Denial of Evolution VI.

[leopold]

leopold: you seem to be saying something like "a bird is a bird, even if birds developed into different species they're still birds". Do you really understand what a species is? It's just, it looks like you don't.

darwins finches are a prime example.
they aren't finches that turned into pelicans.
they are finches that turned into, well, other finches.
it should be noted in this regard that about 10% of all birds do this sort of thing, mate with other birds that aren't "their kind".

How do new species evolve? From old species who are then the common ancestor.

i'll agree that it's logical to assume that.
there are however a few alternatives.

In the Drosophila genetic experiments, they determined that new species had developed, but then the definition of species had changed somewhat (but it's still defined by the ability to reproduce). You don't seem to be reading (or perhaps understanding) what Trippy posted.

the only answer i'm interested in is "was it still a fruitfly"?

 

[Trippy]

the only answer i'm interested in is "was it still a fruitfly"?

There are 1450 species of fruitfly.
Macroevolution includes evolution at the species level.
One species of fruitfly branching into a new species of fruitfly is an example of macroevolution.

If you disagree with this then the onus is on you to provide a new definition of macroevolution.

 

[GeoffP]

Oh for fuck's sake, leopold, open your goddamned eyes and wake up. You're already admitting to morphological differentiation among Darwin's finches. Do they breed with each other? No, they fucking don't. Hey presto, they're different goddamn species, free to change in additional directions and radiate into even more altered forms. I don't know how many times people can show you the fucking lump on your face before you summon up the balls to hesitantly identify it as a goddamned nose. Why don't you fuck off over to www.aliensbigfootorjesusanythingbutdarwin.com and see if God's plan for the universe can really be inferred from reading the bumps on your asshole? All the time wasted trying to convince a Bible-thumper, what a laugh. You don't vote, do you?

 

[leopold]

The article reports the emergence of a new species of fruit fly from an old species of fruit fly.

so?
this sort of thing has been demonstrated over and over and over and over.

The event described meets the definitions of speciation and macroevolution and is enough to prove your assertion wrong.
I provided you with the definitions of macroevolution and species that I was using so you could dispute them if you wanted to.

okay.
what is the word for the concept of a whale turning into a, say, crocodile?

 

[Robittybob1]

so?
what is the word for the concept of a whale turning into a, say, crocodile?

Evolution. Evolution is the word

 

[Trippy]

so?
this sort of thing has been demonstrated over and over and over and over.

So then you finally accept that macroevolution has been demonstrated over and over again?

okay.
what is the word for the concept of a whale turning into a, say, crocodile?

I believe the technical term is "Bullshit".

Whales turning into crocodiles is not a prediction of evolution. The prediction of evolution is that once upon a time whales and crocodiles shared a common ancestor.

 

[Robittybob1]

Whales turning into crocodiles is not a prediction of evolution. The prediction of evolution is that once upon a time whales and crocodiles shared a common ancestor.

If the Earth suffered a major extinction episode and there were only whales left and the food for them to live on. evolution could run in reverse over a billion years and whales become the ancestor of crocodiles. I don't doubt this at all.

 

[Trippy]

I believe the technical term is "Bullshit".

Having said that, as I understand it, it is at least hypothetically possible through the process of convergent evolution for a whale to evolve into a crocdile like animal. But it still wouldn't be a crocodile, it would still be a member of order cetacea.

 

[leopold]

I believe the technical term is "Bullshit".
really?

Whales turning into crocodiles is not a prediction of evolution. The prediction of evolution is that once upon a time whales and crocodiles shared a common ancestor.

whales and crocs split from this ancestor?
now, what you are saying is, this ancestor "evolved" into both a croc and a whale.
right?

 

[Trippy]

whales and crocs split from this ancestor?
now, what you are saying is, this ancestor "evolved" into both a croc and a whale.
right?

I'm not saying anything that hasn't already been said to you dozens of times already.

What I am saying is that if you go back far enough, all mammals have a common ancestor.

Likewise, if you go back far enough, all crocodylomorphs had a common ancestor.

If you go back even further (there may be other additional intermediate steps) the mamalian common ancestor and the crocodylomorphs common ancestor also have a common ancestor:

.

 

[leopold]

I'm not saying anything that hasn't already been said to you dozens of times already.

i don't remember asking you this question "dozens of times".
it has a simple yes/ no answer.

 

[arfa brane]

So what leoplod seems to be arguing is that evolution is bullshit because whales aren't evolving into crocs. Furthermore, monkeys aren't evolving into humans, in fact lots of species aren't evolving into each other, WTF?

WTF indeed. Evolution does not say that this happens, therefore we have a fundamental misconception trying to present itself as some kind of argument or contradictory evidence.
If what leopold seems to believe was actually true, how then does evolution "know" that a whale "wants" to be a crocodile? Why not a zebra, or some other species that went extinct a few My ago, like Eohippus, say?

Given there are millions of species, why aren't they all evolving into the same one? If monkeys aren't evolving into humans, maybe they're evolving into fruitflies (or one of the many other possibilities)? Why does that argument seem completely ridiculous?

 

[Trippy]

i don't remember asking you this question "dozens of times".

That doesn't mean you haven't had the process explained to do you dozens of times.

it has a simple yes/ no answer.

I've given you the answer already.

Speaking of simple "yes/no" answers, do you accept yet that macro-evolution has occured, does occur, and has been demonstrated "Over and over again"?

 

[Trippy]

So what leoplod seems to be arguing is that evolution is bullshit because whales aren't evolving into crocs. Furthermore, monkeys aren't evolving into humans, in fact lots of species aren't evolving into each other, WTF?

WTF indeed. Evolution does not say that this happens, therefore we have a fundamental misconception trying to present itself as some kind of argument or contradictory evidence.
If what leopold seems to believe was actually true, how then does evolution "know" that a whale "wants" to be a crocodile? Why not a zebra, or some other species that went extinct a few My ago, like Eohippus, say?

Given there are millions of species, why aren't they all evolving into the same one? If monkeys aren't evolving into humans, maybe they're evolving into fruitflies (or one of the many other possibilities)? Why does that argument seem completely ridiculous?

Like I said, as have others, the technical term for what he's proposing is "Bullshit".

 

[leopold]

So what leoplod seems to be arguing is that evolution is bullshit because whales aren't evolving into crocs. Furthermore, monkeys aren't evolving into humans, in fact lots of species aren't evolving into each other, WTF?

WTF indeed. Evolution does not say that this happens, therefore we have a fundamental misconception trying to present itself as some kind of argument or contradictory evidence.
If what leopold seems to believe was actually true, how then does evolution "know" that a whale "wants" to be a crocodile? Why not a zebra, or some other species that went extinct a few My ago, like Eohippus, say?

Given there are millions of species, why aren't they all evolving into the same one? If monkeys aren't evolving into humans, maybe they're evolving into fruitflies (or one of the many other possibilities)? Why does that argument seem completely ridiculous?

trippys problem is he doesn't want to say what the process is called.
so yes, you ENTIRELY misinterpreted the proceedings.

 

[arfa brane]

trippys problem is he doesn't want to say what the process is called.

What process are you referring to? I notice you don't want to try explaining why evolution means that, given two species out of millions, one of them is evolving into (an exact copy of) the other. Why do you think this happens, and by what mechanism?

Perhaps monkeys are evolving into humans because they "want" to be like us? Their genes want to be moving forward, at the end of the day?

 

[leopold]

What process are you referring to?

it all boils down to aqueous and his opinions about the need for definitions.
in essence, given the time frame between the discussed fossils (read the thread) what is this process called?
microevolution or macroevolutin.
the link from berkely suggests it would be macroevlotion but is it?

I notice you don't want to try explaining why evolution means that, given two species out of millions, one of them is evolving into (an exact copy of) the other. Why do you think this happens, and by what mechanism?

i don't understand the question.

 

[leopold]

i discovered a new scientific law:
nothing sucks so much in science as definitions, they are forever changing.
as if creationists aren't enough.

 

[arfa brane]

leopold: you asked about why whales aren't evolving into crocodiles. I'm asking why they aren't evolving into something else, fruitflies say, or elephants.
Why does evolution have to reproduce existing species? What mechanism would be involved?

See, I'm trying to get YOU to think about the whales-into-crocs question you asked. Why should one of a pair of distinct animals evolve into the other? Why isn't there only one species on planet earth in that case, since they all would have evolved by now into a common species?

 

[Trippy]

trippys problem is he doesn't want to say what the process is called.

I've already told you what the process is called - Bullshit.
Whales don't turn into crocodiles and evolution doesn't predict they should.

What is predicted is that all mamals evolved from a common ancestor:

The ancestor of all mammals was a Therapsid

The radiation that gave rise to therapsids and Diapsids through Synapsids and sauropsids occured 315 MYA.

Crocodylomorphs are archosaurs and Cetacea are Eutherians.