quote:This is not true”new species have been observed to form. In fact, rapid speciation is an important part of the creation model.
This is the essence of my argument in Evolution and the BIG LIE thread. The only real disagreement is the number of common ancestors.
if there was one beele kind, there would have to be a new species evolving every 6 days to reach the ~250,000 species of beetles currently catalogued.
Worse: the period of superevolution was only a couple hundred years after the big wash and rinse cycle.
So evolution doesn't happen and evolution\science is wrong, creation is right and evolution happens rapidly?
Enjoy.
we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
In an article titled The non-transitions in ”human evolution’-on evolutionists’ terms, creationist John Woodmorappe writes:
Worse still is that creationists don't agree and that this does not worry them (they just want something to prove evolution wrong). From the "superevolution" link above:
quote:This panel from the museum assumes that the ark had one pair of apes and all the ape species that we see today are descended from this one species. One species splitting into multiple species, hmmm. That sounds an awful lot like evolution. But, it's more than that, it's superevolution.
The picture shows "Lucy" in the ape lineage and no speciation in the human lineage at all.
(Of course they also misrepresent the current scientific thinking, but we know they don't like\understand that anyway - the place is full of falsehoods, so what's one more?).
I'm not sure if that is the same thing as superevolution or not,
"superevolution" is what creationists (have to) use to populate the world with the current diversity from a small population of species on some wooden ship ... and no, it is not the same as real evolution. It would have to occur at such a rate as to be visible, on the order of days per new species.
You're right, an ape splitting off into seperate species of apes is evolution, but then again creationists don't have a problem with evolution in general.
Correct, the problem is in which and how many common ancestors we started with. Exaberated by an insistence on a falsified concept regarding the age of the earth.
Creationists have a problem with macro and steller evolution. What you are talking about is micro-evolution,
Stellar evolution has nothing to do with biological systems or any part of the science of biology, rather it is a term with a special meaning withing the science of astronomy.
Macro evolution is a different issue, usually having to do with misunderstanding of taxonomy and what speciation means to biodiversity. Perhaps you can define what you think "macro evolution" involves ...
but it also means it should not rule out the possibilities of man being the start of man, and apes a evolution off that start.
If apes evolved from humans why are there still humans? (sorry couldn't resist}
just because man initially is less complicated in by whats "apparent" doesn't mean it didn't have other traits that might be more valuable.
Seriously though, what you need to project into the past has to be tied to the fossil evidence. This has nothing to do with complication or simplicity of DNA groupings of genes into arbitrary chromosomes and the arrangement of chromosomes within an organism (no set pattern required, the numbering and naming is just arbitrary tags so we can talk about them).
We'd have to be able to look at the chromosomes of older genomes: it would be interesting to know how many chromosomes Neanderthals had. I've not been able to find that piece of information.
Enjoy.
Note: I searched this site for reference to the numbers of chromosomes in the various articles we had on Neander DNA and did not find any.
Long urls force the page to be wider than the screen, and thus make reading the posts difficult. Please edit the one you have in Message 81 so we can read the page.
Mutation, Recombination, and Reassortment as Evolutionary Forces
Mutation, recombination and segment reassortment contribute to the evolution of most DNA and RNA viruses. Sometimes one form of genetic change appears to be more prominent than another, and sometimes the concerted action of recombination or reassortment with mutation is apparent, (i.e., antigenic drift in influenza virus, following the origin of a new antigenic type through reassortment) [snip] Reference to a diagram in the text[snip].
Fields, B.N., Knipe, D. M. & Howley, P.M.(2007) Fields Virology 5th Edition, Volume 1, p 397 (Lippincott, Williams and Wilkins, publishers; ISBN0781760607)
proof: a study of foxes discovered that selecting and breeding by flight distance caused changes in color and attitude in a much much shorter time than originally thought. (wish i had a link to the study)
quote: Belyaev's great insight was to suspect that the key factor was not size or reproduction, but behaviour. Tameness, he reasoned, was the single trait most likely to determine how well an animal adapted to living with humans. And because behaviour is influenced by an animal's neurochemistry, then selecting for tameness would over generations alter the balance of the bodys hormones and neurotransmitters. This in turn could lead to a host of other seemingly unrelated consequences.
quote:The Promise of Food/Self Domestication: Early wolves would, as scavengers, be attracted to the bones and refuse dumps of human campsites. Dr. Raymond Coppinger of Hampshire College, Massachusetts, argues that those wolves that were more successful at interacting with humans would pass these traits onto their offspring, eventually creating wolves with a greater propensity to be domesticated. Coppinger believes that a behavioral characteristic called "flight distance" was crucial to the transformation from wild wolf to the ancestors of the modern dog. It represents how close an animal will allow humans (or anything else it perceives as dangerous) to get before it runs away.
quote:Following the demise of the Soviet Union, the project has run into serious financial problems. In 1996 there were 700 tame foxes, but in 1998, without enough funds for food and salaries, they had to cut the number to 100. Most of their expenses are covered by selling them as pets, but they remain in a difficult situation, looking for new sources of revenue from outside funding.
On November 22, 2005, the journal Current Biology published an article about the genetic differences between the two fox populations.[3] In this study, DNA microarrays were used to detect differential gene expression between tame foxes, non-tame farm-raised foxes, and wild foxes; one set was raised at the same farm as the tame foxes, and the other set was wild. 40 genes were found to differ between the tame and non-tame farm-raised foxes, although about 2,700 genes differed between the wild foxes and either set of farm-raised foxes. The authors did not analyze the functional implications of the gene expression differences they observed.
This seems to support evo-devo -- with the secondary characteristics that result from selecting for calmer response (lower adrenaline levels in each generation) results in additional traits due to the effect of the hormone during development.
This seems to apply to all domesticated animals (the secondary traits) so this effect of lower adrenaline seems pretty uniform:
Figure 2. Early in the process of domestication, Darwin noted long ago, animals often undergo similar morphological and physiological changes. Because behavior is rooted in biology, Belyaev believed that selection for behavior implied selection for physiological characteristics that would have broader effects on the animals’ development. These effects might explain patterns in the responses of various animals to domestication.
quote:Forty years into our unique lifelong experiment, we believe that Dmitry Belyaev would be pleased with its progress. By intense selective breeding, we have compressed into a few decades an ancient process that originally unfolded over thousands of years. Before our eyes, "the Beast" has turned into "Beauty," as the aggressive behavior of our herd's wild progenitors entirely disappeared. We have watched new morphological traits emerge, a process previously known only from archaeological evidence. Now we know that these changes can burst into a population early in domestication, triggered by the stresses of captivity, and that many of them result from changes in the timing of developmental processes. In some cases the changes in timing, such as earlier sexual maturity or retarded growth of somatic characters, resemble pedomorphosis.
Isn't this macro-evolution of traits emerging that are not in the original population?
Could not these differences also have affected humans as they became more "domesticated" by larger groups living together (or nearby in cooperation)?
One: The traits that are emerging WERE in the original population.
According to the articles the floppy ears, color patches, curled up tail, shorter\wider face -- are not in the original wild population.
The animals were bred specifically for their lack of agression and what came from that was a less agressive fox.
The floppy ears, color patches, curled up tail, shorter\wider face -- are not selected for, the only selection criteria was the passive behavior.
While the changes in phyical appearance may lead some to think that this is macro-evolution, it unfortunately does not prove that the foxes 'evolved' into dogs.
As noted, the purpose was not to turn foxes into dogs, just into domesticated foxes, and nothing is ever proven in science. The other changes that occurred to the foxes on the way to becoming a domesticated breed are new traits for the species that evolved over a number of generations -- this is evolution by normal biological definitions -- and they demonstrate divergence from the parent population (wild foxes) by acquiring traits not in the parent population: this is what occurs in macro-evolution by normal biological definitions.
Of course the real issue is "when does change become sufficient to be "macro"evolution and how does it occur?" Perhaps you'd like to help me out on this definition on MACROevolution vs MICROevolution - what is it? So far I haven't gotten a usable definition from a creationist.
™ Version 4.2
