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.
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?
quote:Sorry you got it so wrong and sorry you give up so easily.
It’s not caffeine getting it wrong that’s the problem. It’s that your position is so obviously absurdly wrong - as he illustrated - that he feels no point in arguing it. Apparently he thinks that anyone who believes such nonsense is beyond reach. And I can see his point.
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.
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.
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, but I'm just not that deeply into the classification issue even to try it. 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 . 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.
Actually I'm pretty sure it doesn't help much with the problem of how I use the word because that problem comes in when we talk about daughter populations, subpopulations, subspecies and so on.
quote:... 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
I.e. taxonomic groupings above species, containing a number of species. It’s essentially the Creationist kind complete with the biologically arbitrary boundaries.
So why call it a species when it clearly isn’t? Is it just to hide your acceptance of macroevolution?
You come up with some of the strangest ways of interpreting what I think.
Yes Species is really the creationist Kind in my mind. I guess I should have said that. To me there's nothing arbitrary about it, it's determined by the particular characteristics of the creatures. I think those characteristics are very specific and easily recognized myself but I guess if one is steeped in the evolutionist way of looking at it all they seem arbitrary.
But as I said above defining the Kind/Species isn't really the problem dwise was getting at, it's what happens when I try to describe my view of the development of new opulations.
Re: what is "something brand new" if a new specie isn't enough?
RAZD writes:
Faith writes:
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
Yes it's not enough, because you can get strikingly new phenotypes from the genome of any given species, but they are simply variations on that species nevertheless. it's built into the genome of that species.l Whereas a "brand new" phenomenon would be something that the species genome does not code for, doesn't have instructions for, like a straight big toe in the chimp genome perhaps, or paws in the reptile genome perhaps instead of their clawed feet, and so on.
I don't think evolution beyond the species/kind/genome is possible, just to get that said in case it's confusing, but I've been hypothesizing that to get beyond the species genome would require so many mutations it's simply impossible. 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 -- 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.. 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.
To me there's nothing arbitrary about it, it's determined by the particular characteristics of the creatures. I think those characteristics are very specific and easily recognized myself
So are crocodiles, snakes and turtles the same species?
but I guess if one is steeped in the evolutionist way of looking at it all they seem arbitrary.
They seem arbitrary because they are. The taxonomic system was based on the 'particular characteristics' of organisms. That's exactly how taxonomy works. It's a staggering painstaking analysis of the anatomy and features organisms.
It started in the early 1700s and has been developed - mostly by creationists - ever since. The are based simply on what things look like - just like say you want to do, but have no idea what's involved - and got very highly detailed very quickly.
What's really interesting about it is that when DNA came along it confirmed almost all of it. It didn't have to, but it did.
I know you won't but it would do you good to read about Linnean taxonomy
Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
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:
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.
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.
™ Version 4.2
.jpg/1920px-Female_Gray_Wolf_(6045673957).jpg)
