Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 58 (9173 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,575 Year: 4,832/9,624 Month: 180/427 Week: 93/85 Day: 0/10 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Dogs will be Dogs will be ???
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 271 of 331 (654004)
02-26-2012 2:57 AM


Same kind different species?
RADZ writes:
Would you expect one to become exactly like the other, or through convergent evolution to have similar behavior and appearance, as we see with the sugar glider (australian marsupial) and the flying squirrel (north american placental)?
Hi RAZD. I brought this post over here to respond to. You can work it into one comment with my other post if you like so we don't have multiple comments going at the same time.
Well, that's a good question. I'm not sure. Maybe the same kind but a different species? On the face of it I would say they were the same kind. Although i'm not sure. I don't think location of animals is what determines kinds. I think a bird in Australia could be same kind of bird in America, etc.
Although in your example they could be different kinds sure.
I guess I could ask what helps you determine what a kind is? How do you classify certain animals, species? I'm not so sure I have a great definition to be honest. I don't think it's easy to say just based on similar behavior and appearance. A lion could have simliar apperances as a dog but one would be feline and the other canine.
So maybe we should work on a good definition of kind before we go further.
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 284 by Percy, posted 02-26-2012 8:26 AM Chuck77 has replied
 Message 287 by crashfrog, posted 02-26-2012 10:43 AM Chuck77 has replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2372 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 272 of 331 (654007)
02-26-2012 3:34 AM
Reply to: Message 270 by Chuck77
02-26-2012 1:35 AM


Re: Bump for Chuck77 and Panda
Hello again Chuck, hope you don't mind me giving my input (so much for the "semi one on one" ). If you do, just say so and I'l stop.
Chuck77 writes:
First of all I don't like the terms micro or macro. If I say I accept "micro" it seems like I am accepting evolution as a whole, which I don't.
Well, on it's most basic level, evolution simply is descent (children) with modification (variation). Which I think you accept. That is to say, you accept that organisms that produce offspring will have slight variations within that offspring, regarding the traits of the parents.
Tho for sake of argument "micro" to me is: observed genetic variation within a kind of animal.
The problem with this definition is that you can't quantify or describe what a "kind" is. There are no criteria that you can give that will help us determine "this is one kind of animal, and this is another". For instance, you admitted that you think a cat could turn into a fox (not immediately, I understand) in Message 121. However, cats are classified as follows:
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Carnivora
Family: Felidae
Genus: Felis
Species: F. catus
Yet foxes (more particularly the red fox, which you were shown a picture of) are classified as follows:
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Carnivora
Family: Canidae
Tribe: Vulpini
Genus: Vulpes
Species: V. vulpes
See that "Family" bit there? that where the first change this "hierarchy" takes place, if it is indeed possible for cats eventually "turning into" foxes (which i don't dispute). However, since mankind is classified as:
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Primates
Family: Hominidae
Tribe: Hominini
Genus: Homo
Species: H. sapiens
And chimps (but I could've taken any ape here) are classified as:
Scientific classification
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Primates
Family: Hominidae
Subfamily: Homininae
Tribe: Hominini
Subtribe: Panina
Genus: Pan
As you can see, We are already in the same family as apes, meaning for a human to "turn into" chimp is "easier" than for a cat to "turn into" a fox.
"Macro" to me would be land mammal to sea mammal or vice versa. Much much more change.
But given enough time, what makes the variations stop? What is it about fox genes that stops the (originally a) cat-genes from saying: "Right, here we are, no further, this is the end, we're there, nothing else to go to, yep, definitely it"?
Hoping for a beneficial mutation will account for the many changes needed to make the (change)?(i'm not sure what exactly would be needed for such a change) Whereas micro would not need to depend on random mutations to evolve because it would already be included in the original DNA e.g. finch beaks.
But finch beak variations aren't already included in the DNA. Finches with smaller beaks don't have genes stashed away somewhere for larger beaks, it takes a mutation of the "beak genes" to make the larger.
I can't say. Like I said I don't use the terms really. To me Macro is unseen change over thousands millions of years that cannot be observed.
Well yes, because it takes too long.
I concede micro cannot really be observed either (as none of us are witnessing Wolves slowly becoming Poodles - same kind) but atleast we see the same kinds of animals producing the same kinds of animals.
Of course, like you said, macro takes "thousands millions of years", a human lifetime, or even rigorous recording of everything around us, is not nearly long enough to possibly detect changes like that.
So I think it's a stretch to assume they change out of that kind.
Why? Why should we be able to observe things that take "thousands millions of years" when we as humans only recently get as old as about 80 years?
Why would they? Why can't that kind adapt to the evironment into another species of the same kind? What is the need for "macro" evolution.
There is no "need" other than the fact that there are niches to fill. Like with fish to land animals. The fish had basically occupied the entire ocean, yet the land was free of all competition (yes, I know insects were there, but please, let's keep it simple). Menaning that any fish that would develop the means to get onto that land would be King supreme, for as long as no other fishes would do the same.
I accept evolution of the same kind of animal, just not the TOE's version of it e.g. transitional, intermediates, PE, etc.
But why would it sop at a certain border? One, I might add, you cannot define. What is the mechanisms that says "Until here and no further"? For example, what If I start walking. I walk 10 miles, I walk 20 miles, I walk 30 miles... What is that makes me stop walking, where is the impenetrable wall that makes me go "right, that's it, no further for me"?
I think extinction is a possible cause for the fossil record looking the way it does instead of some of them being transitionals (IMO).
Extinction is precisely why the fossil record looks as it does, for all (I think) species found therein are not species that are still alive today. Which is perhaps a bit confusing to you. Of course no individual fossil might be a "transitional" but the species as a whole we find in the fossil record surely are. What else is archaeopteyrx but a transition between a dinosaur and a bird? Yes, the actual lineage of archy might not have gone anywhere, but its features are most definitely transitional.
I think tho, that there are transitional fossils within the same kind that make up a part of the fossil record too. How couldn't there be if I accept "micro" evolution?
Fair enough.
So could some of those "micro" intermediates be confused for "macro" intermediates?
Would you say archaeopteryx is such a micro intermediate? Then what is its "kind"? Half-dinosaur-half-bird-thingies?
A lot? I'm not sure. 50,000 - 100,000 morphological changes? How many ever are needed to adapt. It would seem much easier for a Fox to Cat than Horse to Whale?
But impossible from chimp to man? That's a lot easier than fox to cat.
Incidently as ignorant as it may sound that's what I think "macro" would be - horse to whale - for a lack of better example. Again it may be ignorant of me to define things the way I am but i'm just letting you know what my knowledge of these things are.
No, I can live with that. We can work out the details later, but sure, "horse to whale" is an acceptable analogy to me.
Because their the same kind (feline). I wouldn't consider it "macro" but "micro".
But they're not. Foxes are canine. Again, look at the family. Foxes are canidae (canine, wolves are also in this category) and cats are felidae (feline, like lions are too). And if you mean that the "family" classification bit is the limit for "kind" (perhaps you made a mistake with foxes, it could happen), then still, humans are part of the same family as chimps.
Thank you for your time, Chuck77. I hope we can keep this debate friendly (no, I'm not just referring to you )
{ABE}:
Well, that's a good question. I'm not sure. Maybe the same kind but a different species? On the face of it I would say they were the same kind. Although i'm not sure. I don't think location of animals is what determines kinds. I think a bird in Australia could be same kind of bird in America, etc.
A flying squirrel is classified as:
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Rodentia
Family: Sciuridae
Subfamily: Sciurinae
Tribe: Pteromyini
(there's no further than "tribe" here because there are 44 different species of flying squirrel that we know of, and I don't know what the species of the one pictured is)
And a sugar glider as:
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Infraclass: Marsupialia
Order: Diprotodontia
Family: Petauridae
Genus: Petaurus
Species: P. breviceps
As you can see the difference here starts with "order", even earlier than family, making these two even less related than foxes are to cats, which are themselves less related than humans are to chimps.
I guess I could ask what helps you determine what a kind is? How do you classify certain animals, species?
We use genetics (at present, before, it was morphology, but even then, the classification of the exmple given by RAZD hasn't changed).
So maybe we should work on a good definition of kind before we go further.
Indeed. Care to start the ball rolling?
Edited by Huntard, : Edited to incorporate second post

This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by Chuck77, posted 02-26-2012 1:35 AM Chuck77 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 273 by Chuck77, posted 02-26-2012 3:53 AM Huntard has replied
 Message 278 by Chuck77, posted 02-26-2012 5:10 AM Huntard has replied

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 273 of 331 (654010)
02-26-2012 3:53 AM
Reply to: Message 272 by Huntard
02-26-2012 3:34 AM


Re: Bump for Chuck77 and Panda
Huntard writes:
But they're not. Foxes are canine. Again, look at the family. Foxes are canidae (canine, wolves are also in this category) and cats are felidae (feline, like lions are too). And if you mean that the "family" classification bit is the limit for "kind" (perhaps you made a mistake with foxes, it could happen), then still, humans are part of the same family as chimps.
Ooops. Yes, I made a mistake. Foxes are canine? I thought they were feline(felidae).
Would it be ok then to say I don't believe the fox can evolve "into" a cat then?
Of course I don't mind you commenting. Thanks for the info.
ABE: It seems like these - kinds- are already set up. I can accept these catagories you posted all evolving into each (except chimp to man).
For now can we leave chimp to man out of it and focus on the feline canine families?
This is a little confusing for me. So the flying squirrel is a rodent and the sugar slider is marsupial?
Why are they classified different? What sets them apart? I need to look at all the classifications I think and maybe go from there for my own good.
ABE: decided to just make it a seperate post.
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by Huntard, posted 02-26-2012 3:34 AM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 274 by Huntard, posted 02-26-2012 3:59 AM Chuck77 has not replied
 Message 277 by dwise1, posted 02-26-2012 5:08 AM Chuck77 has replied
 Message 288 by RAZD, posted 02-26-2012 12:32 PM Chuck77 has replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2372 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 274 of 331 (654011)
02-26-2012 3:59 AM
Reply to: Message 273 by Chuck77
02-26-2012 3:53 AM


Re: Bump for Chuck77 and Panda
Chuck77 writes:
Ooops. Yes, I made a mistake. Foxes are canine? I thought they were feline(felidae).
Would it be ok then to say I don't believe the fox can evolve "into" a cat then?
Sure. No problem with me, people make mistakes, no biggie.
So, it would seem that whatever method you use, a "kind" would at least have to be at the "family" level. But then how to continue? What other criteria should be used to determine the "kind"
Of course I don't mind you commenting. Thanks for the info.
Thank you.
{ABE}:
It seems like these - kinds- are already set up. I can accept these catagories you posted all evolving into each (except chimp to man).
For now can we leave chimp to man out of it and focus on the feline canine families?
Sure, fine with me.
Edited by Huntard, : Chuck edited something in

This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by Chuck77, posted 02-26-2012 3:53 AM Chuck77 has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2372 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 275 of 331 (654012)
02-26-2012 4:05 AM


A great video
This video gives great examples of the classification "evolutionists" use, I recommend it to you chuck.
Yes, it's critical of creationism, but please look past that, I know you're not likely to change your mind on this, but the explanations he gives of classifications is so great, I think it will help you a lot. He might go a little fast, so perhaps look it over a few times.
Link

Replies to this message:
 Message 276 by Chuck77, posted 02-26-2012 4:35 AM Huntard has not replied

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 276 of 331 (654016)
02-26-2012 4:35 AM
Reply to: Message 275 by Huntard
02-26-2012 4:05 AM


Re: A great video
Thanks Huntard, i'll watch it now.
Also, what I meant to say above (what I said was I can accept these catagories evolving into eachother) was the felidae classification (for example) all evolving within that family - Lion, cat, tiger I accept...not canine with feline just for clarification.
The Hominidae family I disagree with also. Chimp to man.
I know it seems i'm being picky choosey here but i'm just sharing my thoughts trying to determine how these classifications are determined.
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by Huntard, posted 02-26-2012 4:05 AM Huntard has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5967
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 277 of 331 (654017)
02-26-2012 5:08 AM
Reply to: Message 273 by Chuck77
02-26-2012 3:53 AM


Re: Bump for Chuck77 and Panda
Would it be ok then to say I don't believe the fox can evolve "into" a cat then?
Uh, excuse me, but huh???? And please do excuse me for not having inserted an infinitely greater number of question marks, which would have been much more appropriate.
To start with, do you honestly think that evolution says that a fox should evolve into a cat? No, seriously! Is that what you think? Because I think that we have been involved in this kind of discussion before. Because I definitely know that I've been involved in discussions of nested hierarchies, AKA "kinds producing within their own kinds".
According to the Wikipedia articles of Carnivora:
quote:
ORDER CARNIVORA
Suborder Feliformia ("cat-like")
Superfamily Feloidea
Family Felidae: cats; 40 species in 14 genera
Suborder Caniformia ("dog-like")
Family Canidae: dogs and allies; 37 species in 10 genera
Tribe Canini -- True dogs
Tribe Vulpini -- True foxes
Infraorder Arctoidea
Superfamily Ursoidea
Family Ursidae: bears; 8 species in 5 genera
Superfamily Musteloidea
Family Ailuridae: red panda; 1 species in 1 genus.
Family Mephitidae: skunks and stink badgers; 10 species in 4 genera
Family Mustelidae: weasels, martens, badgers, wolverines, minks, ferrets, and
otters; 55 species in 24 genera
Family Procyonidae: raccoons and allies; 19 species in 6 genera
Superfamily Pinnipedia
Family Odobenidae: walrus; 1 species in 1 genus
Family Otariidae: sea lions, eared seals, fur seals; 14 species in 7 genera
Family Phocidae: true seals; 19 species in 9 genera

Foxes will reproduce after their own kind, id est (i.e.) ORDER CARNIVORA, Suborder Caniformia, Tribe Vulpini. And not ORDER CARNIVORA, Suborder Feliformia, Superfamily Feloidea, Family Felidae. Whatever would have possessed you (and I do know that fundamentalist Christians do take demonic possession seriously (even when it turns out to be totally comical, but then they would not be fundamentalist Christians)) to imagine that evolution would allow for a fox to give birth to a cat?
In other words, Chuck77, are you serious? You wanted to work on a creationist model. OK, in order to work that out, you will need to work out everything. What is evolution? What does evolution teach and claim? How does that work? Does evolution really say that a fox should give birth to a cat? Or does it in reality say that that should not happen? Of course, creationists are ever ready to make all kinds of outrageous claims, but upon actual examination what does evolution actually predict?
Nu?
Edited by dwise1, : Multiple Wikipedia articles, as I had to drill down into ever greater detail.
Edited by Admin, : Reduce message width.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by Chuck77, posted 02-26-2012 3:53 AM Chuck77 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 279 by Chuck77, posted 02-26-2012 5:16 AM dwise1 has replied

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 278 of 331 (654018)
02-26-2012 5:10 AM
Reply to: Message 272 by Huntard
02-26-2012 3:34 AM


Re: Bump for Chuck77 and Panda
chuck writes:
So maybe we should work on a good definition of kind before we go further.
Huntard writes:
Indeed. Care to start the ball rolling?
How about starting here:
Canidae - Wikipedia:
FAMILY CANIDAE
[edit] Subfamily CaninaeTrue dogs - Tribe Canini
Genus Canis
Gray wolf, Canis lupus (2.723 Ma to present)
Domestic dog, Canis lupus familiaris
Dingo, most often classified as Canis lupus dingo (sometimes considered a separate taxon)
many other subspecies
Coyote, Canis latrans (also called Prairie Wolf)
Ethiopian wolf, Canis simensis (also called Abyssinian wolf, simien fox and simien jackal)
Golden jackal, Canis aureus
Side-striped jackal, Canis adustus
Black-backed jackal, Canis mesomelas
Genus Cuon
Dhole, Cuon alpinus or Canis alpinus (also called Asian wild dog)
Genus Lycaon
African wild dog, Lycaon pictus (also called African hunting dog)
Genus Atelocynus
Short-eared dog, Atelocynus microtis
Genus Cerdocyon
Crab-eating fox, Cerdocyon thous
Genus Dusicyon
Falklands wolf, Dusicyon australis
Genus Lycalopex (Pseudalopex)
Culpeo, Lycalopex culpaeus
Darwin's fox, Lycalopex fulvipes
South American gray fox, Lycalopex griseus
Pampas fox, Lycalopex gymnocercus
Sechura fox, Lycalopex sechurae
Hoary fox, Lycalopex vetulus
Genus Chrysocyon
Maned wolf, Chrysocyon brachyurus
Genus Speothos
Bush dog, Speothos venaticus
True foxes - Tribe Vulpini
Genus Vulpes
Arctic fox, Vulpes lagopus
Red fox, Vulpes vulpes (1 Ma to present)
Swift fox, Vulpes velox
Kit fox, Vulpes macrotis
Corsac fox, Vulpes corsac
Cape fox, Vulpes chama
Pale fox, Vulpes pallida
Bengal fox, Vulpes bengalensis
Tibetan sand fox, Vulpes ferrilata
Blanford's fox, Vulpes cana
Rppell's fox, Vulpes rueppelli
Fennec fox, Vulpes zerda
Genus Urocyon (2 Ma to present)
Gray fox, Urocyon cinereoargenteus
Island fox, Urocyon littoralis
Cozumel fox, Urocyon sp.
Basal Caninae
Genus Otocyon (probably a vulpine close to Urocyon)
Bat-eared fox, Otocyon megalotis
Genus Nyctereutes
Can we call the family Canidae a "kind"?
ABE: I'm not sure I really understand what evolution predicts.
Does it say that all these catagories evolve within themselves?
Is the only one I have a problem with is the hominade family then? Chimp to man?
Sorry man, I really don't know.
So is my idea of "macro" not what the TOE teaches?
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by Huntard, posted 02-26-2012 3:34 AM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 280 by Huntard, posted 02-26-2012 5:33 AM Chuck77 has replied

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 279 of 331 (654019)
02-26-2012 5:16 AM
Reply to: Message 277 by dwise1
02-26-2012 5:08 AM


Re: Bump for Chuck77 and Panda
I'm actually trying to wrap my brain around all of this information trying to learn about the different catagories that I have no idea about whatsoever and you come at me with this response?
Do you really feel that threatend by my complete and utter lack of knowledge on evolution and the taxonomic catagories?
I'm having a hard enough time after watching that video trying to figure out what he was talking about and researching this subject.
I'm sorry for insulting you as my comments are in no way directed at you but Huntard and RAZD who seem to be willing to engage me. Thanks.
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by dwise1, posted 02-26-2012 5:08 AM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 282 by dwise1, posted 02-26-2012 6:13 AM Chuck77 has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2372 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 280 of 331 (654020)
02-26-2012 5:33 AM
Reply to: Message 278 by Chuck77
02-26-2012 5:10 AM


Re: Bump for Chuck77 and Panda
Chuck77 writes:
Can we call the family Canidae a "kind"?
Well, that's just it. On what basis should we call it a "kind", what are the definitions, the boundaries of a "kind"? Remember, I think evolution is true, and that there are no "kinds", there are species, there are families and so forth. What do you think are the qualifications of a "kind"? The criteria, as it were, to say "Ah! This has traits 1, 2, 3, 4 etc., therefore, it is clearly this kind!" That is what we need here. Example:
I could say the traits of the order carnivora are:
A group of multicellular, eukaryotic organisms, whose body plan eventually becomes fixed as they develop, and who must ingest other organisms or their products for sustenance (that's the "Animalia" part of the classification). Further they have a notochord, a hollow dorsal nerve cord, pharyngeal slits, an endostyle, and a post-anal tail (that's the "Chordata" part). Also they are air-breathing, possess endothermy, hair, three middle ear bones, and mammary glands (the "Mammalia" part). They also eat meat (Carnivora).
All carnivora (not to be confused with "carnivores") share these traits, without exception.
What are your criteria for determining a "kind"?
{ABE:}
I'm not sure I really understand what evolution predicts.
Does it say that all these catagories evolve within themselves?
Well, yes and no. You will never, for instance see an elephant give birth to a giraffe. But also, you will never see a wolf give birth to a poodle (same species), or even a poodle to a bull terrier (same subspecies, meaning they can even have offspring together). Evolution says that whatever is born out of two poodles mating, it will never be so radically different that we wouldn't be able to call it a poodle. However, it will be a bit different. Now, if you add up thousands of these differences, you end up with, for example, a bull terrier. That is what evolution says. Add millions of changes and you might even end up with a cat (so to speak, this is impossible for reasons we really shouldn't get into until you have a firm grasp of the basics).
Is the only one I have a problem with is the hominade family then? Chimp to man?
Probably.
Sorry man, I really don't know.
Admitting ignorance is the first step on the way to learning.
So is my idea of "macro" not what the TOE teaches?
Macro is basically a whole bunch of micro. In evolution it is used for above species evolution, meaning one species turning into another. But even then, for example, it could mean one species of lizard turning into a different species of lizard. They would still be lizards, but they wouldn't be able to mate. A great example is ring species. Here you have different species, where the ones living next to each other are able to mate, and yet, not all can mate with each other.
For example:
You have species A, B and C . Species A is able to mate with Species B, species B is able to mate with species C, but species C is not able to mate with species A.
Edited by Huntard, : Edited for Chuck

This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by Chuck77, posted 02-26-2012 5:10 AM Chuck77 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 281 by Chuck77, posted 02-26-2012 6:13 AM Huntard has replied

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 281 of 331 (654023)
02-26-2012 6:13 AM
Reply to: Message 280 by Huntard
02-26-2012 5:33 AM


Re: Bump for Chuck77 and Panda
Huntard writes:
Well, that's just it. On what basis should we call it a "kind", what are the definitions, the boundaries of a "kind"?
I don't know. It might be a little more complicated than Ithought (imagine that).
You're saying there aren't such a thing as kinds right? What do you call them then, species, sub-species?
What do you think we mean by kinds? Heheheh...
I think it would be good to start by the certain catagories already set in place and go from there maybe. Tho you say where do kinds end? Does evolution teach there is no end, that we are all connected so to speak?
Then what do we think, that we aren't all connected? If evolution says common ancestory and we say common designer, no matter what we must all be connected...right? That our DNA is a "universal" like code?
So what's our contention, the whole we are apes thingy? If I feel we just are not evolved along with apes perse and that all species evolved within (the yet undefined term of kinds) then we are trying to find the mechanism now?
I'm just trying to find the dividing line of where my contention is at.
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by Huntard, posted 02-26-2012 5:33 AM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 283 by Huntard, posted 02-26-2012 6:39 AM Chuck77 has not replied
 Message 286 by crashfrog, posted 02-26-2012 10:32 AM Chuck77 has replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5967
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 282 of 331 (654024)
02-26-2012 6:13 AM
Reply to: Message 279 by Chuck77
02-26-2012 5:16 AM


Re: Bump for Chuck77 and Panda
I'm sorry, but you have no idea about nested hierarchies? Huh? Sorry, but that truly and completely boggles the normal's mind.
Do you really feel that threatend by my complete and utter lack of knowledge on evolution and the taxonomic catagories?
Com'on, are you kidding?
Creationists are banking on the public's and decision-makers' ignorance of evolution and everything associated with evolution, including taxonomic categories. Since creationists are outright lying about those things, how could you possibly question any of our objections to the outright lies that creationists are spreading?
Uh, you make some statements about evolution and taxonomic catetgories that are complete bullshit (which is what you did categorize them as being as you referred to your "complete and utter lack of knowledge on evolution and the taxonomic catagories")
OK, try wrapping your head around this. You have a fox. What might that fox ever give birth to? Uh... Duh... Duh... Duh... a fox? Duh??? I'm sorry, but didn't I provide enough question marks? Should we ever for any reason whatsoever, whatsoever, whatsoever, whatsover expect that fox to have given birth to a cat? What the frickin' frackin' frackin' fraKKK!!!???
IOW, what you expect is complete and utter nonsense. Which, as far as I can possibly tell, says that what you expect is complete and utter nonsense.
Edited by Admin, : Trim multiple character sequences down to 3.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by Chuck77, posted 02-26-2012 5:16 AM Chuck77 has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2372 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 283 of 331 (654028)
02-26-2012 6:39 AM
Reply to: Message 281 by Chuck77
02-26-2012 6:13 AM


Re: Bump for Chuck77 and Panda
Chuck77 writes:
I don't know. It might be a little more complicated than Ithought (imagine that).
You're saying there aren't such a thing as kinds right? What do you call them then, sepecies, subspecies?
At the most basic level, species or subspecies (depending on a lot of other things). For example, we are the species Homo Sapiens, dogs and wolves are both the species Canis Lupus, and dogs are all subspecies Canis Lupus Familiaris. The most basic definition for species is "a group of animals that share a habitat and are able to produce viable offspring". For example, horses and donkeys can produce offspring (mules), yet those are sterile, and so, horses and donkeys are a different species.
What do you think we mean by kinds? Heheheh...
Honestly, I think creationists thought up the concept of "kinds", so that they can deal with the undeniable fact of micro-evolution. It simply cannot be denied that dogs evolved from wolves (for example). But how, if evolution is impossible? "Ah!" say the creationists "that's because they are still the same kind! They didn't evolve beyond the "kind" level!". Of course, they than never define how we are to determine which animal belongs to which kind (is "bird" a kind? Is "fish" a kind. Or is "ostrich" a kind or "robin" or "shark" or "tuna"?). But the problem runs deeper. For It hink that if creationists were to define "kind", they'd have to face the problem of "evolutionists" going: "Well, that doesn't make sense, you see, here you have this creature, belonging to kind A, and yet, it shares these traits with another creature belonging to kind B. Is it a transitional between these two kinds?"
I think it would be good to start by the certain catagories already set in place and go from there maybe. Tho you say where do kinds end? Does evolution teach there is no end, that we are all connected so to speak?
Yes, exactly that. All animals, from the very small to the very large are connected, and ultimately share 1 ancestor. For example, all land animals (except insects) share an ancestor very much similar to Tiktaalik. Not saying this is the common ancestor, but something like this must've been. One more interesting fact is how Tiktaalik was found. Scientists knew when this kind of fossil was likely to have been formed, and so they sought out rocks of that age, and what do you know, they found exactly such a fossil.
Then what do we think, that we aren't all connected? If evolution says common ancestory and we say common designer, no matter what we must all be connecd...right?
Well, think of it as family. You are obviously connected to your cousins through your grandparents (your grandparents are the common ancestor to both you and your cousins). Now, the further apart you go (second cousins, third cousins etc.), the further back this common ancestry lies (great grandparents, great great grandparents etc.). With a common designer, why would we see the nested hierarchy we see around us? Why would the designer feel a need to design not a single mammal with feathers? Why not a single bird with a womb etc.?
So what's ourntention, the whole we are apes thingy? If I feel we just are not evolved along with apes and that all species evolved within the yet undefined term of kinds then we are trying to find the mechanism now?
We are trying to find what constitutes a "kind" I think. At it's simplest, if we say apes are one kind, and humans are another, then what is the definition of "ape kind" and what of "human kind", so that when we find remains, we can always say, "well that's clearly an ape, and that's clearly a human".
I'm just trying to find the dividing line of where my contention is at.
Really, you're only point of contention is that we are not and cannot be evolved from a common ancestor we share with apes (even monkeys). But the problem for accepting other parts of evolution means that you then cannot say "well yeah, I accept that a "wolf" eventually and over millions of years "turned into" a "whale"(keeping terminology simple here)", two "kinds" that surely are very dissimilar. "But I can't accept that an "ape" over millions of years "turned into" a "human" (again, simple terms)", which I'm sure you will agree, are far more similar than wolves and whales.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by Chuck77, posted 02-26-2012 6:13 AM Chuck77 has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22606
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 284 of 331 (654034)
02-26-2012 8:26 AM
Reply to: Message 271 by Chuck77
02-26-2012 2:57 AM


Re: Same kind different species?
Chuck77 writes:
So maybe we should work on a good definition of kind before we go further.
In Message 67 of the Evolution is not Abiogenesis thread you said you were going to return to trying to "establish a Creation theory." By this did you mean another non-scientific version of creationism at odds with reality? It sure sounds like it, because kind is a concept of the current version of creationism, and they've never given it a formal definition.
It might be a better idea to explore what science knows about classification and speciation before making a decision about whether the concept of kind belongs in your version of creationism, otherwise you'll just be creating another version of creation that makes no sense.
If on the other hand you're sort of sifting through current creationism to see what concepts should be retained, then I'd ask from what stems the notion that any of it is worth retaining? It cannot possibly stem from any of your discussions here. Creationism is merely the very odd claim that the tales in a religious book are literally true. Some of that book, the Bible, is true, some of it is demonstrably false, and some of it can't be verified. To borrow a favorite creationist style of inquiry, concerning Genesis 1, was Moses there? Oh, but Moses was inspired by God to write an accurate account of creation. How do you know he was inspired by God? Were you there?
These are silly questions, of course, but I'm just trying to make a point. Rather than accepting Biblical and creationist concepts until you prove to yourself they're false, I would suggest barring any concepts not well supported with evidence. Real world evidence. There's really no point in creating a theory that has aspects unsupported by evidence - scientifically it will never go anywhere.
Since I'm being critical I should add that I think this new approach is a great improvement from your old.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by Chuck77, posted 02-26-2012 2:57 AM Chuck77 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 295 by Chuck77, posted 02-27-2012 2:39 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1482 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 285 of 331 (654035)
02-26-2012 9:02 AM
Reply to: Message 270 by Chuck77
02-26-2012 1:35 AM


micro and macro
Hi Chuck77 and thanks.
It seems that a number of posts have happened, so I'll try to catch up.
First of all I don't like the terms micro or macro. If I say I accept "micro" it seems like I am accepting evolution as a whole, which I don't. Tho for sake of argument "micro" to me is: observed genetic variation within a kind of animal.
These terms are perfectly valid to help distinguish levels of the process, and they were used by biologists before creationists. The problem usually comes from misunderstanding how they are used in biology and confusion with what creationists seem to expect. Let's see if we can clarify these positions.
You've probably seen my definition of the process of evolution before, but I'll repeat it for clarity:
Evolution is the change in the frequency distribution and composition of hereditary traits within breeding populations from generation to generation, in response to ecological challenges and opportunities.
Note that this evolution occurs within a breeding population, and that this breeding population can be a smaller group than the species that the breeding population belongs to, if it has become isolated from other groups of the same species (which happens).
Mutation can cause change in the composition of hereditary traits carried by individuals of a breeding population, but not all mutations do so. In addition there are many different kinds of mutations and they have different effects (from small to large).
Natural Selection and Neutral Drift can cause change in the distribution of hereditary traits within the breeding population, but they are not the only mechanism that does so.
The ecological challenges and opportunities change when the environment changes, the breeding population evolves, other organisms within the ecology evolve, migrations change the mixture of organisms within the ecology, or a breeding population migrates into a new ecology. These changes can result in different survival and reproductive opportunities, affecting selection pressure, perhaps causing speciation, perhaps causing extinction.
This is microevolution as used by biologist.
quote:
UMich definitions:
Definitions of Biological Evolution
We begin with two working definitions of biological evolution, which capture these two facets of genetics and differences among life forms. Then we will ask what is a species, and how does a species arise?
  • Definition 1:
    Changes in the genetic composition of a population with the passage of each generation
  • Definition 2:
    The gradual change of living things from one form into another over the course of time, the origin of species and lineages by descent of living forms from ancestral forms, and the generation of diversity
Note that the first definition emphasizes genetic change. It commonly is referred to as microevolution. The second definition emphasizes the appearance of new, physically distinct life forms that can be grouped with similar appearing life forms in a taxonomic hierarchy. It commonly is referred to as macroevolution.
bold in the original. (I recommend reading the whole page for further information).
The second definition, the one that applies to macroevolution, seems to me to be a little murky and open to misinterpretation.
"Macro" to me would be land mammal to sea mammal or vice versa. Much much more change. Hoping for a beneficial mutation will account for the many changes needed to make the (change)?(i'm not sure what exactly would be needed for such a change) Whereas micro would not need to depend on random mutations to evolve because it would already be included in the original DNA e.g. finch beaks.
Mutation is a part of microevolution, what you seem to be focused on is natural selection (and the finch beaks are an excellent example of observed natural selection) which is part of the process of evolution: mutations introduce variations into a breeding population and selection filters out those that are harmful and less advantageous.
I can't say. Like I said I don't use the terms really. To me Macro is unseen change over thousands millions of years that cannot be observed. I concede micro cannot really be observed either (as none of us are witnessing Wolves slowly becoming Poodles - same kind) but atleast we see the same kinds of animals producing the same kinds of animals. So I think it's a stretch to assume they change out of that kind. Why should they? Why would they? Why can't that kind adapt to the evironment into another species of the same kind? What is the need for "macro" evolution. I accept evolution of the same kind of animal, just not the TOE's version of it e.g. transitional, intermediates, PE, etc.
Actually, microevolution has been observed in the lab and out in the world at large, but lets focus next on macroevolution. In biology we use generations rather than years, as this varies widely between species (from hours to decades), and the generation is the unit for measuring\observing change in a breeding population.
Lets go back to the UMich second definition for evolution, and break it down a bit:
[quote]The gradual change of living things from one form into another over the course of time, ...[/qs]
If we observe the effect of microevolution over many generations, we can observe the accumulation and loss of a number of hereditary traits, especially when the ecological challenges and opportunities change. Microevolution is a response mechanism that filters variations for traits that are better adaptations to the existing ecology.
Arbitrary Speciation
Over many generations a population can accumulate and lose a number of traits, and thus it can appear significantly different from the ancestral population, even though there is a direct unbroken lineage of descent from parent to offspring. Sometimes these accumulated differences are sufficient for biologists to assign a new species name to the breeding population, even though this is a fairly arbitrary designation.
... the origin of species and lineages by descent of living forms from ancestral forms, and the generation of diversity
The question here is how do new species get added to the mix, something more than the arbitrary speciation mechanism. A new species is added when a speciation event occurs:
Discrete Speciation
Speciation is the division of a parent population into two or more reproductively isolated daughter populations that then evolve independently of each other.
The reduction or loss of interbreeding (gene flow, sharing of mutations) between the daughter populations results in different, independent, evolutionary responses in the daughter populations to their different ecological opportunities.
Independent evolution within each subpopulation results in divergence of the subpopulations, and, as there are now two or more species instead of one, it adds diversity.
Such discrete speciation events have been observed to occur, both in the lab and in the field (particularly in plants). These are not arbitrary events such as discussed above, but if you remove one of the daughter populations and looked at the accumulation and loss of hereditary traits from generation to generation from parent to daughter population you would see the same types of variation and adaptation seen that was discussed for arbitrary speciation.
A lot? I'm not sure. 50,000 - 100,000 morphological changes? How many ever are needed to adapt. It would seem much easier for a Fox to Cat than Horse to Whale?
Incidently as ignorant as it may sound that's what I think "macro" would be - horse to whale - for a lack of better example. Again it may be ignorant of me to define things the way I am but i'm just letting you know what my knowledge of these things are.
As you can see there is a fairly obvious difference in degree of change here from what biologists consider for macroevolution.
How about something like a dog to a horse?
Enjoy.

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 270 by Chuck77, posted 02-26-2012 1:35 AM Chuck77 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 290 by Chuck77, posted 02-27-2012 12:36 AM RAZD has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024