviors.
It seems to me that this invalidates your claim that "evolution beyond the Kind or Species is not possible" ... because there they are in living color and stereoscopic sound.
OR you have to consider ALL mammals to be one (faith)-species. Which contradicts your listing of dogs and cats and horses.
So I would think the taxonomic question to be very relevant.
Remember, the better explanation is the one that covers all the evidence, not just bits and pieces that are convenient.
Yes I'm sure much of what I'm arguing opposes many scientific concepts. I'm a creationist, what else would you expect? ...
Honesty, and maybe a little soul searching, and outright disappointment that creationism cannot explain the evidence or be supported by evidence, a little wonder whether or not you've been sold a bill of goods, that you've been lied to, that you're in an axe fight without an axe.
Evolutoin is a huge ungainly scientific edifice constructed out of mutually supporting purely conceptual mental exerceses. A house of cards, an elaborate fantasy.
Again, bald assertion is not evidence. Evolution is a huge multifaceted scientific edifice constructed out of mutually supporting lines of evidence. The consilience of the fossil record and the genetic record is amazing coincidence ... if it were concocted out of whole cloth. The fact of one system validating the other (and vice versa) is strong evidence of reality, something you don't even have a whisper of.
The spatial/temporal matrix showing the paths of evolution taken is another strong line of evidence for Evolution, as it show the steps of evolution along specific paths in time and space, a very strong restriction ... unless evolution is true.
... A house of cards, an elaborate fantasy.
A perfect description of creationism. A fantasy promoted by a delusional cult without regard for reality.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmericanZenDeist
... 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 482 by Faith, posted 01-25-2020 9:21 AM Faith has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 513 of 830 (870904)
01-26-2020 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 495 by Faith
01-25-2020 2:44 PM


Re: what is "something brand new" if a new specie isn't enough?
We get it faith, it's just wrong misguided and dishonest.
Of course I'm going to say that the different phenotypes we get from variation are not evolution. ...
It's microevolution. Classic.
... Just acknowledge that that's what I mean instead of saying "so?" as if you donb't have a clue. ...
So ... is it something new, never seen before?
Species don't have to be radically different from parent species. Cryptic species confirm this. Yet they are different enough from parent/other daughter species to prevent interbreeding. ... isn't it something new, never seen before?
... Of course maybe you don't since you don't get anything I say and donb't want to.
Why would I want to pretend that a pile of misinformed wrong and misguided garbage was worth considering?
As for mimicry of course there are adaptations like that that can be selected. God built in the stuff that makes all such adaptations possible. Makes for wonderful fun don't you think?
As for convergent evolution no I'm not going to say they are the same species for pete's sake, and how does it help your case to say something so obviously a misrepresentation. ...
Why do they look alike Faith? Why does species A look like species B? Isn't that like a dog evolving into a cat?
You are asking me stupid questions, RAXD, that I've answered many times that you ought to know the answer to by now and if you don't I just assume you don't care enough to follow the argument because I don't think you're that stupid.
I'm asking you simple questions to help you think how and where you are wrong, testing your concepts against reality.
I have to come back to this after I let my ulcer calm down.
Do you know why it acts up?
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmericanZenDeist
... 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 495 by Faith, posted 01-25-2020 2:44 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 515 by Faith, posted 01-26-2020 12:55 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 514 of 830 (870905)
01-26-2020 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 509 by Faith
01-26-2020 12:21 AM


re the Linnaean taxonomy for birds
... I still want to call them all a Species but I guess I'll have to use Kind and probably clarify that from time to time as the equivalent of the Class Aves.
Thank you. Can we expect similar for all other cases where you misuse "species"?
Such as when a new species evolves?
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmericanZenDeist
... 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 509 by Faith, posted 01-26-2020 12:21 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 517 by Faith, posted 01-26-2020 1:25 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 533 of 830 (871031)
01-27-2020 2:19 PM
Reply to: Message 517 by Faith
01-26-2020 1:25 PM


Re: re the Linnaean taxonomy for birds
Thank you. Can we expect similar for all other cases where you misuse "species"?
You are aware that "species" is simply Latin? Greek? for "kind," right? ...
Irrelevant. We are talking about scientific usage and terminology that is developed to reduce confusion and improve communication. Using word inappropriately is counter to good communication.
... If you are all very strict about sticking to the Linnaean taxonomy in your use of the word then I'm happy to comply and do my best to avoid confusion. ...
Good. So Trilobites are members of class Trilobita, composed of families, genera and species, not a species on its own.
Likewise Aves/birds are members of class Birds (Class Aves) iNaturalist
quote:
Birds are a group of warm-blooded vertebrates constituting the class Aves, characterized by feathers, toothless beaked jaws, the laying of hard-shelled eggs, a high metabolic rate, a four-chambered heart, and a strong yet lightweight skeleton. Birds live worldwide and range in size from the 5 cm (2 in) bee hummingbird to the 2.75 m (9 ft) ostrich. There are about ten thousand living species,[3] more than half of which are passerine, or "perching" birds. Birds have wings whose development varies according to species; the only known groups without wings are the extinct moa and elephant birds. Wings, which evolved from forelimbs, gave birds the ability to fly, although further evolution has led to the loss of flight in some birds, including ratites, penguins, and diverse endemic island species. The digestive and respiratory systems of birds are also uniquely adapted for flight. Some bird species of aquatic environments, particularly seabirds and some waterbirds, have further evolved for swimming.
Birds are a group of feathered theropod dinosaurs, and constitute the only living dinosaurs. ...
We have the fossils to confirm this last statement, including ones with feathers before flight developed.
... However, when I'm talking about variations, variations of anything, cat, bird, oak, whatever, the word "species" is still going to have to be in there somewhere and I don't think merely identifying the Kind is going to solve that problem.
So feel free to use "KIND" for birds and trilobites and dogs and cats and whatever your heart desires, but please use species according to scientific usage. Shouldn't be difficult now that we have established how inclusive "KIND" can be.
For instance, although you want me to stick to the Linnaean use of the term "species" it is not clearly used in that sense for "ring species." Each population that has evolved from the previous population is called a "species." ...
Actually they are all designated as varieties --- the three scientific labels are Genus species variety.
quote:
Greenish warblers
Greenish warblers (Phylloscopus trochiloides) inhabit forests across much of northern and central Asia. In central Siberia, ...
The varietal forms are designated
Phylloscopus trochiloides viridanus
Phylloscopus trochiloides ludlowi
Phylloscopus trochiloides trochilodis (the "type" variety for the species)
Phylloscopus trochiloides obscuratis
Phylloscopus trochiloides plumbeitarsus
and a non-ring variety,
Phylloscopus trochiloides nitidus
... Even that can gtet confusing if there isn't an attempt to distinguish which species in the ring is meant.
The species designation for all of them is still Phylloscopus trochiloides.
That is where the word is going to get confusing no matter which system or theory is used it seems to me. ...
Not for scientists.
... But of course I think the whole idea of speciation in which the speciated new population is considered to be macroevolution is wrong. ...
Actually they would be microevolved. Macroevolution is just the observation that speciation has occurred, it isn't a process.
Again, this is simply scientific terminology and usage. You can use it correctly and improve communication, or you can misuse it and sow confusion.
... in fact it is mere wishful thinking because it implies that this new population can evolve into more species. ...
... and why couldn't they? Why would this be different than evolving new varietals? They will still be members of the ancestral clade/s, and the differences between generations would not be significantly different than normal generation to generation microevolution. The only difference of note is the loss of ability to interbreed with an(other) isolated population.
... But it seems to me that when you get to the point of having a new species, or variation, or subspecies, that can't breed with the parent population you are very likelyh to have the genetic situation I'm always talking about: reduced genetic diversity. And that genetic condition allows LESS possibility of evolution, not more.
Whatever, it still should not be a barrier to using species properly or agreeing that speciation by microevolution has occurred.
So I think you are all kidding yourselves. Just as in Dawkins' WEASEL program you are always all thinking of openended possibilities of evolution, ...
Because there is no scientific evidence of any type of barrier that would close off the possibilities of evolution.
... If you understand that new breeds have to lose the genetic substrate for other breeds, surely you must also see that any phenotype in the wild has to lose the genetic substrate for other phenotypes. ...
Which is no big deal as genetic information is lost all the time, just as new genetic information is developed via mutation all the time. The only criteria for a species to thrive is the test for survival and reproduction:
... This is essential to evolution, period. ...
Both the loss and the gain is essential. To focus on one and ignore the other means a partial model that invariably misrepresents reality.
... And after a series of population splits developing new phenotypes you are going to have LESS genetic diversity and often so little further evolution is absolutely impossible. ...
And there we have the invariably misrepresentation of reality. This is a false "barrier" to evolution because it ignores mutations. You have been told this a kazillion times.
... Calling that "macroevolution" or just "speciation" is wishfulness without even a shred of reality to it.
Just think of it as extended microevolution from generation to generation and you will have a clearer picture of what occurs.
It's still documented, observed reality according to standard scientific terminology, and trying to pretend otherwise is pure wishfullness without even a shred of reality to it.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmericanZenDeist
... 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 517 by Faith, posted 01-26-2020 1:25 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 534 by Faith, posted 01-27-2020 2:28 PM RAZD 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