Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8896 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-21-2019 6:12 AM
37 online now:
Percy (Admin), Tangle (2 members, 35 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,522 Year: 3,559/19,786 Month: 554/1,087 Week: 144/212 Day: 11/49 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
678910
11
Author Topic:   Evolutionary Theory Explains Diversity
pandion
Member (Idle past 1076 days)
Posts: 166
From: Houston
Joined: 04-06-2009


Message 151 of 160 (518873)
08-09-2009 2:16 AM
Reply to: Message 150 by Minnemooseus
08-09-2009 12:18 AM


Re: Breeding giant Chihuahuas
Minnemooseus writes:

I did encounter a little discussion at VIN, about the interbreeding of dogs and coyotes. Yes they do.


Of course they do. Dogs have also been known to interbreed with wolves, i.e., Canis lupus. Not surprising since DNA analysis has shown that domestic dogs are descended from Gray Wolves (C. lupus). Coyotes have also been observed to interbreed with Red Wolves C. rufus. In fact, in Texas, the animals now called "Red Wolves" are thought to be a hybrid population of C. rufus and C. latrans (Coyote). Red wolves, on the verge of extinction, selected whatever mates were available, even if they were coyotes. Red wolves only survived because they could interbreed with coyotes.

But that's not the question. Gray Wolves, Red Wolves, Coyotes, and domestic dogs are 3 separate species and a subspecies of the first. They can interbreed. That's the biological facts. So a Great Dane and a Chihuahua are just variation in "kind" from the wolf "kind." They are, of course, all interfertile. You bet. Like a Gray Wolf would breed with, rather than eat, a Chihuahua.

So what, exactly, is a "kind?"


This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by Minnemooseus, posted 08-09-2009 12:18 AM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by RAZD, posted 08-10-2009 1:09 PM pandion has not yet responded

  
caffeine
Member
Posts: 1600
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 152 of 160 (518969)
08-10-2009 6:59 AM
Reply to: Message 147 by greentwiga
08-07-2009 10:31 PM


Re: Mitochondrial Eve
You have 2 parents, 4 grandparents, and 16 great grandparents. If you are male, you have a y chromosome from one great grandparent and mitochondrial DNA from another great grandparent. The other 14 have donated various parts of your other chromosomes, but we can't prove who donated what. If there were 500 women alive at the time of Mitochondrial Eve, just like your great grandparents, they donated a variety of genes, though only one woman donated all the mitochondrial DNA.

Yes. So where is the source of your disagreement?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by greentwiga, posted 08-07-2009 10:31 PM greentwiga has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by greentwiga, posted 08-10-2009 12:39 PM caffeine has not yet responded

  
greentwiga
Member (Idle past 1502 days)
Posts: 213
From: Santa
Joined: 06-05-2009


Message 153 of 160 (519007)
08-10-2009 12:39 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by caffeine
08-10-2009 6:59 AM


Re: Mitochondrial Eve
Caffeine did not seem to understand what I was saying about Mitochondrial Eve. I was just trying another explanation.

Though I am a fundamentalist Christian, I am looking at the Bible to see if it allows for Evolution. One interpretation that I am looking at separates Adam and Eve from the creation of man in Gen 1:27. If so, there is no mention of how many humans were created in Gen 1:27, just that there were males and females.

Anthropology shows a slow change in stone tools over millions of years, then as if overnight, men start quickly inventing a large variety of stone tools.

I am considering whether, at that point, God changed the proto-humans into true humans.

My disagreement, if this theory is right, would then turn out to be with my fellow fundamentalist Christians.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by caffeine, posted 08-10-2009 6:59 AM caffeine has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by Percy, posted 08-11-2009 8:38 AM greentwiga has responded
 Message 159 by greyseal, posted 08-15-2009 1:13 PM greentwiga has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19756
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.4


Message 154 of 160 (519011)
08-10-2009 1:09 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by pandion
08-09-2009 2:16 AM


Yellow Dog Ring Species show Diversity due to Evolution
Hi pandion,

The biological definition of species is a population of individuals that interbreed. In practice this means that two or more genetically similar populations can physically interbreed, but that the opportunities to do so are declined in most cases.

An example is the asian greenish warbler ring species that has two ends on a somewhat continuous band around the Tibetan plateau, where each sub-population breeds with the neighboring population until you get to the northernmost section of the ring, where two varieties don't see the others either as mates or as competition.

As far as dogs go, it is hard to tell what the wild "natural" behavior of a domesticated animal would be when given the opportunity.

An interesting side note is the Carolina "Yellow" Dog

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carolina_Dog

quote:
The Carolina Dog, or American Dingo, is a type of wild dog discovered in the late 1970s.[1] They were located living in isolated stretches of longleaf pines and cypress swamps in the Southeastern United States. They are dogs of medium size, with a fawn coat and frequently a melanistic mask.

Some ancient paintings and rock art of Native Americans depict dogs that have physical traits similar to those of Carolina Dogs. Carolina Dogs also have a ginger-colored coat that is found on other wild dogs, including Australian Dingoes and Korea’s native dog, the Jindo.[3] Experts have said that Carolina Dogs are seemingly indistinguishable from the Jindo.[citation needed] Also, fossils of the dogs of Native Americans exhibit similar bone structures to Carolina Dogs. Brisbin found a resemblance between 2,000-year-old skulls and those of the Carolina Dogs, but concluded that there was too large a difference to prove any connection.[4]

The preliminary DNA testing may provide a link between primitive dogs and Carolina Dogs. Brisbin stated, “We grabbed them out of the woods based on what they look like, and if they were just dogs their DNA patterns should be well distributed throughout the canine family tree. But they aren't. They're all at the base of the tree, where you would find very primitive dogs.” This wasn’t conclusive, but it did spark interest into more extensive DNA testing.[2]


From the DNA results, if confirmed, it would appear that these dogs by overwhelming preference do not interbreed with other dogs, with wolves or with coyotes, as otherwise the DNA would be mixed instead of basal to "very primitive dogs".

It would be interesting to see more DNA research into this to see if they compare closer to wolves, coyotes or dogs.

What we could have is a species of dog that came with the original settlers of N.America - the American Indian ancestors - from Asia, explaining their "primitive" genes, and as a result they have some distinct genetic and possibly behavioral differences from dogs brought from europe. The behavioral differences - like in the asian greenish warblers - could be enough to limit if not prevent interbreeding.

That would make dogs a "ring species" as well.

And of course, ring species are definite proof of the development of additional diversity within populations, diversity due to evolution and in response to the opportunities and adaptations imposed by different ecologies.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : subtitle

Edited by RAZD, : clrty

Edited by RAZD, : mor clrty


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... 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 151 by pandion, posted 08-09-2009 2:16 AM pandion has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18308
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 155 of 160 (519093)
08-11-2009 8:38 AM
Reply to: Message 153 by greentwiga
08-10-2009 12:39 PM


Re: Mitochondrial Eve
greentwiga writes:

Though I am a fundamentalist Christian, I am looking at the Bible to see if it allows for Evolution.

The Bible says that God created the animals "According to their kinds," not "According to their *fixed* kinds." Reproduction is imperfect, so kinds (as defined by the various existing populations of animals) must inevitably change over time.

Anthropology shows a slow change in stone tools over millions of years, then as if overnight, men start quickly inventing a large variety of stone tools.

What change are you thinking of that occurred overnight?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by greentwiga, posted 08-10-2009 12:39 PM greentwiga has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by greentwiga, posted 08-11-2009 10:36 AM Percy has not yet responded
 Message 158 by Percy, posted 08-12-2009 7:08 AM Percy has not yet responded

    
greentwiga
Member (Idle past 1502 days)
Posts: 213
From: Santa
Joined: 06-05-2009


Message 156 of 160 (519102)
08-11-2009 10:36 AM
Reply to: Message 155 by Percy
08-11-2009 8:38 AM


Re: Mitochondrial Eve
The key word is "as if" We can't differentiate between one day and 1,000 years for an event 50,000 years ago.
In Wikipedia, it refers to the great leap forward. Something changed for humans to start on this journey of creativity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution#Use_of_tools
Until about 50,000–40,000 years ago the use of stone tools seems to have progressed stepwise. Each phase (H. habilis, H. ergaster, H. neanderthalensis) started at a higher level than the previous one, but once that phase started further development was slow. These Homo species were culturally conservative, but after 50,000 BP modern human culture started to change at a much greater speed. Jared Diamond, author of The Third Chimpanzee, and other anthropologists characterize this as a "Great Leap Forward." Modern humans started burying their dead, making clothing out of hides, developing sophisticated hunting techniques (such as using trapping pits or driving animals off cliffs), and engaging in cave painting.[41] As human culture advanced, different populations of humans introduced novelty to existing technologies: artifacts such as fish hooks, buttons and bone needles show signs of variation among different populations of humans, something that had not been seen in human cultures prior to 50,000 BP. Typically, H. neanderthalensis populations do not vary in their technologies.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Percy, posted 08-11-2009 8:38 AM Percy has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by Theodoric, posted 08-11-2009 11:02 AM greentwiga has not yet responded

    
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5953
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 157 of 160 (519105)
08-11-2009 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 156 by greentwiga
08-11-2009 10:36 AM


Re: Mitochondrial Eve
quote:
These Homo species were culturally conservative, but after 50,000 BP modern human culture started to change at a much greater speed. Jared Diamond, author of The Third Chimpanzee, and other anthropologists characterize this as a "Great Leap Forward."

Well this does not support "as if" or "overnight". Did the pace of development improve? Yes. Dramatically? Yes. But what they are trying to say is things sped up dramatically, RELATIVE to the pace prior.

You are making this much more than it is. You are agin trying to alter reality to match the flaws in your beliefs and religion. This is not science. It is apologetics and manipulation of facts.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by greentwiga, posted 08-11-2009 10:36 AM greentwiga has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18308
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 158 of 160 (519170)
08-12-2009 7:08 AM
Reply to: Message 155 by Percy
08-11-2009 8:38 AM


Re: Mitochondrial Eve
If you're looking to the pace of technological change as an indication of when God created the first real humans, then wouldn't the enlightenment, the industrial revolution, and the 20th century be more dramatic examples?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Percy, posted 08-11-2009 8:38 AM Percy has not yet responded

    
greyseal
Member (Idle past 1937 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 159 of 160 (519623)
08-15-2009 1:13 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by greentwiga
08-10-2009 12:39 PM


Re: Mitochondrial Eve
greentwiga writes:

Though I am a fundamentalist Christian, I am looking at the Bible to see if it allows for Evolution. One interpretation that I am looking at separates Adam and Eve from the creation of man in Gen 1:27.

Well, it's a much nicer alternative than to stomach the idea that incest was mandated by your god.

If it makes you feel happier, Genesis does mention "the tribes of Adam" and "the tribes of man" seperately. Of course, after Noah and the flood, you're back to one bloodline and massive mandated incest again.

I would suggest you realise how impossible this ridiculous story is, but...you're a fundie


This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by greentwiga, posted 08-10-2009 12:39 PM greentwiga has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19756
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.4


Message 160 of 160 (519716)
08-16-2009 2:50 PM


Topic Please
Mity Eve is not the topic -- see Message 1

The diversity of species, and how the theory of evolution explains it, are the topic.

quote:
I'll start off with some definition of what we are talking about ... to make sure we are talking about the same thing. In the science of evolutionary biology there are two (2) basic processes:
  1. the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation.
  2. the reproductive isolation of daughter populations from the parent populations or other daughter populations.
The first is a basic definition of "evolution" (the process that is the subject of the theory), and it is similar to other definitions used, including Darwin's original formulation ("Descent with Modification") and what is often called the genetic definition (the change in the frequency of alleles in a population over time). It is also similar to what is used to teach the science of evolutionary biology at the university level.

The second is a basic definition of "speciation" where descendant populations become genetically dissimilar with isolation as time passes due to the process of evolution operating in different ecologies and through different sets of new mutations\traits that arise in populations of otherwise similar organisms, and because of the lack of sharing of those new mutations\traits with the other populations.

Each of these processes operate through several mechanisms, some shared some not. Natural selection is one such process, and the one that Darwin recognized as being able to cause descent with modification. Ecological changes are also a mechanism, as evolution is a response system, and populations of organisms will respond to different ecologies with different "fitness" selection.

Darwin's insight was that these simple processes were sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it

  • from life on earth today,
  • from history (accounts of now extinct life),
  • from prehistory (cave paintings and other archeological artifacts),
  • from the fossil record (the natural history of life that has lived on earth in the past) and
  • from the genetic record (although he did not know about genes he figured out that there was "a" mechanism that transmitted hereditary traits from one generation to the next, and that populations were related by common ancestry, genetics has just given us better information on what the various mechanisms are and how we can determine the common ancestry history from the evidence in the genes).

This is what the theory of evolution is (as opposed to the process and the science): that these simple processes, the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation and the division of populations into reproductively isolated daughter populations, are sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it, from the life on earth today, from history, from prehistory, from the fossil record and from the genetic record.


Is there any stage in the evolution of organisms that cannot be explained by evolution?

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... 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) • • •

  
RewPrev1
...
678910
11
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019