Macroevolution: Its all around us...

quote:

---

When fish, or insects inter-breed it may form a new species but it's still a fish, it's still an insect, it's still the same kind of animal.

---

So are humans and chimpanzees both "primate kinds of animals?"By conatrast, are my housecats and a Siberian tiger the same "cat kind of animal?"Certainly, humans and chimpanzees are much closer genetically than domestic housecats and Siberian tigers, right?So, what system should I use to know if something is the same "kind" or not? What criterion should I use?This message has been edited by schrafinator, 05-02-2005 06:21 PM

quote:

---

Thought provoking never thought about that. I would say that if you were to show a picture of a tiger to a small child he wouldn't say it was from the feline family, he would probably tell you that it's a tiger. I would keep it simple and specify each kind by the first simple answer that pops into your head. If you see a trout the first thing that comes to mind is "fish" but if you see a great white you're going to think "shark".

---

Tell me, how does this translate into a classification system that is useful for science?Are we to ignore genertics when deciding relatedness?What about humans and chimpanzees? Are we both "primate kind?"

quote:

---

I was speaking metaphorically about commmon knowledge.

---

Great. So what does this have to do with Biology?

quote:

---

Metaphors can be useful if you figure it out. It saves a lot of complicated explanation that, other than the point, is usually not necesary.

---

Science does not proceed through the use of methaphor and simplistic explanations.Science deals in predictions, evidence, testing, and very, very detailed-oriented, meticulous work.

quote:

---

No. I never even remotely indicated that.

---

Yes, you most definitely did when you said in message 13 of this thread:

quote:

---

What you're talking about is micro-evolution, the only testable, observable, and proven aspect of evolution (also known as a variation). When fish, or insects inter-breed it may form a new species but it's still a fish, it's still an insect, it's still the same kind of animal. Science is observable and testable. Macro-evolution is not.

---

If you are denying the reality of macro evolution, and you declare that Humans and chimps are separate "kinds" and I am guessing you also claim they are not closely related, then you are most definitely suggesting that using chimps and other primates in medical research is useless.If humans and chimps aren't the same "kind", then the research should be useless. At least, using primates shouldn't be regarded as being the next closest thing to testing humans.Right?

quote:

---

Actually I was agreeing that humans and animals, some animals more than others, have similarities but they are not the same species,

---

Well, no, of course we aren't the same species, but remember, you are the one who said that there was no such thing as macroevolution.If there's no such thing as macroevolution, then you need to reject the entire field of genetics, because it certainly does point to macroevolution having happened.Anyway, maybe you should provide a definition of the following; "kind", "macroevolution", and "microevolution".For good measure, why not throw in a definition of "descent with modification", too.

quote:

---

and until a reptile gives birth to a bird,

---

...which the ToE never, ever predicts.

quote:

---

or a hyrax gives birth to a suvivng mutation that looks like a horse

---

...which the ToE never, ever predicts.Where on earth did you ever get the idea that this is how evolution works? You have some rather major misconceptions that a little information should rectify.Please, read this basic overview of how evolution actually works.BTW, I suspect that you are thinking of hyracotherium, the oldest known ancestor of the horse. The hyrax is not closely related to the horse lineage, but to elephants.

quote:

---

I will not believe evolution.

---

You clearly have a very distorted idea of what evolution actually is.Perhaps, before you handwave away the underpinning Theory of most of modern life science, including Biology, Paleontology, Genetics (including Population Genetics), and much of the science that modern medicine, Agriculture and Animal Husbandry is based upon, perhaps you might consider making an effort to understand what it is you are rejecting.You know, just to be safe.

quote:

---

Furthermore I will believe the oldest document until it is proven wrong. That document is the Bible.

---

The oldest document is not the Bible. link

quote:

---

It is the only document that says the earth is round way before Colombus figured it out.

---

1) Columbus didn't "figure out" that the Earth was a sphere. This was known by the Greeks through Pythagoras, Aristotle, and Ptolemy.Unfortunately, once the anti-intellectual, Church-led Dark Ages settled into Europe, the strides in science and learning the Greeks had made were discarded in favor of superstition. (This thankfully did not happen in the Arab world, which is where Europe rediscovered the Greek texts during the Age of Enlightenment which followed the Dark Ages. Sadly, it seems that much of the Arab world is now repeating the same mistakes of anti-intellectualism and religious extremism that the Europeans made 1000 years ago.)2) The Bible clearly says that the Earth is round, yes, but like a disc, with a dome-shaped firmament over it into which the stars are permenantly "set". Indeed, this Biblical view is exactly why it was thought that one would be in danger of sailing "off the edge of the Earth" if one ventured too far out to sea.Finally, I notice that you didn't answer one of my questions, so perhaps you missed it.Do you accept that DNA paternity tests are reliable and accurate?Why or why not?

quote:

---

Though we have similarities we're not the same. Yes we are more closely related to monkeys than algae. But we are still man kind and monkeys are still monkey kind.

---

OK, here is my problem with the above.You say that my housecats and a Siberian tiger are both "feline kind", correct?You also say that humans and chimpanzees are NOT the same "kind" but "human kind" and "monkey kind".The problem is that even though my housecats and a Siberian tiger have much more dissimilar genetic codes compared to humans and chimpanzees, you lump the first two together in the same "kind" and separate the second two into seperate "kinds".This doesn't seem to make much sense as a classification system, because it isn't consistent.This is why I asked if we were to discard genetic similarities when deciding what animals belong in what "kind" group.If it is simply arbitrary, then it is useless.(BTW, scientists consider both humans and chimps "apes", not monkeys. Monkeys have tails and apes do not, among other major differences such as intelligence, social structure, use of tools, and the presence of a culture)

quote:

---

Have you ever seen a Homo erectus besides in the text books and in magazines and plaster exhibits in Smithsonian?

---

Have you ever seen an electron except in the txtbooks and in magazines and exhibits in museums?

quote:

---

How do you know they ever existed.

---

How do you know electrons exist?

quote:

---

No one ever even found a comlete skeleton.

---

No one has ever seen an electron.OTOH, here is a nearly complete skeleton of Homo erectus.

quote:

---

As for Australopithicines they could possibly still be alive in Africa.

---

And how would this be a problem for the Theory of Evolution, exactly?

quote:

---

I've never seen them but I do study Cryptozoology and it is a possibility. That is if they ever existed at all.

---

You know, I am going to direct you to a pretty extensive compilation of the scientific evidence for fossil hominids and human evolution.You just need way more info than I am able to tell you here.This message has been edited by schrafinator, 05-04-2005 11:07 PM

quote:

---

Some theories state that evolution happened quickly like in the case of reptiles and birds. Such on and such on

---

"Quickly" in evolutionary terms involve many, many tens, even hundreds of thousands of years, intead of many millions of years.Nowhere, ever, does the ToE posit that an individual of one species will give birth to a completely different species with many very dissimilar behavioral and physical differences, which is exactly what you said it did posit.

quote:

---

I haven't gotten to all your questions yet. If you haven't noticed I already have about a zillion questions to go through from the second page.

---

I certainly have noticed. There is no requirement that you anwer every single person, particularly when we are all asking very similar questions.There is also no rush. Just indicate when it is that you expect to be able to reply.

quote:

---

I don't have 6 hrs to spare going through all these questions you probably already know the answer to.

---

I know how I would answer the questions, but given what you have told me so far, I'd like to know how you would answer the questions.After all, this is a discussion forum.

Ah, my mistake.So, what "kind" are my housecats and what "kind" are Siberian tigers, and why do you put them in the "kind" category that you do?

quote:

---

Schrafinator, I honestly hope you get to teach political science.
I couldn't have said it better.

---

My goodness, thank you very much!

quote:

---

the Bible was still around back in the time of the philosophers or whatever you prefer to call them.

---

True, but the Bible definitely does NOT say that the Earth was a sphere.It says it is a disc.Hebrew has different words for "disc" and "sphere" and the word for "disc" is the one that is used to describe the earth.

quote:

---

There are too many questions flying around. Let me make my point clear
Macroevolution-Evolutionary change involving large and complex steps resulting in a different KIND of animal

---

What's a "kind"? Please give a precise definition, including the system I use to determine what "kind" to put a given animal or plant into?How do I tell one "kind" apart from another?

quote:

---

Microevolution- a change within a single species resulting a different species or subspecies.

---

Well, then, we have directly observed, both in the lab and in the field, new species branching off from the parent species. Here's one of my favorite examples:

quote:

---

kind- if it looks like a housecat it's a house cat. If it looks like a tiger it's a tiger if it looks like an ape its an ape if it looks specifically like a human it's a human

---

So, is this a housecat?

quote:

---

What I'm saying is that you are talking about micro evolution not macro.

---

Why is it that you use "kind" instead of "species" when describing "macro" versus "micro" evolution, respectively?What is the difference between "kind" and "species"?

quote:

---

It looks like an ocelot 'kind' of cat to me.
I would like to see eclipse try and keep one as a house cat,
just because it sure 'looks like' one.

---

Nope, not an ocelot.

Maybe it is an ocicat to eclipse.We'll see what he says it is if he ever returns.

quote:

---

Is your cat then a 'fishing cat', Prionailurus viverrinus ?

---

Ding ding ding!Give the little lady a prize!!

quote:

---

Great. Only I'm not female.
But that's OK.

---

I was pretty sure you were male, but that's how the saying goes.I couldn't say, "Give the medium-sized male scientist a prize!".That just would have been as cool.

quote:

---

For some reason I assumed you were male.

---

Yeah, that happens a lot around here.Is it because I don't use lots of smileys?

quote:

---

...until I read some comments about your posts.

---

You can check out a picture of me here if you like.

What?!Who told people I have a Harley?

I'm a "dish"?Cool.First time being called that.Oh, and the person appearing to torment the cat is my husband, aka Zhimbo.We titled that picture "cat yoga"