Pigeons and Dogs: Micro or Macro evolution?

Well, the logical first place to start would be the closest relative, the chimpanzee. You first, Ned.

What's the big deal? Its not like Ned himself is going to be the horribly deranged monkey-man.so the darker side of me is wondering if there is some anti-creationist out there willing to force this kind of cross breeding, and then tout the result in front of creationist's nose as proof that man and monkey aren't different "kinds".Hypothetical situation: pretend this did happen. Would it be moral to use it as any kind of evidence for anything?

There are rumours of this having been tried and the produced embryo having been aborted. They even had a word for such a chimera 'Humanzee'. The chances are people have copulated with chimpanzees. There are well authenticated reports of people humping pretty much anything else.

quote:

---

Hypothetical situation: pretend this did happen. Would it be moral to use it as any kind of evidence for anything?

---

Sounds like another thread.

quote:

---

They even had a word for such a chimera 'Humanzee'.

---

That... is so... COOL!

Comments?Yep, only due to enforcement of new Australian regulations will the Dingo be preserved as a separate and pure "subspecies" on one of the Eastern islands of that continent. The remainder of the dingo population even in the most remote areas of the continent is either contaminated with or lives in close proximity to dingo populations contaminated with European dog DNA. BTW, the Dingo arrived in Australia and developed as a wild dog over 6,000 years ago. The Dingo is surprisingly similar in color and body form to the Yellow Carolina Dog, another wild dog species that developed independently of the wolf or coyote and in isolated conditions on the American continent.

The pidgeons are still pidgeons and the dogs are still dogs. Not exactly the type of evidence required to show that all of life's diversity owes its collective common ancestry to some unknown population that just happened to have the ability to self-replicate. Methinks you don't know or understand what Creationists say about variation....

quote:

---

The pidgeons are still pidgeons and the dogs are still dogs. Not exactly the type of evidence required to show that all of life's diversity owes its collective common ancestry to some unknown population that just happened to have the ability to self-replicate. Methinks you don't know or understand what Creationists say about variation....

---

I'll ask again: Where Is The Barrier? What, Specifically, Are You Saying Is Impossible?Without a barrier, evolution is guaranteed, so you better have one.------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

Wait just a second. It is up to you to provide POSITIVE evidence to support a theory. That has not been done with the theory of evolution. All we hear is "see this little change. that plus eons of time equals great change." What utter trash. The theory can't be objectively tested. It is useless.

What would this evidence look like, JP? Would snapshots of a large change over time do it? If not why not?

Why are you asking me? Snapshots? Like a polaroid? The fossil record cannot tell us of a mechanism nor can it tell us if genetic change was responsible. The only way the fossil record is evidence for the ToE is if you already believe in the ToE. Gradual changes are not found in the fossil record. Why is it that only fully formed alleged intermediates are found? Where are all of nature's failed experiments?Welcome idthink.net - BlueHost.com[This message has been edited by John Paul, 12-16-2003]

JP, No, it isn't. Evidence, scientific evidence that is, are predictions of a theory borne out. The ToE predicts transitionals that are "fully formed", & they exist. You don't have to have an a priori acceptance of evolution to accept that these fossils exist. In fact they have no business at all in existing if evolution isn't true. I'm sorry, JP, it's full of them. I don't have time now, but I'll type out a list when I've more time available. There is no such thing as a non-fully formed organism unless it has suffered from developmental anomolies. A dinosaur doesn't have to ungrow forlimbs & then regrow wings from scratch. This a tired old creationist strawman.In fact, if you could find a non-fully formed intermediate (whatever that means), then evolution would be in trouble, or at least the proposed mechanisms would. How many mesozoic fossils organisms do you see walking around?Mark------------------
"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall

quote:

---

The fossil record cannot tell us of a mechanism nor can it tell us if genetic change was responsible. The only way the fossil record is evidence for the ToE is if you already believe in the ToE.

---

The first sentance is correct. However, the fossil record does need to be explained *somehow*. The ToE works far better than Lamarkism, and far, far better still than some sort of as-of-yet unexplained hydrologic flood sorting process (care to try your hand at it? Everyone's failed so far! If so, start a new thread; if not, please concede that you have no explanation for the universal and consistent fossil ordering that led early creationist scientists to have to abandon the theory). Furthermore, it matches up with all other methods that have been tested - multiple radioisotope testing, protein degradation, mineralization extent, influx of rare elements, etc. Finally, things are still evolving today. Thus, it is the theory that best fits the evidence.

quote:

---

Gradual changes are not found in the fossil record. Why is it that only fully formed alleged intermediates are found?

---

There are many cases where even the intermediates between the stable plateus are quite present, such as whales, horses, some primates, sharks (at least concerning teeth and scales, which preserve quite well), many bivalves and crustaceans, etc - basically, things that both (A) preserve well, and (B) were living in areas where deposition was occurring, as opposed to erosion. Naturally, of course, species tend toward equilibrium positions, and remain there until equilibrium is disrupted. It occurs today, so why wouldn't it occur in the past?

quote:

---

Where are all of nature's failed experiments?

---

Most lineages *did* die out. That's the reason you don't, say, see any dinosaurs around today.------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."[This message has been edited by Rei, 12-17-2003]

Sorry Mark but accomodations are not predictions. The only gradual changes we see arfe the snail evolving into a snail or a clam evolving into a clam. Otherwise there are jumps- that is the reason behind punk eek.Fossilization requires a quick burial- that goes against gradualism. It also shoots down how we date the GC.The only reason to believe a dinos forelimbs evolved into wings is faith. There isn't any evidence to support that claim- but if you can show me to be wrong I will look into it.

John Paul:
The only gradual changes we see arfe the snail evolving into a snail or a clam evolving into a clam.So what makes a snail a snail and a clam a claim?Fossilization requires a quick burialFossils can gradually be buried by incoming sediment.The only reason to believe a dinos forelimbs evolved into wings is faith.However, birds' wings are their forelimbs, so all that's necessary is to modify forelimbs. Creationists sometimes seem remarkably ignorant of comparative anatomy; consider their willingness to deny that the coccyx is a vestigial tail.