Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Question on how Evolution works to produce new characteristics
Europa
Member (Idle past 4686 days)
Posts: 68
Joined: 06-05-2010


Message 76 of 104 (564512)
06-10-2010 7:26 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by Dr Adequate
06-10-2010 7:16 PM


But if you are going to take that as a definition of living fossil then a lot of things that people call living fossils aren't living fossils, and you should bear this in mind when selecting your example.
Lets stick to standard definitions.
Lets not rely on what people CALL.
Sometimes people call 'logic' also evidence. But that is wrong.
From WP:
These earliest cockroach-like fossils ("Blattopterans" or "roachids") are from the Carboniferous period between 354—295 million years ago. However, these fossils differ from modern cockroaches in having long external ovipositors and are the ancestors of mantises as well as modern cockroaches. The first fossils of modern cockroaches with internal ovipositors appear in the early Cretaceous ... Current evidence strongly suggests that termites have evolved directly from true cockroaches, and many authors now consider termites to be an epifamily of cockroaches, as Blattaria excluding Isoptera is not a monophyletic group.
So, after I read this, I am asked to believe that the cockroaches are cockroaches even after 295 - 354 million years because the environment did not change for them?
Is it explained in this quote?
Am I missing something?
Edited by Europa, : No reason given.
Edited by Europa, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-10-2010 7:16 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-10-2010 7:42 PM Europa has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 77 of 104 (564513)
06-10-2010 7:34 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Europa
06-10-2010 6:58 PM


Now, now, now. doctor.
You started with an explanation.
Then you called it logic.
And in the end you are calling it evidence.
Huntard told me sense [and probably logic too] is not good enough. We need evidence.
But a mere label of 'evidence' is not enough for me. If it is so, you can label what i called logic also as evidence.
I don't see the relation that any of that bears to what I actually posted.
I would still call what you explained an explanation. That explanation unfortunately, for me, is so counter intuitive. When I say it is counter intuitive, you say it is an argument from incredulity. That is what lead me to ask for evidence. Where is the evidence that the environment did not change?
I explained that.
If a species has survived for x million years, then it is necessarily the case that for x million years there has been some environmental niche in which that species could survive. Otherwise it would not have done so.
Hence, while the environment of the species may have changed somewhat, it must always have been within the limits of what that species could survive without undergoing (significant, morphological) evolutionary change. Otherwise the species would be extinct.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Europa, posted 06-10-2010 6:58 PM Europa has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Europa, posted 06-10-2010 7:39 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Europa
Member (Idle past 4686 days)
Posts: 68
Joined: 06-05-2010


Message 78 of 104 (564515)
06-10-2010 7:39 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Dr Adequate
06-10-2010 7:34 PM


If a species has survived for x million years, then it is necessarily the case that for x million years there has been some environmental niche in which that species could survive. Otherwise it would not have done so.
Hence, while the environment of the species may have changed somewhat, it must always have been within the limits of what that species could survive without undergoing (significant, morphological) evolutionary change. Otherwise the species would be extinct.
But, doctor, this is not EVIDENCE.
This is an EXPLANATION.
Edited by Europa, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-10-2010 7:34 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-10-2010 7:50 PM Europa has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 79 of 104 (564516)
06-10-2010 7:42 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Europa
06-10-2010 7:26 PM


Lets stick to standard definitions.
I don't object to the definition. My point is that in that case you should be cautious about saying that something is a "living fossil", because people call a lot of things "living fossils" which do not fit that definition --- so although you read somewhere that something is a "living fossil", it probably isn't a "living fossil" by Yoshida's definition.
So, after I read this, I am asked to believe that the cockroaches are cockroaches even after 295 - 354 million years because the environment did not change for them?
No, not at all. My point is that cockroaches have in fact evolved. Proto-cockroaches evolved into cockroaches (and mantises); more modern cockroaches evolved into termites; some cockroaches still look fairly roachy, but they are not identical with Cretaceous species.
I know of no cockroach species which would count as a "living fossil", and presumably nor do you or you'd have named one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Europa, posted 06-10-2010 7:26 PM Europa has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 80 of 104 (564518)
06-10-2010 7:50 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Europa
06-10-2010 7:39 PM


But, doctor, this is not EVIDENCE.
This is an EXPLANATION.
Au contraire --- it is evidence, but it isn't an explanation.
By analogy, consider the fact that I am still alive at 36. This is compelling evidence that for the last 36 years no-one has ever killed me. It does not explain why no-one has done so. But it is certainly evidence that no-one actually has.
In the same way, the fact that a species has not gone extinct is unarguable evidence that since it first arose there has always been some environment somewhere that it could live in. It does not, however, explain why this should have been so.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Europa, posted 06-10-2010 7:39 PM Europa has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Europa, posted 06-11-2010 2:02 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 81 of 104 (564520)
06-10-2010 7:54 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Dr Jack
06-10-2010 7:52 AM


Re: Cyanobacteria -- the ultimate "living fossil"?
Hi Mr Jack,
Also the root is not arbitrary. You can't just root a phylogeny anywhere you like.
So logically you start with the oldest known life form. Cyanobacteria.
The fun thing about cladistics is that you can make any one of the ends lie on a straight line from the beginning:
                \
/\
/\ \
/ / \
/ / /\
/ /\ / \
The critical points are the common ancestors for the branches. The oldest common ancestors are highest on the diagram. The oldest known common ancestor for all the cyanobacteria that exist today must logically be the 3.5 billion year old cyanobacteria, rather than suddenly branch off of other lineages at a later date.
Unless you are arguing that modern cyanobacteria are unrelated to the fossil cyanobacteria.
Thus there is a direct lineage from 3.5 billion year old cyanobacteria to modern cyanobacteria.
Logically this means (many) other forms of life have branched off from this lineage rather than the other way around.
(from Tree of life (biology) - Wikipedia)
If you can point to a node as say that THIS divergence occurred at ____ billion years ago, and before that there were no cyanobacteria, then please do so.
The question is how close to the center the ancient cyanobacteria was. As I said:
... they have apparently evolved into all other forms of life (or certainly a large number of them)
How much depends on how close to the center the ancient cyanobacteria was.
Actually there is chemical evidence for Archaea back to 3.8 billion years ago.
There is possible evidence of some kind of life, yes. IIRC you objected to use of this evidence for life on another thread ...
And amusingly, none of your issues affect the argument that cyanobacteria is the oldest living fossil.
Enjoy.
ps - another good source on the tree of life is
Tree of Life Web Project
Life on Earth
quote:
The rooting of the Tree of Life, and the relationships of the major lineages, are controversial. The monophyly of Archaea is uncertain, and recent evidence for ancient lateral transfers of genes indicates that a highly complex model is needed to adequately represent the phylogenetic relationships among the major lineages of Life. We hope to provide a comprehensive discussion of these issues on this page soon. For the time being, please refer to the papers listed in the References section.
And there is also the issue of horizontal gene transfer mucking up the roots ...

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... 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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Dr Jack, posted 06-10-2010 7:52 AM Dr Jack has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by Dr Jack, posted 06-11-2010 5:21 AM RAZD has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 82 of 104 (564521)
06-10-2010 8:01 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Europa
06-10-2010 7:23 PM


This is info can be researched but this is not important.
Yes it is. If you wish to produce a cockroach species as an example of a prolonged morphological stasis, then the question of how long it has stayed the same is very important --- it is important to the question of whether it is an example of prolonged morphological stasis.
You are evading my question.
You're evading even asking the question. You say you want to talk about the roach species which has been stable for longest, but you won't say which one that is.
The cockroach has been around for more than 300 million years.
First, there is no such thing as "the" cockroach. You might as well say that "the" mammal has been around for 200 million years.
Secondly, as you would know if you'd bothered to read my post, the order Blattaria has not been around for that long. That's when the Blattopterans flourished --- a group which differed morphologically from all modern cockroaches.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Europa, posted 06-10-2010 7:23 PM Europa has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 83 of 104 (564526)
06-10-2010 8:23 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Europa
06-10-2010 6:04 PM


Re: Cyanobacteria -- the ultimate "living fossil"?
Hi Europa,
Now Huntard will say this is an argument from incredulity. lol
Many people will tell that this is the logical fallacy of the argument from incredulity, because it is, although it is more formally referred to as the No webpage found at provided URL: Argument from Ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam)
See
http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/toc.htm
http://theautonomist.com/aaphp/permanent/fallacies.php
List of fallacies - Wikipedia
for information on logical fallacies.
Curiously, opinions are absolutely impotent at affecting reality in any way.
This is why, when you rely on opinions you end up with logical fallacies and contradictory conclusions.
Such as one population evolving and another one not, and they are from the same species. The opinion that says this cannot happen is obviously false and needs to be discarded.
Logically, it is also difficult o believe that for one population the environment is more or less the same for millions of years.
Part of your problem is that you are focused on environment, while the important factor for selection is the ecology.
Ecology - Wikipedia
quote:
Ecology (from Greek: οἶκος, "house" or "living relations"; -λογία, "study of") is the scientific study of the distributions, abundance, share affects, and relations of organisms and their interactions with each other in a common environment.[1] ... An ecosystem is the unique network of animal and plant species who depends on the other to sustain life. The interactions between and among organisms at every stage of life and death can impact the system. An ecosystem can be a small area or big as the ocean. ....
Environment may or may not be a critical element of the ecology for an organism, it may depend more on it's relationship to other organisms.
A crocodile lies in wait for prey, partially submerged in water, motionless ... in much the manner of ancestors back in the age of dinosaurs. They do this in a number of different environments around the world, but the basic ecological niche is the predator lying in wait for prey, partially submerged in water, motionless ... and they will surivive in any environment where they can do this.
The coelacanth lives around sea mounts in deep water.
Cyanobacteria still live today, much as they did 3.8 billion years ago when the first known evidence of such organisms occurred.
The shark is an apex predator in the oceans around the world, very much like they were 420 million years ago ... before dinosaurs.
The ecological niche remains the same, regardless of changes to the environment.
Message 1: An alien species of plants invades their environment and the environment starts to change. Now, the frogs are no longer camouflaged in this environment. A bit of orange speckling on their green skin will, however, do the job of camouflaging wonderfully.
Here it is the ecology that changes, making the frogs more liable to predation, changing the predator\prey dynamic, while the environment (bushes, ponds, trees, daily climate, etc) essentially stays the same. Because the ecology changed the frogs will either adapt or perish.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : ecology change at end

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... 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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Europa, posted 06-10-2010 6:04 PM Europa has not replied

  
Europa
Member (Idle past 4686 days)
Posts: 68
Joined: 06-05-2010


(1)
Message 84 of 104 (564579)
06-11-2010 2:02 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by Dr Adequate
06-10-2010 7:50 PM


In the same way, the fact that a species has not gone extinct is unarguable evidence that since it first arose there has always been some environment somewhere that it could live in. It does not, however, explain why this should have been so.
Unarguable evidence?
It is not even evidence.
I will tell you why.
Suppose Zeus abducted an organism 300 million years ago. He froze it in one of his freezers in Alpha Centauri. Suppose after 299 million years, Zeus thought that that organism has been sitting in his freezer for too long and he should release it back. So he releases the poor thing 1 million years ago. Zeus also made sure the organism did not die in the process.
Now in 2010, this organism is alive and well and we call it a 'coplimite.'
Dr Adequate argues with Europa and says the fact that coplimite is alive is EVIDENCE it lived in a favourable environment for 300 million years.
How can Europa accept that as evidence when Zeus has frozen the creature for 299 million years?
Therefore, the mere fact that we find an organism alive and well DOES NOT provide EVIDENCE that the environment did not change for the organism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-10-2010 7:50 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-11-2010 2:28 AM Europa has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 85 of 104 (564581)
06-11-2010 2:28 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by Europa
06-11-2010 2:02 AM


Unarguable evidence?
It is not even evidence.
I will tell you why.
Suppose Zeus abducted an organism 300 million years ago. He froze it in one of his freezers in Alpha Centauri.
This takes special pleading to a whole new level.
If you're allowed that sort of excuse, then what constitutes evidence for anything?
Is there, for example, any evidence for the existence of giraffes? Of course, we think we can see them, but this could be an illusion planted in our minds by the Babylonian god Marduk using his magic brainwashing ray.
But I don't think that this sort of fantasy really deprives evidence of its evidential value. Nor, I think, do you.
To quote Hume:
Whether your scepticism be as absolute and sincere as you pretend, we shall learn by and by, when the company breaks up: we shall then see, whether you go out at the door or the window; and whether you really doubt if your body has gravity, or can be injured by its fall; according to popular opinion, derived from our fallacious senses, and more fallacious experience.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Europa, posted 06-11-2010 2:02 AM Europa has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Europa, posted 06-11-2010 2:38 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Europa
Member (Idle past 4686 days)
Posts: 68
Joined: 06-05-2010


(1)
Message 86 of 104 (564584)
06-11-2010 2:38 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by Dr Adequate
06-11-2010 2:28 AM


This takes special pleading to a whole new level.
You have misunderstood my point. My Zeus story is not true by any means. I called my creature 'coplimite' also to emphasize that this is nto a true story.
But I hoped it demonstrated that the fact we see organisms alive is no fact that their environment did not change.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-11-2010 2:28 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Huntard, posted 06-11-2010 2:56 AM Europa has not replied
 Message 90 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-11-2010 3:01 AM Europa has not replied

  
Europa
Member (Idle past 4686 days)
Posts: 68
Joined: 06-05-2010


Message 87 of 104 (564585)
06-11-2010 2:42 AM


I just noticed that my member rating is 1. lol
This is a new development. Did I get rated because I posted 33 times? lol

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Huntard, posted 06-11-2010 2:57 AM Europa has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 88 of 104 (564586)
06-11-2010 2:56 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by Europa
06-11-2010 2:38 AM


Hello again Europa, I see the thread has been busy overnight.
You have misunderstood my point. My Zeus story is not true by any means. I called my creature 'coplimite' also to emphasize that this is nto a true story.
But I hoped it demonstrated that the fact we see organisms alive is no fact that their environment did not change.
He did understand it. His response was that if you are going to argue like that, than literally nothing is evidence for anything.
Giraffes? Marduk's brain-ray.
Mars? There because aliens are folling us with superior technology.
Stripppers? The flying spaghetti monster wants us to be entertained.
These are all the same reasoning (Special pleading) that you used. But as explanations they are completely useless. That's waht the Dr. was trying to explain.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Europa, posted 06-11-2010 2:38 AM Europa has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 89 of 104 (564587)
06-11-2010 2:57 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by Europa
06-11-2010 2:42 AM


Europa writes:
I just noticed that my member rating is 1. lol
This is a new development. Did I get rated because I posted 33 times? lol
Don't pay attention to ratings, they're not a permanent feature here anyway, and will be changed so that only positive ratings can be given. I for one never look at a persons rating, just at their posts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Europa, posted 06-11-2010 2:42 AM Europa has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 90 of 104 (564588)
06-11-2010 3:01 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by Europa
06-11-2010 2:38 AM


My Zeus story is not true by any means.
Quite so. And yet you seem to think that the fact that you can imagine it deprives the facts of their evidential value.
Well, I'll ask you again --- according to that standard, what is there evidence for? Is there, for example, any evidence for the existence of giraffes? If so, what?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Europa, posted 06-11-2010 2:38 AM Europa 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