|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,890 Year: 4,147/9,624 Month: 1,018/974 Week: 345/286 Day: 1/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: "Best" evidence for evolution. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
\Why do they look alike Faith? Why does species A look like species B? Isn't that like a dog evolving into a cat Neither you nor I think that. Nor do I think they must be the same species as you first absurdly suggested. Just saying that if a population evolves to look like and behave like another population, that for all intents and purposes it has become a different kind, based on how "kind" is defined.
You call it convergent evolution, the idea being that they evolved separately. Which is pretty much what I''d say too. So there really isn't much of an issue here. But just calling it "convergent evolution" doesn't explain why "species A looks like species B" anyway, it just says it happens. I don't have an explanation either except that the same function can show up in different species, which doesn't explain it either, just says it happens, same as you say it happens. It's a wonderful mystery really. Convergent evolution is explained by similar ecological pressures. This is why there are several differently evolved gliding tree frogs -- it's easier to get from tree to tree and to evade predators.
In fact there are a lot of wonderful mysteries to ponder in either theory. The strikingly specific kinds of animals that I'm imputing to the same genome is a great mystery. I don't think they were separately created which would easily solve the problem, I do think they "evolved" from the original, say, bird, or cat or dog genome, but they are such specifically designed creatures with such specifically different adaptations it's truly wonderful. I have to try to understand how the penguin came out of the bird genome, or the ostrich. The penguin with its peculiarly specific bodily structure and behaviors, the ostrich with its peculiarly specific bodily structure and behaviors, each perfectly adapted to its environment. Evolution explains it quite well, adaptation to specific ecological habitats, over time becoming more and more adapted to those habitats. Whether we are talking about evolution within a clade (biological/evolutionary) or within a "kind" (creationist) the result is the same -- adaptation to specific habitats brings out specific adaptations.
In my scenaio they evolved, just as they did in your scenario, but their specificity is too wonderful for that explanation. No I don't think they were separately created, I do think they evolved from the original Bird Kind, but it's hard to see how the random methods of evolution could have brought that about. And of course I mean microevolution, and of course so do you. Their "specificity is too wonderful for that explanation" is easily explained by adaptation over many generations from the parent Clade/"Kind" population. This of course gets us into the question of how much time is involved: I have billions of years, you just a few thousand years, so they had to evolve at a much faster rate for your view than mine.
Same wonderful mystery with dogs. As I concluded from the Linnaean taxonomy, the Dog Kind includes wolves and foxes and coyotes and dingos and perhaps some other odd variations. If I believe they all came from an original Dog Kind then I believe they evolved, just as you believe they evolved. Agreed, and again the issue of time is raised -- how fast they evolved generation by generation. Just as we saw with the mammal ear evolution. Out of interest where do you put hyenas and thylacines? They appear similar to dogs imho, more convergent evolution? Did the thylacines evolve to be like dogs for all intents and purposes?
I could raise the question from my point of view whether such specific variations had already arisen before the Flood and were taken into the Ark as separate species, or evolved AFTER the Flood from the two chosen. I probably won't be able to answer that for sure but my feeling is that they must have been treated as separate species so each would have been brought in twos onto the Ark. Which is irrelevant if there was not flood.
These very specific variations of birds or dogs or any other Kind or Class or Family seem very hard to explain on the basis of evolution which always suggests something piecemeal. ... Like microevolution generation after generation after generation ... where I have plenty of time and you don't.
... But these creatures have an organized wholeness whose parts would have to have evolved all together it seems. I ran into this same issue when thinking aobut how apes could have evolved into humanity. ... False assumptions lead to false conclusions.
... So many parts of the creature work together it's hard to figure out how they could have evolved one at a time through mutations. ... Because they evolved to work together as they evolved.
... In the case of the Kind it's hard to imagine how even though they share a genome all the different functions they need that are built into the genome still have to be inherited as a unit rather than piecemeal by population splits. The penguins all have total body feather coverage, they all nurture their eggs between their feet, they are all supremely adapted to swimming in freezing water, how did all that adaptation come together by mere evolution, whether the ToE version or the Kind version? it's hard to explain either way. Oh I know it can be explained but I mean such adaptations defy the usual explanations and need a more satisfying explanation than the usual ones. Again the issue comes down to time, which makes small steps over many generations over billions of years an adequate explanation, but limiting it to a few thousand years much more difficult. You need hyper-evolution and many lumps to get there, while evolution doesn't. That makes evolution the better explanation. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : finishedby our ability to understand RebelAmericanZenDeist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
... I don't see any need to get into the strictly scientific designations. If such designations are clearly needed in some discussion or other, that's another story. Otherwise the insistence on the strictly scientific terminology is just a way of obstructing communication. No, it's a way to reduce confusion and promote communication.
Well I've many times shown that there is such a barrier and it's only a dogmatic blind adherence to the "science" that refuses to recognize it cuz it blows the ToE to smithereens. But I don't have to prove this at EvC, I can work it out for others elsewhere. You THINK you have, but your "proof" relies on a hidden assumption -- that mutations are inadequate to increase genetic variation, when this is obviously not the case. A "proof" based on false assumptions is not valid. Enjoyby our ability to understand RebelAmericanZenDeist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
It's not an assumption, I've worked it out. ... ... based on erroneous assumptions, as we shall see.
... First you can't maintain a species in ... a breed in artificial selection if you have any kind of increase in genetic diversity, wether through gene flow or mutation. Because the goal of breeding is to maintain a species all changes in phenotype, whether through gene flow or mutation are intentionally culled. That makes this a false analogy, as this process is not analogous to natural selection & mutation producing new species.
First you can't maintain a species in the wild ... if you have any kind of increase in genetic diversity, wether through gene flow or mutation. Natural selection is not concerned with maintaining a species, it is concerned with individual surviving to breed and pass on whatever gene combinations they have, whether through gene flow or mutation. If that means evolving into a new species so be it. It is the ecology that determines the survival/breeding fitness of the population, which mean adaptation to a changing system over each generation. So your premise 1A is invalid and cannot support a valid conclusion.
Since ... breeds ... maintain an identifiable characteristics we know that neither of these sources of increase occur, or that they are extremely rare. Because the goal of breeding is to maintain a species all changes in phenotype, whether through gene flow or mutation are intentionally culled. That makes this a false analogy, as this process is not analogous to natural selection & mutation producing new species.
Since ... species in the wild maintain an identifiable characteristics we know that neither of these sources of increase occur, or that they are extremely rare. Except that they don't: there is variety within every species, and the frequency of alleles varies from generation to generation. If the ecology doesn't change then the selection will continue to be adapted to that ecology, culling out the outliers, but if the ecology changes then the focus of selection will shift towards varieties better suited to the new ecology. This has been observed. Using a special case of apparent stasis in some populations while ignoring the documented changes in other populations means you are guilty of a logical fallacy of the part for the whole and of cherry picking only the evidence that suits your position. So the premise 1B is also invalid and cannot support a valid conclusion. It is also distinct from premise 1A and should be listed as a second premise.
Second, if such increases do occur, ... from ... mutation, since mutation doesn't contribute much change in a short period of time ... Actually premise 3. This is an unsubstantiated assumption based only on your opinion and not on any facts, details, measurements or documentation. Meanwhile we do have evidence of mutations causing speciation by polyploidy and other examples, mostly in plants, but animals are also involved. In addition there is no requirement for evolution of a new species to occur "in a short period of time" so that means you are ignoring evolution over longer periods of time, again the logical fallacy of the part for the whole. So the premise 2A (3) is also invalid and cannot support a valid conclusion.
Second, if such increases do occur, usually from resumed gene flow ... While this is rare compared to actual mutational changes it is instructive to note what happens when this does occur. When two populations are isolated from gene flow they will each accrue mutations that the other population does not have. When they rejoin these new mutations will be mixed into the general population, adding genetic diversity and you can get hybrids with some from population A and some from population B. Depending on the length of isolation, you can get (a) virtually no effect, (b) hybrid vigor (Heterosis), (c) Inbreeding depression - Wikipedia or (d) sterile offspring (eg mules). There are observed cases where hybrid of such daughter population cross-breeding are more fit than either population and they then supplant the parent species. See EvC Forum: Population Dynamics - the math behind the evolution of species So you have that one backwards and ignore the larger picture.
... then if a population split occurs or any other kind of selection we will again have reduced genetic diversity which always occurs when new traits form a new composite phenotype. ... This uses your premise as a conclusion, another logical fallacy of begging the question. This also assumes this is always the case, when evidence shows it is not. Another case of the logical fallacy of the part for the whole. And this also assumes that a temporary situation lasts, when the evidence again is that mutations add to the gene pool. So the premise 2B (4) is also invalid and cannot support a valid conclusion.
Selection IS the driving force of evolution and it always decreases genetic diversity. Ignoring the role of mutation, so again this is the logical fallacy of the part for the whole. Selection is ONE of the driving forces, mutation is ANOTHER, and the ecology is a third major driving force. This is also a non-sequitur fallacy introducing selection in the conclusion. So your final conclusion is not supported by your premises AND none of the premises support a valid conclusion. Epic fail. You have not "proved" anything but ignorance. Enjoyby our ability to understand RebelAmericanZenDeist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Just following my reasoning should show you I'm right, ... Sadly, for you, I did. Taking out every logical fallacy, errors of omission and bald assertion along the way (detailed in Message 559, the one you skipped over to make this lame one line post). When I was done, there was nothing left. Nothing to follow. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : Stby our ability to understand RebelAmericanZenDeist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
To add to what I said in Message 565 just for clarity
Just following my reasoning should show you I'm right, ... So what I did was follow your reasoning line by line in Message 559, checking them for accuracy, and logical validity. What I found were numerous errors of logic that showed the basis for you conclusion was invalid. Most errors concerned errors of omission, taking part of the evidence for the whole. As I have often said, the best explanation covers ALL the evidence, not just select portions of it (ie -- cherry picking evidence to support a predetermined conclusion)
... should show you I'm right, but of course that isn't going to happen. What it shows is errors you continue to make, and corrections you ignore: that is not a reasoned argument. Just as you fluff off other corrections time and again with one-line replies that are just arrogant denial. Enjoyby our ability to understand RebelAmericanZenDeist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
What "natural selection" is "concerned with" is just evolutionist theory. In actual fact most selection is nothing more than the separation of a portion of a population that becomes geographically isolated, and that produces a new identifiable "composite phenotyps" or subpopulation. ... NO NO NO You do NOT get to redefine science terms to suit your delusions. This is the basics of evolution (once again):
The first box is breeding, including mutations in the population, The second box is natural selection survival, some do, some don't, Arrows from the first box are the results of breeding, including individuals with new mutations and The Arrow from the second box is that portion of the population that survived to breed. That is ALL natural selection is -- the survival and breeding of individuals in the population. It is NOT population isolation and speciation, that is a different process.
... Nature doesn't "care" about anything, so what? ... Nature and natural selection are not the same thing. Natural selection occurs within nature, but nature does not occur within natural selection.
... the fact is that this is probably the way new varieite sor subspecies develop in the wild, it's how you get a new populaton of a different color of bear from the parent population's color, a new type of wildebeest from ththat of the main population, new raccoom markings from those of the parent population, new markings on the salamanders of each new subpopu;aton in a ring species. Mutation and natural selection within isolated populations will cause genetic divergence as new mutations in one population cannot be transmitted to the other population, because gene flow has ceased. And it seems it takes at least two mutations for form genetic incompatibility:
quote: You are not following my reasoning as you claimed, you are as usual just insisting on the view of the ToE over anything I say.. Nope. I followed your "reasoning" into the garbage can of failed concepts because it was faulty. That failure of your "reasoning" has nothing to do with the ToE, rather it has everything to do with bad logic and failure on your part to include ALL the evidence.
What "natural selection" is "concerned with" is just evolutionist theory. ... Nope. It is an observed biological process, a FACT, not theory. The ToE is that natural selection (an observed process, FACT) and mutation (also an observed process, FACT) are enough to explain the diversity of life on earth. Theories build on facts, faith. Maybe you should actually read Message 559 slowly and attempt to understand your errors detailed in paragraph after paragraph, and not cherry pick one you think is somehow wrong, but actually show it is wrong.
I could be sad I guess that you didn't do what I asked, but by now I know it's just standard operating procedure. But I did, you just don't like the result. Sad? You should be glad that you just got some free education so that you can improve your arguments ... if you wanted to learn instead of just preach. Enjoyby our ability to understand RebelAmericanZenDeist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Making the thrush into a separate family separates it from other birds that seem to have all the same morphological characteristics. If not, what is the difference? There are more morphological differences between bird families that there are between human and chimp, which you insist are entirely different taxons. From my Bird Book, Field Guide to Birds of North America, National Geographic Society:
quote: There are many morphological and structural differences between bird species that ornithologists identify. Beaks for instance have many more differences than those between human and chimp ... ... then feet, legs and necks, wings, feathers, etc To claim they are all one species is bull headed ignorance. But that's not new for you. Enjoyby our ability to understand RebelAmericanZenDeist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
All Birds fall into a clade, within and descendant from dinosaurs ...
quote: There is no one common ancestor to birds known at this time, and it may well be that several branches of feathered dinosaurs developed flight independently ,but, they are still dinosaurs, still therapods, as those feathered dinosaurs are apparently descendant from theropod dinosaurs that originated during the Mesozoic Era.
quote: Birds evolved from dinosaurs, and were very successful in evolutionary terms at improving survival. Enjoyby our ability to understand RebelAmericanZenDeist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
The first is a Scientific American article By Emily Singer, Quanta Magazine on June 12, 2015.
The second is what came up on search ... last edited march 4 2020. What changes would you make? I was only looking at the broad stroke picture of dinosaur → bird evolution. Enjoyby our ability to understand RebelAmericanZenDeist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
That's part of my comment on the evolution of birds.
I'd like to know why you think it is meaningless. Getting back to the thread topic, the fact that birds fall into nested taxonomic hierarchies is strong evidence for evolution, both through analysis of morphology of fossils and through genetics/DNA analysis. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : topicby our ability to understand RebelAmericanZenDeist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Dogs wolves and coyotes can be identified as the same species by morphology. ... There are two populations of morphological identical mosquitoes, one carries malaria and the other doesn't. They don't interbreed They're call cryptic species in biology. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : added missing criteriaby our ability to understand RebelAmericanZenDeist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I looked at the Linnaean chart. But I think it's fair enough to work out my own observations. Do you have access to actual specimens like Linnaeus had? Just wondering what data you are using. Enjoyby our ability to understand RebelAmericanZenDeist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I'd probably classify them as a Kind, or perhaps within a larger group of insects if I ever got into that area. Morphologically they are the same, that's the main criterion for the Kind/Species for me. Shape of body, form and number of legs, shape and function of proboscis. Sorry, I edited my post to add the morphologial data that I forgot to include: they are identical morphologically. Why don't they interbreed? This is important to the control of malaria. Enjoyby our ability to understand RebelAmericanZenDeist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
All I have is Google Image. Linnaeus' specimens were more useful but on the other hand the internet is jjust about miraculous for such purposes. ... . Mostly my own memory of course. ... Google won't show you the differences between placental and marsupial mammals, for starters. No wonder you lump things in nonsense manners. enjoyby our ability to understand RebelAmericanZenDeist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024