Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9175 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: sirs
Post Volume: Total: 917,649 Year: 4,906/9,624 Month: 254/427 Week: 0/64 Day: 0/8 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Let us reason together.
greyline
Inactive Member


Message 91 of 152 (34005)
03-09-2003 9:21 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Quetzal
01-30-2003 4:46 AM


Species
Quetzal wrote:
The truth is that "dog" and "wolf" shouldn't be considered different species, since fertile backcrosses occur in nature. Wolves and dogs share 99%+ the same genomes. Here's a good site discussing wolf-dog hybridization Wolf-Dog Hybrids, which includes some of the genetics.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It's been a decade since I did my biology degree so I may have this wrong, but I wanted to clarify the above. And it probably should be a new topic but it's a wee thing: doesn't the definition of "species" include not only "able to produce fertile offspring" but also some consideration of behavioural patterns to allow individuals to recognise each other?
There are many species that are easily cross-mated in theory, but would not mate with each other in the wild because they have evolved incompatible mating rituals. I wonder if a poodle let loose in a wolf lair would actually mate with the wolves? (Well, maybe it would think that was fun - especially if it had led a sheltered life.)
Yeah, I will figure out this quote thing in my own time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Quetzal, posted 01-30-2003 4:46 AM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Quetzal, posted 03-10-2003 4:17 AM greyline has replied

Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5958 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 92 of 152 (34024)
03-10-2003 4:17 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by greyline
03-09-2003 9:21 PM


Re: Species
Hi greyline: Welcome to EVCforum!
quote:
It's been a decade since I did my biology degree so I may have this wrong, but I wanted to clarify the above. And it probably should be a new topic but it's a wee thing: doesn't the definition of "species" include not only "able to produce fertile offspring" but also some consideration of behavioural patterns to allow individuals to recognise each other?
Nope, you're not wrong. The post you were responding to contained something of an over-simplification (after all, it was designed to be illustrative, not authoritative ). In essence, the biological species concept states simply that, for two populations to be considered distinct species, there must be some type of reproductive barrier that prevents natural hybridization. The barrier can be pre- or post-zygotic. Examples of pre-zygotic barriers (which is what I think you were referring to)include things like ecological isolation, temporal isolation, behavioral isolation or structural isolation - or, just to keep things interesting, a combination of any or all. Post-zygotic barriers include things like hybrid inviability, hybrid sterility, or loss of fitness (although this is a tough one requiring a negative result after n generations). "Species" is a squishy term, anyway. It's a convenient, general rule of thumb - and generates myriads of exceptions, just like every other rule in biology. And, of course, this is where the creationist argument about "kinds" breaks down so thoroughly - since there's no real way of absolutely defining a species 100% of the time, there's even less evidence of the unbreachable taxic discontinuity required by "kinds".
quote:
There are many species that are easily cross-mated in theory, but would not mate with each other in the wild because they have evolved incompatible mating rituals. I wonder if a poodle let loose in a wolf lair would actually mate with the wolves? (Well, maybe it would think that was fun - especially if it had led a sheltered life.)
Yeah, the whole thing is dependent on "in the wild" vs artificially crossed. After all, zoos have created ligers - but even in India where lion and tiger ranges overlap, there are no natural crosses. As for dogs and wolves - here's one of those marvelous exceptions that keeps biology so interesting. How many "real" species of dog are there? We have lots of artificially selected breeds, but how many of them - if left to their own devices - would encounter reproductive barriers? I would say that likely the ones on the extremes (such as chihuahua vs great dane, for instance) would be considered different species (and probably even different genera) if encountered "in the wild". The wolf/dog hybrid example is another "exception", if you will. It's a fun one to use with creationists when they start in about their "kinds". Since dogs will always be dogs, what happens when they're wolves? Are wolves dogs as well, or vice - versa? Are they different kinds? If so, why can they interbreed in the wild? If wolves and dogs are the same kind, what about foxes? etc etc etc
Anyway, this is a longer response than you probably need or wanted.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by greyline, posted 03-09-2003 9:21 PM greyline has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by greyline, posted 03-10-2003 7:32 AM Quetzal has not replied

greyline
Inactive Member


Message 93 of 152 (34034)
03-10-2003 7:32 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by Quetzal
03-10-2003 4:17 AM


Re: Species
Thanks, Quetzal. It's all coming back to me now... And considering how much I've forgotten, the longer the better.
Speaking of which, I would imagine the great dane and chihuahua would have incompatibly sized pink bits even if all else is peachy (in its doggy way) within the relationship.
As a complete and utter aside, it amazes me how quickly new breeds of dogs were developed over the past however-many hundreds or thousands of years. Goes to show how pliable the genome can be when pressures are extreme (if manmade, in this case).
------------------
o--greyline--o

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Quetzal, posted 03-10-2003 4:17 AM Quetzal has not replied

Gzus
Inactive Member


Message 94 of 152 (34069)
03-10-2003 4:18 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by funkmasterfreaky
03-09-2003 8:12 PM


Yes, I misused the word truth. Perhaps we are all merely figments of our own imaginations!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 03-09-2003 8:12 PM funkmasterfreaky has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2256 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 95 of 152 (34263)
03-13-2003 8:36 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by nator
03-09-2003 8:27 AM


bump
Drum, are you still out there?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by nator, posted 03-09-2003 8:27 AM nator has not replied

drummachine
Inactive Member


Message 96 of 152 (34436)
03-14-2003 10:56 PM


Answers at ANSWERSINGENESIS.ORG.

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by greyline, posted 03-15-2003 1:13 AM drummachine has not replied
 Message 98 by Admin, posted 03-15-2003 8:15 AM drummachine has not replied
 Message 99 by nator, posted 03-15-2003 9:19 AM drummachine has not replied

greyline
Inactive Member


Message 97 of 152 (34442)
03-15-2003 1:13 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by drummachine
03-14-2003 10:56 PM


Answers at ANSWERSINGENESIS.ORG
I went there but I couldn't find any. Is that false advertising?
------------------
o--greyline--o

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by drummachine, posted 03-14-2003 10:56 PM drummachine has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 13082
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 98 of 152 (34451)
03-15-2003 8:15 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by drummachine
03-14-2003 10:56 PM


Answers at ANSWERSINGENESIS.ORG.
You posted the same answer over at the The Bible 2003 Edition by God et al. thread. Doing this in just one place simply means you've made a mistake that members make here all the time and it isn't a problem at all. Doing it in two threads a minute apart is a completely different matter.
The goal of this discussion board is to enable dialogue between evolutionists and Creationists in a format conducive to exploring the issues. Obfuscative approaches such as citing entire websites as the answer to multiple threads of discussion are strongly discouraged, and in fact persisting in this way won't be permitted.
[Correct spelling. --Admin]
------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator
[This message has been edited by Admin, 03-15-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by drummachine, posted 03-14-2003 10:56 PM drummachine has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2256 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 99 of 152 (34455)
03-15-2003 9:19 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by drummachine
03-14-2003 10:56 PM


quote:
Answers at ANSWERSINGENESIS.ORG.
Like I always suspected.
Drum, you were never interested in using "reason", or in actual learning or discussion, were you?
I have wasted my time with this duscussion, haven't I?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by drummachine, posted 03-14-2003 10:56 PM drummachine has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by Coragyps, posted 03-17-2003 10:31 PM nator has not replied

drummachine
Inactive Member


Message 100 of 152 (34590)
03-17-2003 9:28 PM


1)I believe evolution is not science but an anti-God religion: blind faith belief
2)In the beginning was the particles? I don't think so friend.
2)Do you have a sample of a transitional form?
4)The Bible is the history book of the universe. Not just some religious text book. Prophecy is the greatest thing in the Bible. Things spoken by the living God that have taken place after they were written. Earth shaking events! What I love about the Bible is that it is plain and easy to read for anyone. Because it's true.
5)I believe in natural selection. It's not evolution. Evolution takes new information which we do not see. Things are winding down. There is a loss of information.
6)Man has always been advanced. 5,000 years ago were the Egyptians learning how to grunt when they made the hyrogliphics or the pyramids?
7)We see kinds. We see many different kinds of dogs. Are they still dogs?
8)Its been proven that layers in the earth don't take a long time but a short time. If there was a world wide flood what would you find? Billions of dead things buried under rock layers laid down by water over the earth. What do we find?
9)Cells are the most compex systems. Were they thrown together?
10)Dinosaur stories all over the world about them being recent. Most dinos were the size of chickens. There are huge lizards all over the world. We dont even know what is all in the ocean. There are claims of people finding them in the congo in Africa. Many animals are extinct because they were killed. What about dinos being killed?
11)We were not there in the past. Millions of years is an asumption. Only the designer could be there. If the Bible is true we should be able to find all our answers in it. The history of the world through eternity. If He gave us all the answers we would have so many books we would not read them all. The Bible fits so perfectly with the origins of life. 7 day creation. (We have a seven day week.) Global flood, tower of babel. All peoples have been spread all over the world. Prophecy. The history of Israel. Jesus Christ Himself. The messiah. He was either a liar, lunatic or Lord. Why would God take the punishment of our sin in such torture on a cross if He did'nt love or care for us all? Are we willing to humble ourselves and realize His ways our higher then ours? Man has corrupted His creation. Not Him. He has a perfect plan for all who will humble themselves and call on His name. He wants our heart.(Not the physical one.) Even though evidence clearly points to a creator we still will believe what we want even though the facts are there. Why? Were sinners that have fallen short. We know there is a creator. He has set eternity in our hearts. You see in magazines and things like that that it is science vs. religion. I love science. Evolution is a belief. Even scientists like Behe have changed there conclusions. There has to be a designer. With evolution there is no absolute so you can do what you want. You can be a homosexual, abort babies, etc. Created means He has rules. He is a just judge. If we reject Him, He is still faithful to all. Of course in Him is eternal blessings beyond what we can comprehend!

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by edge, posted 03-17-2003 11:24 PM drummachine has not replied
 Message 104 by Andya Primanda, posted 03-18-2003 3:17 AM drummachine has not replied
 Message 105 by Quetzal, posted 03-18-2003 3:45 AM drummachine has not replied
 Message 107 by nator, posted 03-19-2003 7:48 AM drummachine has not replied

Coragyps
Member (Idle past 821 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 101 of 152 (34591)
03-17-2003 10:31 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by nator
03-15-2003 9:19 AM


I have wasted my time with this duscussion, haven't I?
Schraf, in light of post 100, I think we can answer that with a rousing affirmative.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by nator, posted 03-15-2003 9:19 AM nator has not replied

edge
Member (Idle past 1792 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 102 of 152 (34593)
03-17-2003 11:24 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by drummachine
03-17-2003 9:28 PM


Wow, this is worse than I thought...
quote:
8)Its been proven that layers in the earth don't take a long time but a short time. If there was a world wide flood what would you find? Billions of dead things buried under rock layers laid down by water over the earth. What do we find?
No, no, no, no, no, no, NOOOOOOOO! It has been shown that SOME layers can be deposited in a short time. And they usually don't last very long either. Humor me and try to be logical for just once!
I'm beginning to think that we haven't accomplished a thing on this or any other board. Ignorance reigns. I'm going home.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by drummachine, posted 03-17-2003 9:28 PM drummachine has not replied

drummachine
Inactive Member


Message 103 of 152 (34595)
03-17-2003 11:41 PM


What do you mean logical?
[This message has been edited by drummachine, 03-17-2003]

Andya Primanda
Inactive Member


Message 104 of 152 (34606)
03-18-2003 3:17 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by drummachine
03-17-2003 9:28 PM


kinds
quote:
6)Man has always been advanced. 5,000 years ago were the Egyptians learning how to grunt when they made the hyrogliphics or the pyramids?
20000 years ago there were no Egyptians, just hunter-gatherers all over Earth. That's not 'advanced'.
2 million years ago there were no men. There were ape-men.
quote:
7)We see kinds. We see many different kinds of dogs. Are they still dogs?
We see many different kinds of apes, eg. gibbons, orangutans, gorillas, chimps, australopiths, humans. Are they still apes? I say: Yes.
Come to think of it, regardless of the reproductive barrier criterion, is the variation among dog breeds larger than variation among extant apes? Are gibbons and gorillas more similar than, say, poodles and st. Bernards? What about humans vs chimps and dobermans vs German shepherds?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by drummachine, posted 03-17-2003 9:28 PM drummachine has not replied

Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5958 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 105 of 152 (34607)
03-18-2003 3:45 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by drummachine
03-17-2003 9:28 PM


Numbers in reply refer to cited post:
1) You believe that evolution is a blind faith belief. As of yet, you have offered no support for this assertion. What is the basis for your belief?
2) Nor does anyone else. You either have erected a strawman or have not understood the explanations provided.
2 bis (you duplicated a number here, but I assume you meant #3) There are a numerous examples of fossil organisms that show distinctive traits across species, genus, family and even order boundaries (IOW, that contain traits of one or more). To give a valid example, it would be incumbent upon you to define what you would accept as a "transitional form". Please do so now.
4) There have been no verified fulfilled prophecies. Beyond that, the Bible's value as a "history book of the universe" is questionable, to say the least, as even those historical and/or observations that are made in it are in large measure erroneous. You're better off using Moby Dick as a science reference - after all, there really ARE whales.
5) How are you defining natural selection without reference to evolution? Quoting from my as-yet unfinished essay on the subject,
Quetzal, at some unspecified future point, writes:
In response to environmental conditions, natural selection gradually changes the proportions of various kinds of genes within populations and thus gradually alters the proportions of organisms with corresponding traits within those populations. Natural selection shapes the characteristics of species.
Evolution DOES create "new information" - any change in the genotype of a species or population axiomatically adds new information (information that was not previously present) to that genotype or population. Please demonstrate, using either living or extinct organisms, the evidence behind the assertion "things are winding down". In what way, and from what point is this occurring? How do you determine that an organism, species, population, community or ecosystem has "lost information". Be specific.
5) The most recent work I've read on the evolution of language is that it is the result of pre-adaptation unique to Homo sapiens, and may have played a key role in the ultimate dominance of this species. As such, it would have been more on the order of 150-200,000 years ago, not 5000. We can presume that langauge played a role in social organisation of the first "civilized" states around 10-13,000 years ago. Therefore, it is unlikely the Egyptians were forced to grunt when constructing their monuments. However, you will need to provide evidence of some kind that "man has always been advanced". You can start by explaining what "advanced" means in this context. After all, even Australopithecines were able to fashion crude tools.
7) Contrary to your assertion, we don't see "kinds". We see divergeant populations of various organisms, some closely related (which we group into species or genera), some nearby populations which are unrelated. In addition, we see significant variation from one end of even species ranges to the other - ring species being a prime example. There is no taxic discontinuity (the requirement for "kinds) observable in nature. If you think that such exist, please provide a concrete example. In addition, please explain the biological mechanism that prevents one "kind" from becoming another "kind" over geological timeframes and/or operationally define "kind". And yes, dogs are still dogs, except when they're wolves (or foxes) as I noted above. Are wolves and dogs different "kinds"?
8) See edge's reply.
9) How are you defining complex? I would like to see some evidence that leads you to believe "cells are the most complex systems". And no, they weren't "thrown together". Of course, if you had read the website schraf linked you to, you'd have known that.
10) Incorrect. The last of the main dino lineages died out around 65 mya. The only related lineage that still exists are what we call birds. "Most dinos were the size of chickens?" Where do you come up with this stuff? Giganotosaurus was a 12 meter long carnivore with 16 cm teeth! Bit bigger than a chicken, I'd say. No one has found any dino in the Congo. And as for dinos being hunted to extinction by humans, the odds are it would have been the other way around unless early humans were armed with antitank weapons.
11) Yeah, well that's the question isn't it? "IF the bible were true...". So far, you haven't provided anything to support this assertion beyond it makes you feel good. Bible thumping and faith testimonials do not an argument make.
One last bit: you state, "I love science". How on Earth can you make this statement yet at the same time reject everything science is based on?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by drummachine, posted 03-17-2003 9:28 PM drummachine 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