Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 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. We Have The Fossils. We Win.
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 2761 of 2887 (832564)
05-05-2018 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 2759 by ringo
05-05-2018 11:44 AM


Re: no supergenome
But you don't have near enough generations for a generic "cat kind" to differentiate into so many different species. (And bear in mind that we have descriptions of cats exactly like modern cats going back about as far as the supposed Flood.)
Cats don't vary as much as some other animals. They vary mostly in size and coloring but they are mostly very much recognizably cats with cat faces. Dogs, for comparison, have very different faces from one another among other varying characteristics. Yes all recognizably dog faces, OK, but still there are more differences among them than among cats.
But anyway there is certainly plenty of time for the creation of many different species of anything to have formed since the ark. Small cats have litters at least once a year and the big cats every few years. It only takes a year for small cats to become adults and big cats a few years. A population of a couple dozen cats that moves away from the parent population and reproduces among its own number could become a whole new breed in a hundred years. Most animals could. 4500 years is plenty of time to establish many such separated populations in different parts of the world, all splitting off from the original ark population and becoming reproductively isolated from all the other populations.
Human beings probably only need a few hundred years in an isolated location to develop a characteristic racial appearance. I don't know how long, but only as long as it would take for the whole population to merge all their genes together through enough generations of marrying each other. Five hundred years for sure, and a thousand would certainly do it.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2759 by ringo, posted 05-05-2018 11:44 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2763 by ringo, posted 05-05-2018 12:34 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 2762 of 2887 (832565)
05-05-2018 12:27 PM
Reply to: Message 2759 by ringo
05-05-2018 11:44 AM


Re: no supergenome
There are a lot of species that superficially resemble trilobites but they're not trilobites.
I doubt it. I think there are certain characteristics that identify a trilobite no matter how superficially it may seem to differ from others.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2759 by ringo, posted 05-05-2018 11:44 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2764 by ringo, posted 05-05-2018 12:36 PM Faith has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 2763 of 2887 (832566)
05-05-2018 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 2761 by Faith
05-05-2018 12:21 PM


Re: no supergenome
Faith writes:
Cats don't vary as much as some other animals.
Exactly. If cats couldn't differentiate that much, how could other "kinds" with more variation?
Faith writes:
But anyway there is certainly plenty of time for the creation of many different species of anything to have formed since the ark.
Based on what?
Faith writes:
4500 years is plenty of time to establish many such separated populations in different parts of the world, all splitting off from the original ark population and becoming reproductively isolated from all the other populations.
And yet we know that the Egyptians had cats just like ours 4000 years ago. They also had lions more than 3000 years ago. Lions were also mentioned in the Bible more than 2000 years ago. Your time line is actually much less than 4500 years.
Faith writes:
Human beings probably only need a few hundred years in an isolated location to develop a characteristic racial appearance. I don't know how long, but only as long as it would take for the whole population to merge all their genes together through enough generations of marrying each other.
Merging races is the opposite of differentiating into races.

An honest discussion is more of a peer review than a pep rally. My toughest critics here are the people who agree with me. -- ringo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2761 by Faith, posted 05-05-2018 12:21 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2765 by Faith, posted 05-05-2018 12:47 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 2764 of 2887 (832567)
05-05-2018 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 2762 by Faith
05-05-2018 12:27 PM


Re: no supergenome
Faith writes:
ringo writes:
There are a lot of species that superficially resemble trilobites but they're not trilobites.
Maybe.
So why didn't the trilobites survive the flood? The purpose of the ark was to preserve life. Why didn't it work?
ABE:
Faith writes:
I think there are certain characteristics that identify a trilobite no matter how superficially it may seem to differ from others.
You're stating it backwards: There are certain characteristics that identify a trilobite no matter how superficially it may resemble the others.
Edited by ringo, : Responding to Faith's edit.

An honest discussion is more of a peer review than a pep rally. My toughest critics here are the people who agree with me. -- ringo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2762 by Faith, posted 05-05-2018 12:27 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2767 by Faith, posted 05-05-2018 12:49 PM ringo has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 2765 of 2887 (832568)
05-05-2018 12:47 PM
Reply to: Message 2763 by ringo
05-05-2018 12:34 PM


Re: no supergenome
Exactly. If cats couldn't differentiate that much, how could other "kinds" with more variation?
But that's the diffrerence: different kinds have different degrees of genetic diversity and the more diversity the more they will vary. Cats seem to vary a lot less than other kinds.
merging races is the opposite of differentiating into races.
It's not "merging races" it's merging the genes of a group of individuals that originally could be of many different races, though in most cases probably all the same race but with different individual characteristics in any case. The merging is going to mix together all their characteristics over many generations.
The differentiation occurs with the isolation of a particular number of individuals that become a reproductively isolated population. That isolation of a small number creates a new gene pool with new gene frequencies than the parent population. In the beginning they may be quite different from each other, it depends on the particular individuals in the separating group. But when they've intermarried together generation after generation after generation, give it a thousand years, their genes will combine to give them characteristics that identify them as a group.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2763 by ringo, posted 05-05-2018 12:34 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2768 by ringo, posted 05-05-2018 12:55 PM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 2766 of 2887 (832569)
05-05-2018 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 2645 by Faith
05-03-2018 9:25 AM


Re: trilobite species
Faith writes:
I've already shown that chimps and humans do not have the same body plan.
Actually, no, you have not shown that, and you're ignoring the questions I asked and the points I made in Message 2635. So that you don't have to go back to that message let me repeat the content here:
Thinking about the comparison with humans and chimps: it's the structure of the body itself that makes the difference.
Since chimps and humans have the same body plan and almost all the same bones, what structure are you referring to? But we can tell just from looking at the skeletons that these are two different species:
The trilobite also seems to have a basic body shape even if its appendages can vary so dramatically.
However, many different species have the same "basic body shape". This is the coyote and the gray wolf. How do tell just from examining the skeletons that these are two different species:
These trilobites are far more different than the coyote and wolf. Why aren't these two different species:
Returning to your current message:
Dogs and cats have more similar body plans but it is their body plans that make them dogs or cats nevertheless, flexible versus rigid skeleton for starters.
How are dogs and cats more different than all the different species of trilobites?
And the body plans of chimps and humans are far more different than those of dogs and cats.
Remember you're comparing body plans. I'd agree that the body shape between chimps and humans is greater than between cats and dogs, but the body plans of all four creatures, chimps, humans, dogs, cats, are very similar. Four limbs with all the same major bones, fingers and toes, pelvis, ribs, backbone, clavicle, skull, two eyes, nose, mouth, two ears, teeth.
Plus both DNA and the classification system says chimps and humans are more closely related than dogs and cats:
CreatureOrderSuborderInfraorderFamilyGenusSpeciesSubspecies
CatCarnivoraFeliformiaFelidaeFelisF. silvestrisF. s. catus
DogCarnivoraCanidaeCanisC. lupusC. l. familiaris
HumanPrimatesHaplorhiniSimiiformesHominidaeHomoH. sapiens
ChimpPrimatesHaplorhiniSimiiformesHominidaePanPan troglodytes
As you can see, dogs and cats differ at the family level, while chimps and humans don't differ until the genus level. Humans and chimps share a very high percentage of DNA.
Chimp has flattened face,...
Actually humans have a much more flattened face than a chimp - chimps have a muzzle. I agree there's a difference, but you've got it backwards. Zoo much?
...hunched posture, commonly walks on all fours,...
What do these have to do with body plan?
...big chest,...
The chimp ribcage is not big. It does have a different shape than the human ribcage.
...heavy musculature,...
Nothing to do with body plan.
...long arms that drag on the ground,...
Length of arms has nothing to do with the body plan. There are arms with all the same bones and fingers as humans.
...short legs,...
Length of legs has nothing to do with the body plan. There are legs with all the same bones and toes as humans.
...hands for feet,...
Chimps have prehensile toes, the same toes humans have.
...there is no comparison with the human body type.
Everything you said above, at least the parts that were correct and relevant, contradicts this bald declaraion.
I'm not sure the coyote and the grey wolf ARE different "species," but that word is awfully plastic.
The concept of species includes all the ambiguities of the real world it attempts to define. For sexual species the concept is pretty clear, an interbreeding population, but in the real world what about the adjacent population that can interbreed with the first, but not as well with a lower mating success rate (success is producing fertile offspring). Are two populations the same species when the mating success rate between them is 90%? How about 80%? What about 50%? 25%? 10%? 1%? At what point do you declare them different species? Who can say?
It's probably a safe bet that cows and snakes are 0% interfertile, so they're definitely different species. I'll also bet that dogs and cats are 0% interfertile, so they're also different species. Lions and tigers can mate to produce ligers and tigons which are usually but not always sterile - are lions and tigers the same species? Coyotes and wolves can freely interbreed, though they usually don't, and I don't think the fertility rate has ever been measured? Are they the same species? Maybe.
What we see in the wild is a spectrum of interfertility between populations. Ring species are an example of interfertility decreasing the further around the ring you go. A good general rule would say that the closer the genetic relationship between two species, the greater their interfertility.
I believe they should be classified as the same Kind.
You still haven't defined kind.
And as I also pointed out, probably in a post you haven't yet read, the trilobite basic shape is even evident in those two different varieties.
Basic shape isn't what governs species. By your measure of what is different enough it certainly wouldn't work for dogs and cats. And if you did decide that any creatures as different as dogs and cats were different species, then those two trilobites shown above are definitely different species. By making things up as you go along you're only arriving at contradictions.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2645 by Faith, posted 05-03-2018 9:25 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2770 by Faith, posted 05-05-2018 1:01 PM Percy has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


(1)
Message 2767 of 2887 (832571)
05-05-2018 12:49 PM
Reply to: Message 2764 by ringo
05-05-2018 12:36 PM


Re: no supergenome
The ark's purpose was to preserve land creatures; sea creatures had to fend for themselves.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2764 by ringo, posted 05-05-2018 12:36 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2771 by ringo, posted 05-05-2018 1:02 PM Faith has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 2768 of 2887 (832572)
05-05-2018 12:55 PM
Reply to: Message 2765 by Faith
05-05-2018 12:47 PM


Re: no supergenome
Faith writes:
Cats seem to vary a lot less than other kinds.
As I pointed out, they haven't changed at all in 4000 years.

An honest discussion is more of a peer review than a pep rally. My toughest critics here are the people who agree with me. -- ringo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2765 by Faith, posted 05-05-2018 12:47 PM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 2769 of 2887 (832573)
05-05-2018 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 2654 by Faith
05-03-2018 11:51 AM


Re: Ancient beaches and seas, no
Faith writes:
But I also know I've done a basically good job of putting together the arguments for the Flood.
If you've done such a good job then how come I've got pages and pages of posts you've never answered or answered with just two or three content-free lines? Why do you have to keep abandoning threads? Why is the vast majority of what you write just redeclarations of your views? Why do you argue by insult instead of from the facts? Why do you exert so much effort avoiding certain topics? Why can't you address fossil order or radiometric dating or sediment sorting, to mention only a few? Why can't you understand important concepts like Walther's Law or how angular unconformities form? Why do you think you're doing science when you know so little of it and when you've declared that science is subordinate to what you think the Bible says?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2654 by Faith, posted 05-03-2018 11:51 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2777 by Faith, posted 05-05-2018 1:41 PM Percy has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 2770 of 2887 (832574)
05-05-2018 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 2766 by Percy
05-05-2018 12:48 PM


Re: trilobite species
However, many different species have the same "basic body shape". This is the coyote and the gray wolf. How do tell just from examining the skeletons that these are two different species:
As I believe I said, they are the same Kind, I don't differentiate them by their basic shape; their differences that make them separate "species" (or subspecies), are more superficial.
And that's what I think is the case with the trilobites too: although they may differ quite a bit superficially they share a basic structure that identifies them as the same Kind. They all share the same features. It's possible I'd want to separate some into separate groups if I spent more time on it but to me as long as they have the basic tri-lobite form they are the same Kind. They have so much variety within the Kind because all the known specimens are pre-Flood. After the Flood the genetic diversity of creatures that were preserved on the ark was greatly reduced because of the bottleneck. That is probably also true of most of the creatures that survived in the oceans too.
Dogs differ from cats in the basic structure, the skeletal differences, that's what makes them different Kinds judging at that basic level (but they are also behaviorally extremely different, dogs are all behaviorally clearly dogs and cats clearly cats).
Humans and chimps differ in their basic structure, that's what makes them different Kinds at that level too, forget behavioral differences which are enormous to say the least. They do not have the same basic shape despite having the same appendages as do cats and dogs as well. I think the difference in basic shape is apparent in both comparisons.
That's how I sort it but since all this is subjective there's no point in trying to argue it beyond this point. I suppose you'll continue to see it the way you do and so will I see it as I do.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2766 by Percy, posted 05-05-2018 12:48 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2834 by Percy, posted 05-07-2018 9:20 PM Faith has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 2771 of 2887 (832575)
05-05-2018 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 2767 by Faith
05-05-2018 12:49 PM


Re: no supergenome
Faith writes:
The ark's purpose was to preserve land creatures; sea creatures had to fend for themselves.
That makes no sense. Why would God have such a stupid plan?
It isn't true either. God told Noah to take "every living thing of all flesh", clean and unclean (I'm assuming that trilobites were unclean).

An honest discussion is more of a peer review than a pep rally. My toughest critics here are the people who agree with me. -- ringo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2767 by Faith, posted 05-05-2018 12:49 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2772 by Faith, posted 05-05-2018 1:17 PM ringo has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 2772 of 2887 (832577)
05-05-2018 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 2771 by ringo
05-05-2018 1:02 PM


Re: no supergenome
The ark's purpose was to preserve land creatures; sea creatures had to fend for themselves.
That makes no sense. Why would God have such a stupid plan?
It isn't true either. God told Noah to take "every living thing of all flesh", clean and unclean (I'm assuming that trilobites were unclean).
Gen 6:17 writes:
And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.
All flesh wherein is the breath of life" is taken to refer to animals on the land that breathe the air. Some of those could be saved on the ark. Marine creatures would die on the ark but could live in the Flood water as long as it wasn't too polluted. Why all the trilobites died I don't know. All the dinosaurs also eventually died, but in the new world after the Flood, probably because there wasn't enough vegetation to sustain them, as well as the problem of the ice age that would have killed them.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2771 by ringo, posted 05-05-2018 1:02 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2775 by ringo, posted 05-05-2018 1:25 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 2842 by Percy, posted 05-08-2018 7:22 AM Faith has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(2)
Message 2773 of 2887 (832578)
05-05-2018 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 2657 by Faith
05-03-2018 11:56 AM


Re: trilobite species
Faith writes:
Somebody has a signature saying you sometimes have to ridicule an idea, and I agree.
The quote you're probably thinking of is from Thomas Jefferson: Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them.
Insulting the idea might wake some people up who take it way too seriously.
If you think people here are offering unintelligible propositions, have you considered the possibility that the fault might be in your capacity for understanding? After all these years you still don't understand radiometric dating, Walther's Law, sedimentation, how sediments are still adding to stratigraphic columns, how erosion levels landscapes, how life lives atop landscapes experiencing sedimentation all over the world, how the geologic column is conceptual, how angular unconformities form, how speciation occurs, how erosion is a surface phenomenon, how matter can't disappear into thin air, how strata cannot move without affecting adjacent strata, how making things up will always fail as science, etc.
That's the hope.
If you're only weapon against facts and explanatory frameworks is ridicule then you are unarmed.
If ideas are really ridiculous they shouldn't be treated with respect, even the most accepted ideas of the day.
You do realize that you're giving everyone a license to ridicule your almost every word?
And it is not true that I haven't done anything else to refute them. The landscape scenario problem is hard to get across but I've done a lot to describe and refute it.
The reason your landscape arguments fail is because they're incoherent.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2657 by Faith, posted 05-03-2018 11:56 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2774 by Faith, posted 05-05-2018 1:22 PM Percy has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 2774 of 2887 (832579)
05-05-2018 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 2773 by Percy
05-05-2018 1:17 PM


Re: trilobite species
The reason your landscape arguments fail is because they're incoherent.
That is probably part of it because it's very hard to get it said.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2773 by Percy, posted 05-05-2018 1:17 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2843 by Percy, posted 05-08-2018 7:38 AM Faith has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 2775 of 2887 (832580)
05-05-2018 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 2772 by Faith
05-05-2018 1:17 PM


Re: no supergenome
Faith writes:
All flesh wherein is the breath of life" is taken to refer to animals on the land that breathe the air.
Which makes no sense. Why kill the land species and not the water species?
God breathed life into Adam. Do you think God breathes air?
Faith writes:
All the dinosaurs also eventually died, but in the new world after the Flood....
Then the ark failed.

An honest discussion is more of a peer review than a pep rally. My toughest critics here are the people who agree with me. -- ringo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2772 by Faith, posted 05-05-2018 1:17 PM Faith has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024