Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8897 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-20-2019 7:12 AM
127 online now:
PaulK, Percy (Admin) (2 members, 125 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,478 Year: 3,515/19,786 Month: 510/1,087 Week: 100/212 Day: 16/14 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1617
18
1920
...
23Next
Author Topic:   Dogs will be Dogs will be ???
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19754
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 256 of 331 (476573)
07-24-2008 8:57 PM
Reply to: Message 251 by AlphaOmegakid
07-24-2008 12:42 PM


Re: Is mesohippus more or less different from eohippus than dogs from wolf?
Thanks AlphaOmegaKid,

Ok, I'm going to anwer you, but you're not going to like my answer.

No, I appreciate the answer, as it details how little difference there is.

I'm not sure how familiar you are with horse evolution, but actually there are supposed transitionals between Hyracotherium and Mesohippus. Here is the sopposed lineage... Hyracotherium, Orohippus,Epihippus and the Mesohippus. I will refer to these as H,O,E and M.

One source - http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/natsci/vertpaleo/fhc/Stratmap1.htm - says that Orohippus is the only one in between, but it is not surprising that there are differences of opinion. Orohippus also coexisted with Hyracotherium, so one could argue that they are sibling rather than parent/child. It depends on whether you are a "lumper" or a "splitter" when talking about taxon divisions.

I also note that these are genus level taxons and that there are species within those levels, and many fossils, none of which are identical. In other words there are many fossils that would be classified as intermediates between any of these forms, but which are lumped into one category or the other for convenience of discussion.

Now as far as archetype you could say that these organisms are similar. The size variation, main skull shape and overall shape of the organism is within what we see with wolf/dog evolution.

Very good, we agree that they are very similar animals. Now the question is, do any of the differences amount to a significant change.

First the rib count sequence of H-O-E-M is 18-15-16-16. We don't see those kind of changes in the populations of wolf/dog evolution. We see stasis in the overall rib count of the population. What would be the fitness benefit to loosing three ribs, then gaining one?

I would say that this is a neutral change, thus variation back and forth without any sever evolutionary consequence. As we see today, there is variation among all species with occasional differences in numbers of repeated sequences (fingers, toes, teeth, ribs).

The question is not whether such a difference needs to be beneficial, the question only needs to be that they are non-detrimental. A mutation that is neutral cannot be selected against. Perhaps you can demonstrate how a difference in the number of ribs can be detrimental?

Second, the hind toe count of H-O-E-M is 4-4-4-3. We don't see a loss of toe digits being beneficial in wolf/dog evolution. We see stasis in these feature within the populations. Again, a loss of digit is usally seen as a negative mutation. Certainly not beneficial. What would be the fitness benefit of loss of a toe?

Actually we do see it, because the wolf/dog has already lost one, with a "dew claw" being a remnant visible in some dogs. The loss of another would just continue that trend.

But again the issue again is not that such minor differences need to be beneficial, just that they need to be non-detrimental. As we have seen there are instances of dogs with fewer toes among other variations, and these don't necessarily affect the animal. Of course when it comes to dog breeds, the breeders will select against any such mutations (as you point out) purely on the basis of aesthetics, in order to maintain the "characteristics" of the breed -- the breeds are actually selected for stasis. There is no evidence I am aware of, however, that shows that the loss of a toe is any hindrance to the behavior and survival of a dog in the wild. Perhaps you can demonstrate how a difference in the number of toes can be detrimental to survival or breeding in the wild? There are many instances of hunting dogs that have lost toes and are still able to be capable and productive hunting dogs.

Third, the tooth sequences vary substantially. From the sequence of incisor-canine-premolar-grinding molar we see the following: H=3-1-4-3, O=3-1-3-4, and E=3-1-2-5, M I couldn't find. Again we see stasis in wolf/dog teeth. In fact dog diets have changed substantially over about 2000 known years of history, and the teeth have shown stasis.

And I would argue that dog teeth have evolved, that the teeth in some breeds are quite different in size, proportion and shape from the teeth in other breeds, curved in some and straight in others for instance. We probably see more crooked teeth in dogs due to the prepared diets compared to wolf teeth.

But for the sake of argument I will agree that these three items are places where Mesohippus is different from Hyracotherium. After all, if there weren't any differences they wouldn't be classified as different genus\species\etc, so we know there are differences.

Now we compare these to differences in dogs that are not seen between Mesohippus and Hyracotherium: large difference in size, difference in proportions of legs to back, differences in the proportions of front legs to hind legs, differences in the skulls, differences in the size of the eyes compared to the skull, differences in the lengths of the tails (with various numbers of tail bones, many dogs with no tail at all).

The question is not whether there are traits that do not change in dogs that do change in Hyracotherium to Mesohippus, but whether overall the difference is more or less than the variation seen in dogs.

Now if you look at Message 1 of this thread you will see that I compared domestic cat to red fox by a number of characteristics, and then did the same for dog and wolf, and then compared the overall difference of cats to foxes to the overall differences of dogs to wolves.

Do you think that if we did this in depth an analysis that the results for Hyracotherium to Mesohippus would be more or less than the results for dogs and wolves?

Now the teeth and the toes are the main evidence used for evolution support. But we don't see (observable and repeatable) that in wolf/dog evolution.

Irrelevant. Please keep such comments to a minimum. Again, the question is whether overall

The question is whether the sum differences between

and

Is more or less that the differences between

Enjoy!

I am, thanks. Now do you want to step back and take the intermediates between Hyracotherium and Mesohippus and discuss those and their differences and compare those to dog/wolf variation, or do you want to move on?

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : repeat repeat delete

Edited by RAZD, : .

Edited by RAZD, : moved photos


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 251 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 07-24-2008 12:42 PM AlphaOmegakid has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 257 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 07-28-2008 10:19 AM RAZD has responded

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 950 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 257 of 331 (476891)
07-28-2008 10:19 AM
Reply to: Message 256 by RAZD
07-24-2008 8:57 PM


Re: Is mesohippus more or less different from eohippus than dogs from wolf?
RAZD writes:

One source - http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/natsci/vertpaleo/fhc/Stratmap1.htm - says that Orohippus is the only one in between, but it is not surprising that there are differences of opinion. Orohippus also coexisted with Hyracotherium, so one could argue that they are sibling rather than parent/child. It depends on whether you are a "lumper" or a "splitter" when talking about taxon divisions.

Wow, I really don't know where to start with this comment, but let me try here. Maybe we should start with a legitimate source of horse evolution. I suggest you go here if you can. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/sci;307/...

This has an excellent cladistic chart showing old world, North America, and South America Equis evolution. Orohippus is definitely (not opinion) a supposed transitional genus. Also, I am not aware of any coexisting fossils of Orohippus and Hyacotherium. The cladistic chart shows very little overlap if any.

RAZD writes:

I also note that these are genus level taxons and that there are species within those levels, and many fossils, none of which are identical. In other words there are many fossils that would be classified as intermediates between any of these forms, but which are lumped into one category or the other for convenience of discussion.

Yes, these are genus level names, but the species within the genus all show the changes that I listed in my prior post. There actually is very little difference in species fossils of the genus. Location and time generates the species differentiation more than anything.

And finally, as you know, the pictures you have been using of the fossils represent species not genus'. So if you want to claim that there is wide variation within each genus, then I suggest that you present evidence for this. Actually there isn't wide variation.

I use the term wide variation in the sense of what we observe in species today. There is wide variation in the modern equis genus. But there isn't in H-O-E-M. All of the fossils found (species)have the same number of ribs, toes, and tooth configurations within the genus. They also have the same relative size/shape. Equis has a wide range of size/shape, but little variation in ribs, toes, and teeth. The distinctions are indeed important to this discussion.

RAZD writes:

Very good, we agree that they are very similar animals. Now the question is, do any of the differences amount to a significant change.

I understand your question, but this question doesn't help your argument. I and most other creationist agree with "significant" change within species and microevolution. We do not agree with significant "feature" changes (especially morphological ones) that show up in the fossil record that lead to the concept of one common ancestor. Therefore, I argue that population changes in the number of ribs, the number of toes, and the type and number of teeth are indeed significant changes in the species. In fact, these are the changes that are highlighted by evolutionists as evidence of evolution. I do not argue that size/shape/color/skull shape are necessarily "significant" in macroevolutionary terms. I suppose that what you are trying to suggest is that the fossils indicate a macroevolutionary chain of horse evolution.

RAZD writes:

I would say that this is a neutral change, thus variation back and forth without any sever evolutionary consequence. As we see today, there is variation among all species with occasional differences in numbers of repeated sequences (fingers, toes, teeth, ribs).

The question is not whether such a difference needs to be beneficial, the question only needs to be that they are non-detrimental. A mutation that is neutral cannot be selected against. Perhaps you can demonstrate how a difference in the number of ribs can be detrimental?

I'm not sure if you are confused here or what, but I will try to make this simple. Evolutionary change that becomes dominant in a population can only happen with two causal effects. Natural selection and genetic drift. For a new allele to achieve dominance in the population through natural selection, the the feature from the allele must generate some fitness advantage in the environment. Therefore by definition the mutation that caused the allele must be beneficial. (Not neutral or negative) There is no question that evolutionists argue that the changes in teeth and toes are beneficial mutations. They never mention the ribs, because they don't fit a "beneficial" picture. They work best with a genetic drift model. A neutral mutation as you have declared can only become dominant through genetic drift which requires small populations. Natural selection requires large populations.

You apparently do not recognize the conflict. We have large population secting for toes and teeth as beneficial features while at the same time we must have a small populations to genectically drift from 18 to 15 to 16 rib pairs.

RAZD writes:

Actually we do see it, because the wolf/dog has already lost one, with a "dew claw" being a remnant visible in some dogs. The loss of another would just continue that trend.

I'm not sure what you are saying here. The dew claw is not visible in "some" dogs/wolve. The dew claw is unique feature of dogs/wolves and it is rare if dogs are missing this feature.

We do not "see" this as a remnant feature. This is again a biased interpretation of assumed fossil ancestors. The dew claw has many documented uses. It doesn't appear to be vestigial.

There is nothing here that we "see" that is observable and repeatable.

RAZD writes:

But again the issue again is not that such minor differences need to be beneficial, just that they need to be non-detrimental. As we have seen there are instances of dogs with fewer toes among other variations, and these don't necessarily affect the animal. Of course when it comes to dog breeds, the breeders will select against any such mutations (as you point out) purely on the basis of aesthetics, in order to maintain the "characteristics" of the breed -- the breeds are actually selected for stasis. There is no evidence I am aware of, however, that shows that the loss of a toe is any hindrance to the behavior and survival of a dog in the wild. Perhaps you can demonstrate how a difference in the number of toes can be detrimental to survival or breeding in the wild? There are many instances of hunting dogs that have lost toes and are still able to be capable and productive hunting dogs.

Again, I don't think you understand the mechanisms of ToE. Having a dog loose or gain a toe doesn't evolution make. Evolution is a population change. For dogs which have lost a toe to become dominant in the population they must have a fitness benefit from that alteration in their environment. We don't see that with wolves for instance. We don't see it with any vertebrate for that matter. The only thing scientists "see" is their imagination with the fossil record. That is why I put forth the so called irrelevant challenge to produce a beneficial mutation that causes morphological change that would show up in the fossil record. There haven't been any presented, and this is not a red herring. This is relevant to the discussion.

RAZD writes:

Now we compare these to differences in dogs that are not seen between Mesohippus and Hyracotherium: large difference in size, difference in proportions of legs to back, differences in the proportions of front legs to hind legs, differences in the skulls, differences in the size of the eyes compared to the skull, differences in the lengths of the tails (with various numbers of tail bones, many dogs with no tail at all).

The question is not whether there are traits that do not change in dogs that do change in Hyracotherium to Mesohippus, but whether overall the difference is more or less than the variation seen in dogs.

Now if you look at Message 1 of this thread you will see that I compared domestic cat to red fox by a number of characteristics, and then did the same for dog and wolf, and then compared the overall difference of cats to foxes to the overall differences of dogs to wolves.

Do you think that if we did this in depth an analysis that the results for Hyracotherium to Mesohippus would be more or less than the results for dogs and wolves?

Again, you are putting forth an argument that doesn't "show" macroevolution. Your use of the term "overall" in regards to the differences doesn't give weight to the macroevolutionary argument. Sure overall difference in some statistical accounting method may show no more differences than in dog evolution. But that is not the point. My wife and I are the same species. Overall we are very similar genetically and skeletally. But if you concentrate on the differences, we are significanly different. The toes and teeth are difference that evolutionist have argued as evidence for macroevolution. They ignore the ribs, because they have difficulty explaining the progression of evolution there. However, we don't see any of this type of population evolution in dogs, wolves, horses or any other vertebrate for that matter. The evidence is in the imagination caused by the acceptance of the theory. That's called circular reasoning.

RAZD writes:

The question is whether the sum differences between...

My question is how do you determine the sum differences? An once you have defined that, how does that make your argument?

Edited by AlphaOmegakid, : No reason given.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Shortened display form of very long URL, to restore page width to normal.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by RAZD, posted 07-24-2008 8:57 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 259 by bluegenes, posted 07-28-2008 12:32 PM AlphaOmegakid has responded
 Message 262 by RAZD, posted 07-28-2008 10:20 PM AlphaOmegakid has responded
 Message 264 by RAZD, posted 07-30-2008 9:42 PM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3392
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 258 of 331 (476903)
07-28-2008 12:10 PM
Reply to: Message 245 by AlphaOmegakid
07-23-2008 2:32 PM


Re: THE TOPIC is dogs compared to horse species changes
Hello AlphaOmegakid, I'm just here to let you know of another thread which has been started in your honour.

AlphaOmegakid writes:

Natural selection is a tautology.
Homologies are circular reasoned.
Vesigial features are circular reasoned.
The geological column is circular reasoned.
And genetic evidence of evolution is tautological.

...has spun-off some question from other posters and they are patiently awaiting responses from you here:

Message 1

Please have a look and respond at your earliest convenience, if you so desire. Please do not respond in this thread, as these topics are not the issue here.

Sorry for interrupting the current discussion, please continue.

*RAZD... apparently you have an intimidating reputation, see the linked thread for a quick smile :)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 07-23-2008 2:32 PM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded

    
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 551 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 259 of 331 (476907)
07-28-2008 12:32 PM
Reply to: Message 257 by AlphaOmegakid
07-28-2008 10:19 AM


Re: Is mesohippus more or less different from eohippus than dogs from wolf?
AlphaOmegakid writes:

Wow, I really don't know where to start with this comment, but let me try here. Maybe we should start with a legitimate source of horse evolution. I suggest you go here if you can.

Your source and RAZD's source are equally legitimate, as Bruce J. MacFadden is both director of the Florida museum exhibit, and author of your article. ;)

Those who don't have a subscription to "Science" can download the PDF of your MacFadden article HERE. (Scroll down a bit past the end of another article).

Just a technical note. :)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 07-28-2008 10:19 AM AlphaOmegakid has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 260 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 07-28-2008 5:23 PM bluegenes has responded

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 950 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 260 of 331 (476925)
07-28-2008 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 259 by bluegenes
07-28-2008 12:32 PM


Re: Is mesohippus more or less different from eohippus than dogs from wolf?
bluegenes writes:

Your source and RAZD's source are equally legitimate, as Bruce J. MacFadden is both director of the Florida museum exhibit, and author of your article

My appologies for the poor choice of the word "legitimate". It would have been better to say "more accurate" representation of Equis evolution.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by bluegenes, posted 07-28-2008 12:32 PM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 261 by bluegenes, posted 07-28-2008 5:33 PM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 551 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 261 of 331 (476928)
07-28-2008 5:33 PM
Reply to: Message 260 by AlphaOmegakid
07-28-2008 5:23 PM


Re: Is mesohippus more or less different from eohippus than dogs from wolf?
No problem. I really put the post in because I could make the paper and chart you were referring to available to anyone reading the thread who didn't have a "Science" subscription (it may take a minute or two to download the PDF, even with broadband).

It's the same essential view, by the same person. I'm glad you agree that it's accurate, as MacFadden has spent 25 years studying these things. RAZD probably thinks it's accurate as well, so what's the debate about? :)

Edited by bluegenes, : typos


This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 07-28-2008 5:23 PM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19754
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 262 of 331 (476953)
07-28-2008 10:20 PM
Reply to: Message 257 by AlphaOmegakid
07-28-2008 10:19 AM


LONG URLs make wide windows
Hey AlphaOmegaKid, thanks for the reply, however I have trouble reading it on my laptop due to the long url you pasted. Could you edit it?

type: [url=http://insert_your_url_here]this message is linked to an url[/url]
and it becomes: this message is linked to an url (one with even more posting tips).

I'll look at it tomorrow. Thanks.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : .


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 257 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 07-28-2008 10:19 AM AlphaOmegakid has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 263 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 07-29-2008 8:42 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 950 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 263 of 331 (476982)
07-29-2008 8:42 AM
Reply to: Message 262 by RAZD
07-28-2008 10:20 PM


Re: LONG URLs make wide windows
I think Message 259 from Bluegenes may solve your problem
This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by RAZD, posted 07-28-2008 10:20 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19754
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 264 of 331 (477182)
07-30-2008 9:42 PM
Reply to: Message 257 by AlphaOmegakid
07-28-2008 10:19 AM


Re: Is mesohippus more or less different from eohippus than dogs from wolf?
Thanks AlphaOmegaKid.

Wow, I really don't know where to start with this comment, but let me try here. Maybe we should start with a legitimate source of horse evolution. I suggest you go here if you can. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/sci;307/...

This has an excellent cladistic chart showing old world, North America, and South America Equis evolution. Orohippus is definitely (not opinion) a supposed transitional genus. Also, I am not aware of any coexisting fossils of Orohippus and Hyacotherium. The cladistic chart shows very little overlap if any.

The question really doesn't involve any necessary cladistic charts. They are handy as guides, but we really are just comparing similar fossils that appear to be related in general form. We don't even need to know whether they really are related by descent, just that they are close enough to be from some common gene pool -- they could be cousins instead.

Certainly when we compare one dog breed to another we are not pretending that one necessarily descended from the other, just that they share sufficiently common genetics to have recent common ancestry.

We could argue cladistics all day, but it doesn't change the reality that there is little difference between the Hyracotherium and Mesohippus fossils, and whether we can see more or less difference than we do between dog and wolf.

Yes, these are genus level names, but the species within the genus all show the changes that I listed in my prior post. There actually is very little difference in species fossils of the genus. Location and time generates the species differentiation more than anything.

And finally, as you know, the pictures you have been using of the fossils represent species not genus'. So if you want to claim that there is wide variation within each genus, then I suggest that you present evidence for this. Actually there isn't wide variation.

The fossils necessarily represent single individuals from each species grouping, and thus do not represent even the variation found in each species to say nothing of the variation of species within each genus. To do that properly one would have to look at all the fossils and sort them by time and location. Personally, I would say that time and location and opportunity are necessary to generate the species differentiation. Opportunity could consist of different ecological habitats that would exert different selection pressures, but where the benefit of moving into that habitat over-rides the costs in terms of survival and breeding. Domesticated animals have wide opportunities to develop new breeds, as the 'costs' are (artificially) lower but small opportunities to develop changes within breeds, as the 'costs' are (artificially) higher.

However this has nothing to do with the actual differences between the fossils.

I use the term wide variation in the sense of what we observe in species today. There is wide variation in the modern equis genus. But there isn't in H-O-E-M. All of the fossils found (species)have the same number of ribs, toes, and tooth configurations within the genus. They also have the same relative size/shape. Equis has a wide range of size/shape, but little variation in ribs, toes, and teeth. The distinctions are indeed important to this discussion.

So the modern Equids have more variation in size (mostly due to domestication?), but the same degree of variation of ribs and teeth and toes as there is within each of these fossil genera groups? It seems that you are saying that number changes are more important than shape changes - would that be a fair assessment?

Are you suggesting that having a different number of (one type of bone) is macroevolution? Then certain dogs and cats and other animals that have developed tail-less breeds would be a macroevolutionary change. Snakes that have different numbers (100 to 300) of vertebrae (and ribs) would be a macroevolutionary change.

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

quote:
There are normally thirty-three (33) vertebrae in humans, including the five that are fused to form the sacrum (the others are separated by intervertebral discs) and the four coccygeal bones which form the tailbone. The upper three regions comprise the remaining 24, and are grouped under the names cervical (7 vertebrae), thoracic (12 vertebrae) and lumbar (5 vertebrae), according to the regions they occupy. This number is sometimes increased by an additional vertebra in one region, or it may be diminished in one region, the deficiency often being supplied by an additional vertebra in another. The number of cervical vertebrae is, however, very rarely increased or diminished.

Does this mean that people with these differences are undergoing macroevolution?

Certainly when we look at the toes, it is not so much a difference in the number of toes, but in the proportions of the bones, with some toe bones being reduced in size to the point where they would no longer support the individual, rather than complete removal of the toes.

Similar with the teeth as we see premolars becoming more like molars in response to the diet opportunities. Can you really count teeth numbers as being different when one changes into another type?

I understand your question, but this question doesn't help your argument. I and most other creationist agree with "significant" change within species and microevolution. We do not agree with significant "feature" changes (especially morphological ones) that show up in the fossil record that lead to the concept of one common ancestor. Therefore, I argue that population changes in the number of ribs, the number of toes, and the type and number of teeth are indeed significant changes in the species. In fact, these are the changes that are highlighted by evolutionists as evidence of evolution. I do not argue that size/shape/color/skull shape are necessarily "significant" in macroevolutionary terms. I suppose that what you are trying to suggest is that the fossils indicate a macroevolutionary chain of horse evolution.

In other words, the morphological changes in shapes of dog skulls and the proportions of different bones in the body is " 'significant' change within species and microevolution" while the change in the shapes of teeth and the proportions of toe bone sizes involves "significant 'feature' changes (especially morphological ones) that show up in the fossil record that lead to the concept of one common ancestor." -- is this a fair assessment of your argument?

I'm not sure if you are confused here or what, but I will try to make this simple. Evolutionary change that becomes dominant in a population can only happen with two causal effects. Natural selection and genetic drift. For a new allele to achieve dominance in the population through natural selection, the the feature from the allele must generate some fitness advantage in the environment. Therefore by definition the mutation that caused the allele must be beneficial. (Not neutral or negative) There is no question that evolutionists argue that the changes in teeth and toes are beneficial mutations. They never mention the ribs, because they don't fit a "beneficial" picture. They work best with a genetic drift model. A neutral mutation as you have declared can only become dominant through genetic drift which requires small populations. Natural selection requires large populations.

Sorry, but you only confirm my point at the end, and your insistence on only beneficial mutations is false: any mutation that does not prevent the breeding of the organism can get passed on to offspring. Neutral mutations - by definition - cannot be selected against for the same reasons they cannot be selected for: they are immune to selection. This lets them spread through the population and become factors for genetic drift. Sometimes the mutation is neutral when you have one copy, but not neutral when you have two copies ... something that can only occur after the mutation has spread through the population due to being neutral when you have a single copy.

Then there is the issue of dominant/recessive genes, where most mutations are recessive, thus neutral with a single copy, and the effect is only expressed when you have two copies. Sometimes recessive genes become dominant due to subsequent mutations.

The other factor that affects things is that when the ecology changes the cost/benefit of mutations for survival and breeding changes - what was once neutral may now be benficial or detrimental. And yes, the difference of small "founder" populations changes the equations from large established populations.

And I still don't see how the number of ribs can be anything but neutral, so the difference in numbers would indicate to me that we are dealing with small "founder" populations at the beginning of these species or genera.

This still leaves us with slight differences between Hyracotherium and Mesohippus ... a difference in rib numbers, a difference in toe bone proportions, a difference in tooth shape, a slight difference in size, a slight difference in the proportion of neck length and a slight change to the shape of the skulls.

I'm not sure what you are saying here. The dew claw is not visible in "some" dogs/wolve. The dew claw is unique feature of dogs/wolves and it is rare if dogs are missing this feature.

We do not "see" this as a remnant feature. This is again a biased interpretation of assumed fossil ancestors. The dew claw has many documented uses. It doesn't appear to be vestigial.

There is nothing here that we "see" that is observable and repeatable.

The dew claw is just like the remnant toe bones in equids. All that is involved is a difference in the proportions of bones. Some dogs do not have them at all, especially on the hind legs (change in number, hind legs different from front legs ...):

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

quote:
Dogs almost always have dewclaws on the inside of the front legs and occasionally on the hind legs. Unlike the front dewclaws, the rear dewclaws tend to have little bone or muscle structure in most breeds.

The fact that we do actually see this variation in different breeds today does mean that it is both observable and repeatable, your denial notwithstanding.

Again, I don't think you understand the mechanisms of ToE. Having a dog loose or gain a toe doesn't evolution make. Evolution is a population change. For dogs which have lost a toe to become dominant in the population they must have a fitness benefit from that alteration in their environment. We don't see that with wolves for instance. We don't see it with any vertebrate for that matter. The only thing scientists "see" is their imagination with the fossil record. That is why I put forth the so called irrelevant challenge to produce a beneficial mutation that causes morphological change that would show up in the fossil record. There haven't been any presented, and this is not a red herring. This is relevant to the discussion.

First the mutation has to be available in the population, then there needs to be the opportunity for it to have a net selective advantage for breeding or survival.

As we see some dog breeds have no hind dew claw while in others it is common. In the fossil record the different breeds would likely be classified as different species because of the morphological differences in size, proportions and shapes, in the presence or absence of tails. All these mutations are beneficial as the individuals with the mutations survived and bred offspring that continue the mutations within their populations.

Again, you are putting forth an argument that doesn't "show" macroevolution. Your use of the term "overall" in regards to the differences doesn't give weight to the macroevolutionary argument.

But I don't expect to "show" macroevolution between species, or even between genera. I expect to show that the differences between species, or even genera, as they progress in the time and space of the fossil\geological record, show microevolutionary changes of no greater extent than we see within the variations of dogs from wolves.

Sure overall difference in some statistical accounting method may show no more differences than in dog evolution. But that is not the point. My wife and I are the same species. Overall we are very similar genetically and skeletally. But if you concentrate on the differences, we are significanly different.

Sure if you only look at the differences then the differences will be significantly different. That's called a tautology. What it means, however, is ignoring the rest of the evidence for the similarity of the organisms, and the different ratio of differences to similarities between organisms of different species.

The toes and teeth are difference that evolutionist have argued as evidence for macroevolution. They ignore the ribs, because they have difficulty explaining the progression of evolution there. However, we don't see any of this type of population evolution in dogs, wolves, horses or any other vertebrate for that matter. The evidence is in the imagination caused by the acceptance of the theory. That's called circular reasoning.

Actually all toes and teeth (and ribs, and changes in shapes of skulls and changes in proportions of bones) do is allow paleontologists to classify fossils. Usually they are grouped by common morphology into species, and thus the differences from one group to another are used as evidence of speciation.

Of course, for many evolutionary biologists (you know, the people that study evolution and define what the terms mean in their science), speciation is macroevolution. Best if we not use this term due to confusion on what it really means. Thus the question of what is "significant change" and what is "significant enough" for creationists, rather than what is micro or macro evolution.

My question is how do you determine the sum differences? An once you have defined that, how does that make your argument?

There is an example in Message 1. It is a ratio, so it is independent of the number of features that you can measure for each group (dimensionless).

You could also make a metric for fossil comparisons that would start with a base skeleton, say a wolf skeleton, you could measure skull length, skull width, brain volume, jaw length, the length and diameter of each bone, etc - features that show up in fossils.

Then you make the same measurements of a fossil (say Hyracotherium), and for each feature measured you take the ratio of the smaller over the larger (so the ratio is always 0≤number≤1) and average the results to get a metric of similarity where 0 = different and 1 = identical. Now you can do the same for dogs.

δ(dog)wolf = ∑(dog){max1/min1 + max2/min2 + ... + maxN/minN}/N

δ(Hyracotherium)wolf = ∑(Hyracotherium){max1/min1 + max2/min2 + ... + maxN/minN}/N

The first thing you can do is compare this metric for dogs and Hyracotherium and see if there is more overall difference between dog and wolf than between Hyracotherium and wolf. What this would show is how similar the Hyracotherium is to dogs:

Is δ(dog)wolf >?< δ(Hyracotherium)wolf ?

You could also use Hyracotherium as the base to develop a similar metric for Mesohippus to measure the difference between them ...

δ(Mesohippus)Hyracotherium = ∑(Mesohippus){max1/min1 + max2/min2 + ... + maxN/minN}/N

... and then compare that number to the one for dogs compared to wolf. Is it more? Or is it less?

Is δ(dog)wolf >?< δ(Mesohippus)Hyracotherium

That is the question posed by this thread eh? What do you think the answer is?

Enjoy.

ps - Equus has two u's, no i.

Edited by RAZD, : that/than

Edited by RAZD, : .


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 257 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 07-28-2008 10:19 AM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19754
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 265 of 331 (541908)
01-06-2010 6:47 PM


Dogs will be Dogs wil be ??? - bump for Brad H.
Brad H. in Message 238 on Evolution would've given us infrared eyesight states:

FOSSIL RECORD- In order to rely on the fossil record as evidence for universal common decent, one would have to see at least one example of a finely graduated chain of fossils between any two major forms.

Brad, please note that Time for a little definition of what macroevolution is. (Message 1) of this thread states (in part):

quote:
A common creationist argument is that evolution does not show that a sufficient level of change can be demonstrated to have occurred in the fossil record, and that thousands of years of breeding of dogs has not produced something that is not a dog:
"The fossil record shows variations of all sorts of things but will time turn a dog kind into something that we would say is clearly not a dog?"
Beretta, Message 7

There are several issues involved in this question. One is just how much change is necessary to convince a creationist that large scale change has occurred. Another is whether macroevolution is defined by large scale change.


As you can see we need to lay some groundwork for a common understanding of what we are discussing, before we can begin to discuss the pros and cons of the issue.

Views of scientists and creationists are commonly quite different on these definitions, and so people end up talking past each other instead of debating the issue.

In order to rely on the fossil record as evidence for universal common decent, ...

We don't. For one, universal common descent is a different theory from the theory of evolution, per se, and is more like a corollary of the theory. Second, we see common descent in speciation events and in common reproduction within all species, and no other mechanism, and thus the question arises: how far back can common descent explain the fossil and genetic records?

... one would have to see at least one example of a finely graduated chain of fossils between any two major forms.

Once again, the problem with answering this is defining what is meant by a "finely graduated chain of fossils" other than begging the question with setting an impossible standard (one that cannot even be met for your personal human ancestors for only the last 3000 years or so?)

Again, from Message 1:

quote:
So what would you like this to become?

Would a horse be enough? Would you dispute that a horse is clearly not a dog?


There are many chains of fossils like this, from ancestral form to modern form, showing substantial change along the way, and the questions for you, are how much change do you need to see, and how much linkage from one to the next do you really need.

Remember that

  1. Evolution is the change in the frequency of hereditary traits in breeding populations, and that this is an observed fact in life around us today.

  2. Speciation results when these changes result in reproductive isolation in two (or more) daughter populations from one ancestral population, and that this process has also been observed, and this too is an observed fact in life around us today.

  3. The Theory of Evolution (ToE) is the theory that these are sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it, from the world around us, from history, pre-history, archaeology, paleontology, the fossil record and the genetic record.

The fossil record and the genetic record are tests of this theory.

The fossil record does not have to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that evolution was responsible, rather it just has to show that evolution is a possible explanation of the fossil record, and that there are no elements in the fossil record that contradict this possibility. Thus logic (and the scientific method) only requires that the all known evidence should be explained by the theory, for it to be considered valid.

Likewise, the genetic record does not have to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that evolution was responsible, rather it just has to show that evolution is a possible explanations of the genetic record, and that there are no elements in the fossil record that contradict this possibility. Thus logic (and the scientific method) only requires that the all known evidence should be explained by the theory, for it to be considered valid.

Further, these two entirely distinct records should agree if evolution is the explanation of the diversity of life.

These three conditions are met.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : ...


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) • • •

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19754
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 266 of 331 (653892)
02-25-2012 9:24 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
12-05-2007 8:00 PM


Bump for Chuck77 and Panda
See Message 1

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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 12-05-2007 8:00 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by Panda, posted 02-25-2012 1:58 PM RAZD has responded

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 1787 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 267 of 331 (653921)
02-25-2012 1:58 PM
Reply to: Message 266 by RAZD
02-25-2012 9:24 AM


Re: Bump for Chuck77 and Panda
I was hoping to start off with a less overwhelming presentation for Portillo...

If I were you
And I wish that I were you
All the things I'd do
To make myself turn blue

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by RAZD, posted 02-25-2012 9:24 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by RAZD, posted 02-25-2012 7:40 PM Panda has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19754
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 268 of 331 (653988)
02-25-2012 7:40 PM
Reply to: Message 267 by Panda
02-25-2012 1:58 PM


Re: Bump for Chuck77 and Panda
Okay, Panda, I was more after Chuck77 to pick up this thread ...

How about you take Portillo on the other thread and I'll take on Chuck77 here? ... a little semi one on one debate? I do think we both don't need to take on the same posts.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : 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 267 by Panda, posted 02-25-2012 1:58 PM Panda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 269 by Panda, posted 02-25-2012 8:28 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply
 Message 270 by Chuck77, posted 02-26-2012 1:35 AM RAZD has responded

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 1787 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


(1)
Message 269 of 331 (653992)
02-25-2012 8:28 PM
Reply to: Message 268 by RAZD
02-25-2012 7:40 PM


Re: Bump for Chuck77 and Panda
RAZD writes:

How about you take Portillo on the other thread and I'll take on Chuck77 here? ... a little semi one on one debate? I do think we both don't need to take on the same posts.


That is fine by me.
But, obviously, we'll have to see if Chuckles and Portillo agree.

If I were you
And I wish that I were you
All the things I'd do
To make myself turn blue

This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by RAZD, posted 02-25-2012 7:40 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 270 of 331 (654003)
02-26-2012 1:35 AM
Reply to: Message 268 by RAZD
02-25-2012 7:40 PM


Re: Bump for Chuck77 and Panda
Hi RAZD, Welcome back.

RAZD formally Zen Deist formally RAZD writes:

Okay, Panda, I was more after Chuck77 to pick up this thread ...
How about you take Portillo on the other thread and I'll take on Chuck77 here? ... a little semi one on one debate?

Sounds good. I'm not so sure about the science side of things concerning micro macro. I didn't even think advocates of evolution liked those terms and really it doesn't matter so much if we use them.

RAZD writes:

(1) If your definition of macroevolution is different from evolutionary biology what is it?

First of all I don't like the terms micro or macro. If I say I accept "micro" it seems like I am accepting evolution as a whole, which I don't. Tho for sake of argument "micro" to me is: observed genetic variation within a kind of animal.

"Macro" to me would be land mammal to sea mammal or vice versa. Much much more change. Hoping for a beneficial mutation will account for the many changes needed to make the (change)?(i'm not sure what exactly would be needed for such a change) Whereas micro would not need to depend on random mutations to evolve because it would already be included in the original DNA e.g. finch beaks.

(2) Why do you think it is a valid definition?

I can't say. Like I said I don't use the terms really. To me Macro is unseen change over thousands millions of years that cannot be observed. I concede micro cannot really be observed either (as none of us are witnessing Wolves slowly becoming Poodles - same kind) but atleast we see the same kinds of animals producing the same kinds of animals. So I think it's a stretch to assume they change out of that kind. Why should they? Why would they? Why can't that kind adapt to the evironment into another species of the same kind? What is the need for "macro" evolution. I accept evolution of the same kind of animal, just not the TOE's version of it e.g. transitional, intermediates, PE, etc.

I think extinction is a possible cause for the fossil record looking the way it does instead of some of them being transitionals (IMO). I think tho, that there are transitional fossils within the same kind that make up a part of the fossil record too. How couldn't there be if I accept "micro" evolution?

So could some of those "micro" intermediates be confused for "macro" intermediates?

(3) How much change is necessary?

A lot? I'm not sure. 50,000 - 100,000 morphological changes? How many ever are needed to adapt. It would seem much easier for a Fox to Cat than Horse to Whale?

Incidently as ignorant as it may sound that's what I think "macro" would be - horse to whale - for a lack of better example. Again it may be ignorant of me to define things the way I am but i'm just letting you know what my knowledge of these things are.

(4) Why isn't the difference between cat and fox a valid criteria?

Because their the same kind (feline). I wouldn't consider it "macro" but "micro".

RAZD writes:

We'll start with those - and see what turns up.

Cool.

Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by RAZD, posted 02-25-2012 7:40 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 272 by Huntard, posted 02-26-2012 3:34 AM Chuck77 has responded
 Message 285 by RAZD, posted 02-26-2012 9:02 AM Chuck77 has responded
 Message 289 by RAZD, posted 02-26-2012 4:02 PM Chuck77 has responded

  
RewPrev1
...
1617
18
1920
...
23Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019