Peak Oil
Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Evolution

What's on your mind?
General interest discussions, not necessarily related to depletion.
Post a reply

Re: a story about God

Unread postby Eotyrant » Tue 07 Feb 2006, 20:27:35

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PenultimateManStanding', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Eotyrant', '
')So where do the humans start and the 'gorillas' end, then, hmmm?
The species-rings that we see in places like California's central valley's salamanders provides the model in space which is similar in temporis, i.e. if you go back in time far enough you have de facto a different species from which we have descended. We couldn't interbreed with them even if we had a time machine to go back and try. Enough of these connections link us to the gorillas, after we had already come to a chimp line, etc. That's the picture.


Exactly; the line of hominid skulls shows our decendance from earlier hominids and, ultimately, a concestor with chimps and gorillas.
"Progress is a comfortable disease"
- E.E. Cummings
User avatar
Eotyrant
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 33
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 04:00:00
Location: UK
Top

Re: a story about God

Unread postby Armageddon » Tue 07 Feb 2006, 20:54:41

so where do dinasaurs fit into the evolutionary chain ?
User avatar
Armageddon
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 7450
Joined: Wed 13 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: St.Louis, Mo
Top

Re: a story about God

Unread postby PenultimateManStanding » Tue 07 Feb 2006, 21:10:00

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('armegeddon', 's')o where do dinasaurs fit into the evolutionary chain ?
It's less like a chain and more like concentric circles in circles, the more distant the relative, the bigger the circle that links us.
User avatar
PenultimateManStanding
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11363
Joined: Sun 28 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
Location: Neither Here Nor There
Top

Re: a story about God

Unread postby Eotyrant » Tue 07 Feb 2006, 21:11:38

Archosauria. The group that contains crocodiles, dinosaurs, birds, and pterosaurs.

As per:

Archosauria phylogenetic tree

Edit: We only use chains out of convienience for their simplicity, but penultimatemanstanding is quite right; the actual process is more 'circular' as it were.
"Progress is a comfortable disease"
- E.E. Cummings
User avatar
Eotyrant
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 33
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 04:00:00
Location: UK
Top

Re: a story about God

Unread postby smallpoxgirl » Tue 07 Feb 2006, 21:26:04

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pip', 'T')he arguments of the heathens have not been very convincing. Come on guys. I want to see an amoeba become a fish or something.


Well...I can only suggest that you change religions. In your religion, the only one who gets to live that long is God, and last I heard that job was filled.

This is the ultimate in obstructionistic tactics. "If you can't explain every minute of the last 3 trillion years along with substantiating evidence, then you must be wrong." What is called for is a simple application of Ockam's razor. You are surrounded by millions of organisms which bear amazing similarity to eachother. Really there are only two possibilities. Either they are all somehow distantly related, and that's why they all look alike, or else they were designed by a God who was hellaciously monotanous. Think about it

All vertebrates(i.e. almost every creature on earth bigger than a sycada) have essentially the same physical structures:
A spine
Four limbs (Except snakes, and some of them have remnant hind legs, and fish which all have pretty much the same array of fins)
A Head with a brain and mouth parts
Two eyes.
Two ears.

I mean come on. Seriously. Anyone on this list could have sat down with a pen and in one afternoon come up with a more creative set of animals. So either you have this incredible drab and mundane God creating everything like a bunch of modeling clay sculptures, or you have this incredible experiment of life that just burst forth of it's own accord.

I am not an atheist. I believe in a creator. I just don't believe in some creator so drab and boring that he would sit down and design all these animals and make them all so similar and give them no ability to change and grow. Doesn't make any sense to me. I'm certainly no deity, and even I'm more creative than that. Makes much more sense that if you were a deity, it would be a lot more fun to just sort of toss out the building blocks and watch it all come together and see all the different things that evolved. Also gives a lot more sense to the paterns of different creatures that are around. Otherwise, what....God just got stuck on a feathers theme that day and then fur on a different day? Come on. That's just dumb.
User avatar
smallpoxgirl
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7258
Joined: Mon 08 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
Top

Re: a story about God

Unread postby anthem » Wed 08 Feb 2006, 01:20:23

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')ell...I can only suggest that you change religions. In your religion, the only one who gets to live that long is God, and last I heard that job was filled.


I don't think he was asking for an actual immediate "evolution", just some actual evidence that this sort of thing can happen.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')his is the ultimate in obstructionistic tactics. "If you can't explain every minute of the last 3 trillion years along with substantiating evidence, then you must be wrong."


Again, no one, as I read it above, is asking for anything like that. Those who question the faith others have in evolution merely would like to see some evidence, rather than speculation.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')hat is called for is a simple application of Ockam's razor.


Let's do that then :-)

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')You are surrounded by millions of organisms which bear amazing similarity to each other. Really there are only two possibilities. Either they are all somehow distantly related, and that's why they all look alike, or else they were designed by a God who was hellaciously monotanous.


Actually, there is another possibility, that fits Occam's Razor even better, but let's read on..

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')Think about it

All vertebrates(i.e. almost every creature on earth bigger than a sycada) have essentially the same physical structures:
A spine
Four limbs (Except snakes, and some of them have remnant hind legs, and fish which all have pretty much the same array of fins)
A Head with a brain and mouth parts
Two eyes.
Two ears.


Very true. It seems to be a pattern that works well. That's odd though isn't it? We don't see things that work being copied very often, do we?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') mean come on. Seriously. Anyone on this list could have sat down with a pen and in one afternoon come up with a more creative set of animals. So either you have this incredible drab and mundane God creating everything like a bunch of modeling clay sculptures, or you have this incredible experiment of life that just burst forth of it's own accord.

I don't mean any offense, but this is just arrogance. You are seriously lacking in any understanding of engineering, smallpoxgirl. Surely, anyone can draw a dog with five legs or a chimpanzee with eyeballs in his butt crack, but is that so-called "creativity" going to make an organism that will survive on the planet where we live? I'm sorry you are disappointed with the diversity in nature smallpoxgirl, but most scientists would find it intriguing and exciting! I know I do. Perhaps the organisms that exist and have the characteristics they have did not evolve from one another but rather exactly the sort of creatures that they must be to survive in the environment in which they live. The question here is how these organisms arose. Just because things look similar does not make them "related" or derived from one another. For example, today kitchen tables and beds look very similar on the surface (four legs, usually squarish, flat top, similar construction materials, similar construction methods, etc.) A child, like my little boy who's less than two, might even perceive them as the same article because he doesn't know any better. But there is no evidence the bed was conceived after someone saw a table, that is, the table did not evolve into the bed. This is certainly a problem in the so-called science of comparative anatomy. Similar structures do not make one thing related to another. Sorry about that. It's a central tenet of evolutionism, but it's not logical and not supportable by genetics or any other scientific evidence. Many similar appearing structures in organisms are generated by very different genes and biochemical mechanisms.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') am not an atheist. I believe in a creator. I just don't believe in some creator so drab and boring that he would sit down and design all these animals and make them all so similar and give them no ability to change and grow. Doesn't make any sense to me. I'm certainly no deity, and even I'm more creative than that. Makes much more sense that if you were a deity, it would be a lot more fun to just sort of toss out the building blocks and watch it all come together and see all the different things that evolved. Also gives a lot more sense to the paterns of different creatures that are around. Otherwise, what....God just got stuck on a feathers theme that day and then fur on a different day? Come on. That's just dumb.

As I implied above, earlier today, I hoped this discusion would stay on the track as a debate about the merits of evolution rather than turn into an argument about whether God is a creator of some sort. That's an interesting topic too, but it always pulls debates about evolution into science versus spirituality and there is no way either side can make progress in a debate like that.

I would also like to say, that, as I predicted, attacks on "creationists" have begun, with the creationists lumped together with anyone questioning the science behind evolution and all of them labeled as idiots. Creationism, while not true science, really does not have to enter into a debate about the merits of evolution. One can criticise a scientific theory on its merits without having an alternate theory to offer. It's as if I said I find holes in statistical mechanics or general relativity. That doesn't mean I'm advocating magic instead.
Whoso would be a man must be a non-conformist.
User avatar
anthem
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 97
Joined: Sat 02 Apr 2005, 04:00:00
Location: midwest US
Top

Re: a story about God

Unread postby Eotyrant » Wed 08 Feb 2006, 07:02:30

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('anthem', '
')
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')gain, no one, as I read it above, is asking for anything like that. Those who question the faith others have in evolution merely would like to see some evidence, rather than speculation.


Well, all I've been posting has been evidence. Try this: it's officially ace

Macroevolution

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') don't mean any offense, but this is just arrogance. You are seriously lacking in any understanding of engineering, smallpoxgirl. Surely, anyone can draw a dog with five legs or a chimpanzee with eyeballs in his butt crack, but is that so-called "creativity" going to make an organism that will survive on the planet where we live? I'm sorry you are disappointed with the diversity in nature smallpoxgirl, but most scientists would find it intriguing and exciting! I know I do. Perhaps the organisms that exist and have the characteristics they have did not evolve from one another but rather exactly the sort of creatures that they must be to survive in the environment in which they live.


That would indeed be a supportable idea, were it not for sub-optimal design, vestigial organs and the other evidence cited.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he question here is how these organisms arose. Just because things look similar does not make them "related" or derived from one another. For example, today kitchen tables and beds look very similar on the surface (four legs, usually squarish, flat top, similar construction materials, similar construction methods, etc.) A child, like my little boy who's less than two, might even perceive them as the same article because he doesn't know any better. But there is no evidence the bed was conceived after someone saw a table, that is, the table did not evolve into the bed. This is certainly a problem in the so-called science of comparative anatomy. Similar structures do not make one thing related to another. Sorry about that. It's a central tenet of evolutionism, but it's not logical and not supportable by genetics or any other scientific evidence. Many similar appearing structures in organisms are generated by very different genes and biochemical mechanisms.


I'm not at my home pc, but I have a great link there to show that's not how homology works - scientists don't merely decide 'that looks similar'; there's a hell of a lot more to it than that. Besides, other sources of infomation - biogeographical, genetic, molecular, etc - all support the assertation derived from homology. Indeed, it's for the other reasons that we don't lump say, matis shrimps with mantids (that and the different internal structure of phyla, admittedly).


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')s I implied above, earlier today, I hoped this discusion would stay on the track as a debate about the merits of evolution rather than turn into an argument about whether God is a creator of some sort. That's an interesting topic too, but it always pulls debates about evolution into science versus spirituality and there is no way either side can make progress in a debate like that.


Agreed.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') would also like to say, that, as I predicted, attacks on "creationists" have begun, with the creationists lumped together with anyone questioning the science behind evolution and all of them labeled as idiots. Creationism, while not true science, really does not have to enter into a debate about the merits of evolution. One can criticise a scientific theory on its merits without having an alternate theory to offer. It's as if I said I find holes in statistical mechanics or general relativity. That doesn't mean I'm advocating magic instead.

Well, first it's a pity that attacks on creationists do occur, but a.) it's not like they don't ad-hom evolutionary biologists etc b.) when you've debated this for a while, seeing the same PRATTS ('problems refuted a thousans times') is quite tiring, as are cocky statements form those who have absolutely no grasp of what evolution is c.) certain dirty tactics of creationists (such as quote mining) don't help themselves.

There are plenty of current debates and issues with current evolutionary theory, but none of the anomalies (in the Kuhnian sense) that creationists claim. For example, seletion is often considered in terms of single genes, not in terms of the genes that make up a functional part; this is often a flawed approach.

Creationists often make a false dichotomy - that evidence against evolution is evidence for creation, which is plain silly. What must be realised is that the 'controversy' is one manufactured by the Discovery Institute. Less that 0.1 % of scientists actually doubt evolution (see the NCSE website for the figures); this doesn't come about by chance, and to suggest orthodoxy requires greater evidence.
"Progress is a comfortable disease"
- E.E. Cummings
User avatar
Eotyrant
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 33
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 04:00:00
Location: UK
Top

Re: a story about God

Unread postby Doly » Wed 08 Feb 2006, 08:34:28

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('anthem', '
')The obstacle is not time but rather the new DNA that is required for a new species. From where is the new DNA going to come?


It comes mostly from duplications of existing DNA. It's fairly common that a gene gets accidentally duplicated. In principle, this makes no particular difference for the organism carrying it. But it means that it has an extra gene that can mutate without losing the original one. For example, there are several proteins in the human body similar to hemoglobin.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('anthem', '
')Species do not differ by only one gene.


No, but one gene can begin speciation.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('anthem', '
')While some species can interbreed because their DNA is sufficiently similar, they remain separate species.


Actually, you are showing here you don't know the definition of species. Two different species can't interbreed, by definition of what a species is. Unless you accept sterile children as interbreeding.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('anthem', '
')Trading malaria for respiratory difficulties does not seem to be much of a benefit. Sickle cell anemia does not confer complete immunity from malaria anyway.


If everybody that got a sickle cell gene suffered from the problems of sickle cells, you would be correct. But people with a single sickle cell gene breathe normally and are additionally protected from malaria.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('anthem', '
')Modern DNA analysis makes it easy to see the differences between species. There are no intermediate species except in the fantasies of evolution devotees.

There are intermediate species in reality, and they aren't a fantasy at all. In Great Britain, two different species of seagulls are found. They are considered different species because they look quite different and they don't interbreed. However, if you go round the Northern parts of the globe, you will see that one of this species of gulls, as you go further and further to the East, starts looking more and more like the other, until you come full circle and realise that both species are in fact the two extremes of a continuous. There are other examples. Look for "ring species" in Wikipedia.
User avatar
Doly
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 4370
Joined: Fri 03 Dec 2004, 04:00:00
Top

Re: a story about God

Unread postby pip » Wed 08 Feb 2006, 10:37:57

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Eotyrant', '
')
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')hen there's spontaneous generation.


Ooh, a new creationist term, what does this mean?



That's a good one.
Was Pasteur a creationist?
The road goes on forever and the party never ends - REK
User avatar
pip
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 480
Joined: Wed 21 Apr 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Republic of Texas
Top

Re: a story about God

Unread postby entropyfails » Wed 08 Feb 2006, 11:17:37

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Doly', ' ')There are other examples. Look for "ring species" in Wikipedia.
If only this guy would look at evidence! But he has already made up his mind.

I'm reminded of an old line from the musical "Chess"...$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')There's not point wasting time preaching to the perverted.
Many humans, especially ones with religious tendencies, find it difficult to deal with geological timescales. They want everything to fit within their preconceived, “civilized” timescale. For them, it becomes much easier to ignore evidence.

I think the best way to combat the meme that “random changes don’t converge on novel solutions” would be to teach everyone in high school how to program Genetic Algorithms. A few programming projects would easily erase any doubt that random mutations of genes can find very good solutions to seemingly impossible design problems. The real world experience they would get from this course would allow them to much better understand what Biologists mean by “non random survival of randomly changing genes.” Experience always teaches best.

If anyone here (besides Mr Crazypants, please leave this site memetic troll!) has any internal doubts they would like to have quashed while having a ton of fun learning useful and real science (different from actual evolution while proving the information theoretical basis of it) you can check out http://www.genetic-programming.org/

The scary part comes from these Mr Crazypants types trying to pass off their bemused mental fumblings as actual science to children. If Peak Oil gives way to the Long Emergency, these people will happily lead their followers into a new Dark Age. To think we have come this far only to get derailed by useless meme structures saddens me greatly.
EntropyFails
"Little prigs and three-quarter madmen may have the conceit that the laws of nature are constantly broken for their sakes." -- Friedrich Nietzsche
User avatar
entropyfails
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 565
Joined: Wed 30 Jun 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Re: a story about God

Unread postby MonteQuest » Wed 08 Feb 2006, 12:50:32

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('anthem', ' ')there has been no demonstration of evolution.


"Cast not your pearls before the swine."
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO
Top

Re: a story about God

Unread postby Eotyrant » Wed 08 Feb 2006, 13:40:18

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pip', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Eotyrant', '
')
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')hen there's spontaneous generation.


Ooh, a new creationist term, what does this mean?



That's a good one.
Was Pasteur a creationist?


Ah... you meant that spontaneous generation. You do know that Pasteur was referring not to abiogenesis, but rather to rotting meat giving rise to the detritivoures that feed upon it? And also, that abiogenesis actually is not evolution; they are two seperate theories?
"Progress is a comfortable disease"
- E.E. Cummings
User avatar
Eotyrant
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 33
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 04:00:00
Location: UK
Top

Re: a story about God

Unread postby smallpoxgirl » Wed 08 Feb 2006, 13:53:36

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('anthem', 'I') don't mean any offense, but this is just arrogance. You are seriously lacking in any understanding of engineering, smallpoxgirl. Surely, anyone can draw a dog with five legs or a chimpanzee with eyeballs in his butt crack


Certainly their are engineering constraints on how animals are built, but the similarity of animals goes way beyond engineering constraints. Why is the heart always on the left and the liver on the right? Why always two kidneys? Why not one? or three? Peripheral vision is good. Binocular vision is also good. Every living vertebrate has to compromise between the two because they are constrained to two eyes.

If anyone with any creativity was building animals, there would be a lot more platypuses and a lot less "normal" animals. In fact engineers have sat down and played with all the different types of animals that could exist on a different planet. There was a show about it on Discovery a couple of years ago.

And then there's all the things that are there that don't do anything. The vestigial legs of boa constrictors. The tail bone and the appendix of the human. And if you aren't related to any of the other creatures, care to explain why you went through a three week period as an embryo when you had gills? Dog's have a Y shaped uterus. Usually the human uterus is shaped like a pear, but sometimes it tries to revert to the dog shape. Look at the underside of a dog. Take note of where the nipples are. Now take note that pretty much anywhere along that same line, humans occasionaly develop extra nipples.

There is no other logical explanation for so many coincidences. I understand that this is a little upsetting for you. Probably not so different from when you found out Santa was a fake. (You did know Santa was a fake?) Seriously dude. Wake up and smell the coffee.
User avatar
smallpoxgirl
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7258
Joined: Mon 08 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
Top

Re: a story about God

Unread postby smallpoxgirl » Wed 08 Feb 2006, 16:00:01

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Doly', 'A')ctually, you are showing here you don't know the definition of species. Two different species can't interbreed, by definition of what a species is. Unless you accept sterile children as interbreeding.


Maybe somebody can clue me in on this one. I'd always heard that definition of species also, but I was reading recently that all of the major dog species are able to interbreed. Timbershepards are pretty well know (canis lupus + canis familiaris). There is also something called a Coydog (coyote + domestic dog.) I know Timbershepards are fertile and I think Coydogs are as well.
User avatar
smallpoxgirl
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7258
Joined: Mon 08 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
Top

Re: a story about God

Unread postby ChicknLittle » Wed 08 Feb 2006, 18:04:24

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('smallpoxgirl', ' ')I'd always heard that definition of species also, but I was reading recently that all of the major dog species are able to interbreed. Timbershepards are pretty well know (canis lupus + canis familiaris). There is also something called a Coydog (coyote + domestic dog.) I know Timbershepards are fertile and I think Coydogs are as well.


"Quietly, without fanfare in September 1993, wolves and dogs were recognized as the same species. Per the American Society of Mammalogists' Mammal Species of the World, adhering to the Code of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature." so they were combined to better fit the definition of species...

As in the flat earth/ round earth debate scientists are doing all the work and moving mountains while fundamentalists just sit back and claim to be unconvinced. Science has provided mendedlian genetics followed up by demonstration of the molecular basis (DNA) for combination and heritability of traits. Changes in genetic code (by error, translocation) and expression switches (supressor genes) have been demonstrated. The occurance of small changes is visable everywhere (in resistance developing in microbiology, in the spontaneous occurance of hemoglobinopathies and metabolic disorders). In short scientists have demonstrated, spelled out and (are) mapping the very genetic material that makes up human, and shown it to be unstable. They have also demonstrated the process by which random changes and variation in a population can change the average code carried in a population... that force or process driving genetic drift is survival advantage. The above make up the toolbox needed for microevolution. Evidence is everywhere, from weeds and bacteria developing resistance to toxins/antibiotics (the surviving organisms have a different genetic makeup than the preceeding population) to farming/horticulture, where people so inclined create animals/plants/flowers with new charachteristics over a period of a few years through selective breeding. The world is holding it's breath hoping that Avian Influenza code doesnt change to make it more infectious to humans... by change they mean EVOLUTION into a pathogen with new capability and new genetic material.

The step from microevolution to macro-evolution (new features and new species) is slower, especially in larger animals, because it requires the change of more than a few genes... But as the process has been going on over a timeframe in which contenents have drifted across the planet, mountains have formed and erroded, magnetic poles have shifted ect. huge genetic change would be expected with anything other than perfect genetic replication.

The planet's surface is filled with fossils showing evidence of this process. Through careful excavation the precursors of todays animals can be traced back down through the rock (backwards in time) from familiar to less familiar to strange common forms. Whales can be traced back to a precursor land animal. Birds can be traced back to a common feathered reptilian animal. The branches of ancestory suggested by the fossil record is confirmed in DNA, where increasing time since evolutionary divergance is reflected in increasing DNA disparity. (Tellingly, the difference between Human and Chimpanzee DNA base pairs is only about 2%). The drift of continents predicts isolation and separate development of unique populations on each continent and that is exactly what is seen (australia is an excellent example, with marsupials thriving in an area where ancesteral mammals did not take hold. (the fundamentalist/non evolutionary explaination for this unique concentration of marsupials could only be that Noah chose to drop marsupials off in australia, and other mammals off on other contenents).

Anyway, science has done plenty of work while fundamentalists continue to say the evidence is not enough. As before, the pope only recently admitted the earth orbited the sun (many years after we visited the moon)... So it will probably be a while until a similar statement is issued regarding evolution.
User avatar
ChicknLittle
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 96
Joined: Sun 22 Jan 2006, 04:00:00
Top

Re: a story about God

Unread postby smallpoxgirl » Wed 08 Feb 2006, 20:25:49

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ChicknLittle', '"')Quietly, without fanfare in September 1993, wolves and dogs were recognized as the same species.


OK. But what about coydogs?

http://www.greenapple.com/~jorp/amzanim/cross04a.htm
User avatar
smallpoxgirl
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7258
Joined: Mon 08 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
Top

Re: a story about God

Unread postby ChicknLittle » Wed 08 Feb 2006, 22:35:55

http://www.sciencenetlinks.com/sci_update.cfm?DocID=222
http://www.apetsblog.com/pets-journal/c ... hybrid.htm
http://members.aol.com/darwinpage/mayrspecies.htm

From the above links (especially the third) it seems that species would be (and is) better defined as a population of animals that will not breed together to the extent that they lose their distinctive traits, even when in close contact, due to barriers to frequent or highly fertile breeding... Size, aggressiveness, social structure/heirarchy, timing of "heat," anatomy and geography may make breeding less likely, while genetic differences ("nonsense sequences") make breedings that do occur less fertile. Coyote, wolves and domestic dogs can interbreed, but the rarity, decreased fertility and the fact that populations do not blend have allowed some to insist they are in fact separate species.

So, in the real world the definition of species is made fuzzy by the possibility of (infrequent) hybrids between unique but closely related populations. Coydogs are fertile hybrids, but their existance does not prevent taxonomists from arguing that dogs and coyote are unique species.
User avatar
ChicknLittle
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 96
Joined: Sun 22 Jan 2006, 04:00:00
Top

Vestigial organs

Unread postby anthem » Thu 09 Feb 2006, 00:10:59

I don't have time to comment on all the posts since my last, so I'll just focus on a couple of points from this one, since it's a favorite argument of evolution faithful. The tailbone (coccyx) is not vestigial and does have a function in that it is an attachment point for a series of muscles and other structures in the pelvic region. It would not be pleasant to try to be seated without one. The appendix is part of the lymphatic system. Of course that doesn't mean we cannot live without it, but it certainly does not make it vestigial either. Here's a reference:

Carl Woese, "The Universel Ancestor," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 95, (1998) p. 6854.

The human embryo does not have gills. The structures in the embryo to which smallpoxgirl refers are the early stages of development for the middle ear and a couple of glands including the parathyroid and thymus. That whole series of sketches of supposed human embryo development from Haeckel that we formerly saw in biology textbooks, have been dismissed as pure scientific fraud. Here's a reference:

Elizabeth Pennisi, "Haeckel's Embryos: Fraud Rediscovered," Science, 5 September, 1997.

The so-called vestigial legs of a boa constrictor are now known to be part of the mating process for the animal. There's video of it out there, and I think there is some video from the Discovery Channel, for those who are partial to that.

The bottom line is that there are numerous structures organisms can live without, but that does not make them vestigial. Vestigial structures only exist because evolution requires them as evidence. Any true scientist not knowing about the myth of evolution would try to discover their use and function rather than labeling them "vestigial" and then trying to downplay their usefulness.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')here is no other logical explanation for so many coincidences. I understand that this is a little upsetting for you. Probably not so different from when you found out Santa was a fake. (You did know Santa was a fake?) Seriously dude. Wake up and smell the coffee.


Thanks for your concern but I never believed in Santa either; I got into trouble in first grade for telling all my classmates that Santa didn't exist. I do love coffee though, but I make it in the morning, so I never get to smell it as I awaken. I would also like to acknowledge all the "open-minded" types here who felt the need to make ad hominem attacks. It redoubles my faith in my own predictive abilities.
Whoso would be a man must be a non-conformist.
User avatar
anthem
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 97
Joined: Sat 02 Apr 2005, 04:00:00
Location: midwest US
Top

Re: a story about God

Unread postby anthem » Thu 09 Feb 2006, 00:11:56

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '"')Cast not your pearls before the swine."


I'm taking this as a compliment in that you must mean I have the pearls (of wisdom) and the evolutionists are the swine. :-D
Whoso would be a man must be a non-conformist.
User avatar
anthem
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 97
Joined: Sat 02 Apr 2005, 04:00:00
Location: midwest US
Top

Re: a story about God

Unread postby ChicknLittle » Thu 09 Feb 2006, 01:36:55

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('anthem', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '"')Cast not your pearls before the swine."


I'm taking this as a compliment in that you must mean I have the pearls (of wisdom) and the evolutionists are the swine. :-D


I doubt it... Monte has some biology/science background : ) On the other hand he was kind of vague in his quote. Hard to tell. Anyhoo, it is obvious that this discussion could go on endlessly with creationists pointing out possible alternative interpretations to data... data which they dont bother to collect (scientists do that) because they already know the answer. These are the same talking points that are discounted by scientists yet propagated on christian websites with confident/misleading dismissals of evidence and disregard for scientific consensus. The fine details of evolution are being filled in slowly and deliberately, and the picture those details paint is of slow change of animals over millions of years culminating in todays organisms.

response...
Whales have rudimentary hip bones and legs... strange for a sea animal if it didnt have land ancestors http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/whales/ Genetic studies show that their DNA is most similar to hippos http://www.science.psu.edu/journal/Spr2 ... o-Sp01.htm supporting that it has relatives with hind legs and hip bones. An amphibian precursor 47 million years ago has anotomic features linking the hippo/porcine and whale anatomy http://www.accessexcellence.org/WN/SU/whale.html . Scientific conclusion: we're on track, keep looking for more fossiles to fill in the details of whale evolution. Fundamentalist conclusion: god gave whales legs for a reason so look for that reason.

Regarding embryology the notion that human embryo's "pass through" evolutionary stages has been discounted... Still, vertebrate animals begin with cells dividing in similar way, recreating similar structures (neural tube, spinal cord, limbs) in a similar sequence. At early stages human, chicken and pig embryos are difficult to distinguish as all have indistinct eyes, head, and limbs. In this stage branchial folds form, of a fixed number. In fish these develop gills. In other animals the tissues migrate in traceable ways... The fact that functioning gills dont form in humans doesn't discount the interesting fact that tissue breakdown/failure to close in these shared embryonic features result in branchial tracts in teens which sometimes requires excision (in the path gills would have penetrated) . Scientific conclusion: interesting that embryonic development pathways/morphology seen in other classes of animals is shared by humans. Fundamentalist conclusion: the tracts dont work as gills, so the common branchial ridges dont mean anything.

I have no idea where you get your information regarding the idea that embryology has dismissed the idea of the branchial arch as an anotomically distinct embryonic stage (link with pictures http://www.emedicine.com/plastic/topic216.htm ) which developes alternatively into gills or structures of the head and neck in vertebrates. The arguement isnt that people have gills, it is that human and fish embryos have common structures (branchial arches) which develope into either gills or head and neck features, depending on species. Please note the source of this article. Note how the PHOTO looks like the "discredited" drawings.

Anyway, if creationists are determined to not be convinced they will not be convinced no matter what evidence is given. Still, most of the arguements put up by creationists are "straw men" already addressed by academics and refutable if you take the time yourself to take an evolutionary biology class, a course on genetics and a course in geology/ paleontology. There are some gaps in the evidence, but the pattern of the evidence speaks of evolution.
_____________________________________________________

The greatest discoveries of science have always been those that forced us to rethink our beliefs about the universe and our place in it. ~Robert L. Park, in The New York Times, 7 December 1999
User avatar
ChicknLittle
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 96
Joined: Sun 22 Jan 2006, 04:00:00
Top
PreviousNext
Post a reply

Return to Open Topic Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests



cron