Denial of Evolution VI.
- Thread starter garbonzo
- Start date
- Status
I did. I am interested in why YOU think there is a difference.
I don't disagree; but can you expound on what you mean by origin in this context?
grumpy,
So you say.
Is the evolution of the whale an observed fact?
How do you know that the skull of the pakcetus was a primitive whale?
Was there any way it could not be a primitive whale?
Is this a good explanation of whale evolution?
To answer Rav; why am I picking on ''whale evolution''?
Because it's as good as anything else, and it is supposed to be the truth.
jan.
So you say.
Is the evolution of the whale an observed fact?
How do you know that the skull of the pakcetus was a primitive whale?
Was there any way it could not be a primitive whale?
Is this a good explanation of whale evolution?
To answer Rav; why am I picking on ''whale evolution''?
Because it's as good as anything else, and it is supposed to be the truth.
jan.
Did you notice the ''what is known as'' prior to using the words?
There are two sides to this debate, those distinctions do well to keep that in mind.
jan.
billvon,
The opposite actually.
How do you know the fossils have anything to do with the animals in question?
What are the clear lines?
jan.
The opposite actually.
How do you know the fossils have anything to do with the animals in question?
What are the clear lines?
jan.
The morphology of the bones. Bones are unique and display the connections between evolutionary branches in their similarities or differences.
Yes. So what do you think these words mean? Because you keep using them, but I don't think you know what they mean.
The clear links:
The involucrum, which is a bone shape found in whales (and their ancestors) but in no other mammal <- the big one
Auditory bulla structure (unique to the cetacean line)
Tooth shape (triangular)
Gradual elongation of the cervical vertebrae
A spine that started out with four fused sacral vertebra and gradually separated as the animals stopped walking and started swimming
Rav, AGAIN....I AM NOT A CREATIONIST. If you cannot accept that or believe it then i really dont know what to tell you. Besides, creationists dont even think that humans have been on this planet for only 2-3K years. You are not asking me any questions anyway, only making statements based off you own narrow vision. I could very well be wrong and i said that earlier...in awhile i will come back and respond to "billvon" and shed some light but again anyone here just responds with the same strawman then i cannot respond to them.
bilvon,
The explanation I gave some posts back is what I mean by the words.
I hope you're not going to waste time with this.
jan.
The explanation I gave some posts back is what I mean by the words.
I hope you're not going to waste time with this.
jan.
Hmm. You said:
Micro - change occurs but animals still look like their parents
Macro - change occurs to the point where animals change into other animals looking nothing like like their parents.
But then you admitted this was wrong. You admitted that chihuahuas did not look anything like grey wolves, but said that was not macroevolution since they were the same basic species.
So if they look nothing like their parents but are still genetically similar, is that microevolution? If so you've got the answer you need right there - we evolved from early single celled life through microevolution.
Or is that a third kind of evolution? Mesoevolution?
It's your fault for declaring that you believe that humans have only been on earth for 2 to 3 thousands years, right in the middle of a discussion that involves creationism, without elaborating.
In fact I still suspect that you're some sort of ID proponent, although perhaps not of the common variety.
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
Wolves and dogs are now classified as two subspecies, Canis lupus lupus and C. lupus familiaris. Frankly I don't think that is consistent with the definition of a subspecies. Wolves and dogs will share the same territory and will even hybridize rather readily. Dogs do have quite a few differences from wolves, primarily a smaller brain to survive on the lower-protein diet of a scavenger and some minor adjustments in the shape of their teeth that are better suited for chewing carrots than ripping apart a wildebeest. The rest of their differences are psychological: more gregarious, accepting the company and even leadership of members of other species, a weaker alpha instinct, and retention of puppy behaviors such as barking, tail wagging, wrestling and chasing sticks.
But this does not really fit into a discussion of evolution since it's not due to natural selection. We have been selecting the individuals we like for 12,000 years and chasing the others back into the forest--or just eating them. All of those traits I mentioned above are the results of unnatural selection.
Macroevolution and microevolution are the same phenomenon. Macroevolution just takes longer. Duh?
Well, duh... Of course the same mechanism is at work, it's just a label we kind of arbitrarily apply depending on how large a window we are referring to. Why not stick around and explain that seemingly simple concept to some of our neighbors, would you? Bring your golden pen, you will need it.
“There is something about words. In expert hands, manipulated deftly, they take you prisoner. Wind themselves around your limbs like spider silk, and when you are so enthralled you cannot move, they pierce your skin, enter your blood, numb your thoughts. Inside you they work their magic.”
― Diane Setterfield, The Thirteenth Tale
― Diane Setterfield, The Thirteenth Tale
Work your magic there Fraggle.
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
Huh??? That's got to be the stupidest thing I've read all week. (And that's saying a lot since I read the newspaper every day.
) We have written records older than 1000BCE! Who wrote them if not humans? Space aliens? Angels and demons? Men from our own future with a time machine? A race of highly intelligent raccoons who died out without leaving a trace of their existence?We have well-documented continuity of civilizations going back further than that!
Better than that, we have Ötzi, the perfectly preserved remains of a human who lived more than five thousand years ago!
Not at all. I presented the four animals currently assigned to cetacean evolutionary history merely to ask you how else, other than by evolution, would anyone explain the genesis of all of those transitional forms?
I use the word differently than you, but I understand that you are asking me why it is true that one from, such as a marine animal, evolves from another form, such as a terrain-adapted quadruped. The answer is: It is true because it actually happened.
Let me break that down:
(1) the fossil record cannot account for the vast number of required changes for such a task
The issue is to properly classify the skeletons, teeth etc. If they happen to classify as transitional forms between, say, ungulates and cetaceans, then that's evidently where they belong in the tree.
(2) gene mutation is nearly always a detriment to the organism
I think it is more accurate to say that mutations are almost always neutral in the life of organisms. The rare mutations that cause harmful results tend to be selected out. The rare mutations that endow organisms with beneficial variations in their traits tend to improve their odds of survival, increasing the odds that the mutation will enter the gene pool and affect descendants
(3) gene mutation has not been shown to change one animal into a different one
Gene mutation has been shown to cause new species to evolve, which explains how, over millions of years, cetaceans evolved from earlier forms, such as ungulates, as reflected in the discovery of transitional forms containing traits of both the earlier ungulates and the later cetaceans.
Yep. And all those changes happened in less than 10,000 years. It's my favorite example of how fast mutation alone can drive a species with the proper selection (in this case intentional breeding.) The thought experiment, of course, is if you can get a chihuahua from a gray wolf in 10,000 years, imagine how much change you will see in 10 million.
Of course; Jan doesn't get that yet; she thinks it's something completely different.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Well, duh... Of course the same mechanism is at work, it's just a label we kind of arbitrarily apply depending on how large a window we are referring to. Why not stick around and explain that seemingly simple concept to some of our neighbors, would you? Bring your golden pen, you will need it.
“There is something about words. In expert hands, manipulated deftly, they take you prisoner. Wind themselves around your limbs like spider silk, and when you are so enthralled you cannot move, they pierce your skin, enter your blood, numb your thoughts. Inside you they work their magic.”
― Diane Setterfield, The Thirteenth Tale
Work your magic there Fraggle.
I have a suspicion that you don't fully understand the concept of evolution (the gradual change in shape and attributes of ANYTHING).
A galaxy is an evolved system. All dynamic system evolve. It is not restricted to living organisms only (although mostly applied in that context).
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Theoretically speaking, IMO, evolution is the expression in reality of inherent potential (that which may become reality) of a system.
Actually husbandry is man's application of evolutionary laws. Breeding livestock for milk production or beef or selecting a prize bull to impregnate a herd with superior DNA, and thereby strengthening the offspring.
We can also look at Devolution, when a system is compromised and has lost integrity, it may fall apart and devolve into more basic parts. Death is the devolution (decomposition) of the human organism, which in turn may be causal to the evolution of something else.
Actually husbandry is man's application of evolutionary laws. Breeding livestock for milk production or beef or selecting a prize bull to impregnate a herd with superior DNA, and thereby strengthening the offspring.
We can also look at Devolution, when a system is compromised and has lost integrity, it may fall apart and devolve into more basic parts. Death is the devolution (decomposition) of the human organism, which in turn may be causal to the evolution of something else.
I will freely admit to not knowing that. I thought evolution only dealt with living and sustainable organisms.
How would we "measure" evolution outside of a living or once living organism? Further, who or what determines progress if there is no sustainable life forms on say a particular planet?
Oh, and hello write4u
- Status