Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
9 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution is a basic, biological process
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 301 of 306 (182270)
02-01-2005 9:28 AM
Reply to: Message 298 by TheLiteralist
01-31-2005 4:16 PM


Re: About Them Islands
Well, I'll have to go over that other stuff about mitochondria and chloroplasts again (as it's all new info for me). My main thought is that nothing about this is random mutations working together with natural selection; and, therefore, is not evolution at all. But I'll need to re-read it all.
Well, if it makes you feel better, you can consider it "non-Darwinian evolution". That's certainly the way Margulis, the "Mother" of endosymbiosis theory, talks about it (I mean, the initial and any subsequent endosymbiosis events). Don't get me wrong, she's a brilliant scientist who's added immeasurably to our understanding of microbial life and the very roots of the evolutionary bush - especially the Archea-prokaryote-eukaryote transitions. Although when she first proposed serial endosymbiosis back IIRC in the '60s it was not accepted, studies since then have not only confirmed her initial work but expanded on it. She is, however, a vocal anti-Darwinian. If we can stereotype the neo-Darwinian synthesis as "survival of the fittest", Margulis' more recent writings can be characterized as "survival of the cuddliest" . If you're interested in what she got right (and what may be wrong), we need a new thread, however.
It might be a little helpful if you first know that most Creationists would look to the Flood for an explanation of any biologic assemblages anywhere on earth today--particularly land-dwelling, air-breathing animals had to radiate from the ark. We might also conclude that God did make the basic kinds of animals on the ark particularly able to variate within their respective kinds (I can show you the verse that hints at this, if you wish).
Yeah, my friend, I am well aware of how creationists look to the "Flood" to explain everything. I'm a bit disappointed in this response, however. I provided both the gist of the evolutionary framework and some specific examples that the ToE explains. I would submit that you haven't done me justice by failing to provide an equivalent level of detail for the creationist account.
For instance, you write:
The islands themselves are thought to be a result of the Flood.
How? How does the Flood explain the vastly different geologies of these islands? How does the Flood explain their locations, and geological and natural history? We have observed biological succession, founder effects, and many of the other aspects of faunal assembly on newly created islands - Rakata, for example, sterilized during the 1883 eruption of Krakatau, has been more-or-less continuously observed ever since. We can actually WATCH the effects. In other cases, we can actually watch islands being formed, volcanically and through the slow accumulation of corals, etc. The Flood simply cannot explain the signficant geological differences between islands that were once a part of a continent (separated either through rising sea levels as is the case with the western end of the Indonesian archipelago, or through sea-floor spreading such as Madagascar or New Zealand), volcanic islands arising from subduction zones (such as the Aleutians), and volcanic islands arising from hot-spots or mid-ocean ridges (such as the Hawaiian islands or St. Helena). If the Flood account wants to be taken seriously, it MUST provide the details that explain these observations.
You also state:
Any birds or mammals would have had to have traveled their and then variated (so we would definitely expect to see organisms on these islands being mainly variations of certain kinds--they got there a few centuries after the Flood and have been variating for a few millenia).
No kidding. So how did they accomplish this feat? And the "variation within a kind" doesn't explain why certain "kinds" appear on certain islands, and not others. It doesn't explain the endemicity differences between different types of islands and the mainland - why fewer endemics are on continental islands than oceanic ones, even with the same types of habitats. It doesn't explain why certain kinds of critter AREN'T on certain types of islands - there are no frogs and few lizards on oceanic islands, but they are abundant on continental islands. There are no mammals on oceanic islands (except flying ones). Etc. For your model to be taken seriously, it MUST explain in detail these facts.
If you lower the water levels not too much (150 ft, I hear) there are land bridges connecting much of what are separated by water today. So they just walked, crawled, etc. Other creatures (birds, not the flightless ones, unless they lost the ability to fly after reaching the island, and fish) could fly or swim.
Please demonstrate that there is any possible land connection to any oceanic islands. Start with St. Helena - 2000 km from the nearest land in any direction, with a surrounding sea depth of over 4200m. Then you can try your hand at the islands of the Hawaiian Ridge, or the Taumato Ridge. There are simply too many islands, each with their unique flora and fauna, that could not POSSIBLY have ever been connected to any mainland by any land bridges. Even islands close to one another, such as the example I gave of Bali and Lompok, show substantial differences in the faunal composition - these two islands (Bali is continental, Lompok is oceanic) are separated by a channel some 300 m deep although only about 40 km across - enough to have each island develop its own unique ecosystems. Bali's fauna resembles the continental fauna (although a random sampling of same), indicating its former attachment. Lompok's is vastly different, indicating these two were never joined. So much for your land bridge hypothesis.
I guess trees had a time getting over to St. Helena, but daisies made it over there (bird droppings perhaps?). Also, giantism is largely gone in all creatures in general, but I suppose that it could exist in a few organisms yet (the big daisies). The giantism aspect of many organisms seems to have had a time making it in the post-Flood world (but was rampant in the pre-Flood world).
No kidding they had a "hard time". Worse yet, you're going to be forced to accept hyperevolution if you claim post-flood colonization. A rate of evolution orders of magnitude faster than any evo would ever accept to get those trees from flowers in such a short time! These daisies have BARK, for crying out loud! As for gigantism, your contention is falsified by the existence of innumerable "giant" versions of certain types of organisms found on islands, including dozens of species of giant rodents, flightless rails, pigeons, etc. Not to mention lizards (like the Komodo Dragon Varanus komodensis). Worse yet, you still have to explain the existence of nanism on islands (dwarfs), which is probably even more common: dwarf hippos (like Hexaprotodon liberiensis and H. madagascariensis), dwarf mammoths (like Mammuthus exilis), dwarf elephants (like Palaeoloxodon cypriotes), etc. ALL found on islands and nowhere else.
If you think there is an actual "creation Flood model" that explains the details of these observations, I plead with you to present it. You'll be the first ever.
Of course, I don't expect a creationist to suddenly go, "Oh wow, I never thought of it like that! Here, let me change sides now."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 298 by TheLiteralist, posted 01-31-2005 4:16 PM TheLiteralist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 302 by NosyNed, posted 02-01-2005 10:18 AM Quetzal has not replied
 Message 303 by TheLiteralist, posted 02-01-2005 11:15 AM Quetzal has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 302 of 306 (182283)
02-01-2005 10:18 AM
Reply to: Message 301 by Quetzal
02-01-2005 9:28 AM


New Thread
Well, if it makes you feel better, you can consider it "non-Darwinian evolution".
I've been meaning to propose a thread on this area for days. I will try to get to it.
I would suggest that it is really "non-NEO-Darwinian". Darwin didn't propose a mechanism for heredity since he had no idea. The various mechanisms proposed by Margulis and others add to the ways that organisms may vary (and allows for big jumps perhaps). This significantly modifies the modern synthesis but leaves Darwin where he was before.
(I was about to ask a question at this point but that would spin the thread off topic. I'll propose something within the day).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 301 by Quetzal, posted 02-01-2005 9:28 AM Quetzal has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 305 by Wounded King, posted 02-01-2005 11:42 AM NosyNed has not replied

TheLiteralist
Inactive Member


Message 303 of 306 (182302)
02-01-2005 11:15 AM
Reply to: Message 301 by Quetzal
02-01-2005 9:28 AM


Re: About Them Islands
Hi Quetzal,
I still haven't gotten around to digesting your post before this one. And this one has lots of info, too. But this comment struck me:
Please demonstrate that there is any possible land connection to any oceanic islands. Start with St. Helena - 2000 km from the nearest land in any direction, with a surrounding sea depth of over 4200m. Then you can try your hand at the islands of the Hawaiian Ridge, or the Taumato Ridge. There are simply too many islands, each with their unique flora and fauna, that could not POSSIBLY have ever been connected to any mainland by any land bridges.
All the more then, that the fauna should be different than on continental islands. (Am I misunderstanding you?)
We have observed biological succession, founder effects, and many of the other aspects of faunal assembly on newly created islands - Rakata, for example, sterilized during the 1883 eruption of Krakatau, has been more-or-less continuously observed ever since.
If this is an oceanic island, is there any significance to the types of creatures that were "founders?" I would think, if it's an oceanic island, that many continental-types would have trouble getting over there, but certain types could (and did) make it.
Well, this thread is about shot. You ought to do a thread that incorporated the info of your two previous posts.
--TL

This message is a reply to:
 Message 301 by Quetzal, posted 02-01-2005 9:28 AM Quetzal has not replied

TheLiteralist
Inactive Member


Message 304 of 306 (182304)
02-01-2005 11:17 AM
Reply to: Message 291 by Jazzns
01-31-2005 10:41 AM


Hi Jazzns,
Check out my thread "How Well Do We Understand DNA?" You might find it interesting. Or CrashFrog's thread about Chlorella and Macroevolution.
--TL

This message is a reply to:
 Message 291 by Jazzns, posted 01-31-2005 10:41 AM Jazzns has not replied

Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 305 of 306 (182312)
02-01-2005 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 302 by NosyNed
02-01-2005 10:18 AM


Re: New Thread
There is already a "Non-mendelian genetics/ non-darwinian evolution" thread in the Biological Evolution forum.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 302 by NosyNed, posted 02-01-2005 10:18 AM NosyNed has not replied

AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 306 of 306 (182315)
02-01-2005 11:52 AM


Witching time
Well, this thread has reached the magic number and so will be closed, but it's obvious that there are at least three seperate spin off threads brewing here. Can I suggest that instead of simply starting a continuation thread those of you with specific areas of interest propose individual threads that have a slightly more narrow focus?
Thanks to each of you.

New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024