Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution in pieces.
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 91 of 153 (73726)
12-17-2003 9:49 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by Dr Jack
12-17-2003 9:07 AM


Fuzzy LIttle species
Cute little devils those fuzzy little fellas.
Species are, as expected in an evolutionary context, subject to varying degrees of fuzziness.
"Kinds", as used by creationists, are subject to no such fuzziness at all. That is the whole point of the concept; that there can be NO fuzziness.
Species are not fuzzy enough to be of no value in classification since it is possible to put individuals into one species or another most of the time (even if with some argument). After that the classification scheme is simply(ha! as if it is reall simple) a matter of grouping upward. The arguments are on a low, level species by species basis. Detailed arguments occur to fit organisms into one place in the hierarchy and agreement is reached.
Kinds, on the other hand is a concept which starts with something with no defintion whatever and then genera or species are put into the group. The lack of definition is apparent when we find different creationists disagreeing on the grouping and not geting together to resolve the disagreements or lack of definition. The disagreements are at lower and higher levels.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Dr Jack, posted 12-17-2003 9:07 AM Dr Jack has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Dr Jack, posted 12-17-2003 10:00 AM NosyNed has replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 92 of 153 (73728)
12-17-2003 10:00 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by NosyNed
12-17-2003 9:49 AM


Re: Fuzzy LIttle species
Indeed so, but we must be careful of requiring a standard from the Creationists that we do not meet ourselves.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by NosyNed, posted 12-17-2003 9:49 AM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by NosyNed, posted 12-17-2003 10:59 AM Dr Jack has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 93 of 153 (73741)
12-17-2003 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by Dr Jack
12-17-2003 10:00 AM


Re: Fuzzy LIttle species
I agree.
This is way there are published statements about what a species is. This includes various ways of separating them depending on the information available. Lots of effort is spent keeping the whole tangled web of organisms as straight as we can.
Each of the higher taxa is, to the best of my limited knowledge, documented in depth with careful specification of what makes an organism a member of that particular group. When there are arguements over classification they are documented and discussed in very great depth. So much depth that I find the details a bit overwhelming.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Dr Jack, posted 12-17-2003 10:00 AM Dr Jack has not replied

  
The Elder
Inactive Member


Message 94 of 153 (73860)
12-17-2003 6:49 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by NosyNed
12-17-2003 9:32 AM


Re: Translation Please
Ok NosyNed,
NosyNed writes:
Specifically, what are "imigartions"?
Spelling flaw, the word that was ment was "imaginations".
NosyNed writes:
What does "at a metaphoric standpoint" mean?
This would be defined as the appearence of the fossil record which indicates evolution could have happend, but the fossil record fails to mention the cellular composition of each species
NosyNed writes:
What does "untill deployed otherwise" mean?
This would be military wording for: untill I change my position in the argument from John Pauls position to evolutionists position.
NosyNed writes:
I don't even understand "...shared derived characters supplement anymore then similarites for eukaryotes.".
This would be defined as the characters which phylogenies use to create a phylogenetic tree dont seem to represent anything other then similarites for eukaryotes. (added by edit -And similarites dont lead to relatedness-)
------------------
Thank You
The Elder
[This message has been edited by The Elder, 12-17-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by NosyNed, posted 12-17-2003 9:32 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
The Elder
Inactive Member


Message 95 of 153 (73862)
12-17-2003 6:56 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by NosyNed
12-17-2003 9:36 AM


The reason I ask is because I believe cladistics is a process which creates relationships for eukaryotes built on the shared derived characters and part of those shared derived characters are dna/amino acids which they would not have any samples from species millions of years ago and without these sampals it is only a assumption that if they inserted more character data (i.e. dna from ancient species millions of years ago) that it would continue with the current universal phylogenetic tree. I was reading at the 29 evidences websight that biologists hypothosis is that if they entered more character data as in ancient character data then it would not change, basically it is an assumption. So it seems that I agree with John Paul still on the mutation leading into big changes problem. We have no evidences of this aspect.
------------------
Thank You
The Elder

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by NosyNed, posted 12-17-2003 9:36 AM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Ooook!, posted 12-18-2003 8:26 AM The Elder has replied
 Message 97 by Darwin's Terrier, posted 12-18-2003 9:21 AM The Elder has not replied

  
Ooook!
Member (Idle past 5815 days)
Posts: 340
From: London, UK
Joined: 09-29-2003


Message 96 of 153 (74047)
12-18-2003 8:26 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by The Elder
12-17-2003 6:56 PM


Hello there Elder,
Welcome to the debate. Let me start by asking you two questions that creationists tend to avoid answering:
When we look at the sequences of genes (like those for ribosomal RNA for example) and create phylogenys etc from that raw data we get results that mirror the conclusions drawn from comparitive anatomy and the fossil record. Pseudogenes, rearrangements and the positions of retroviruses are all shared by organisms predicted to have shared a common ancestry. How can you reinterpret this data to imply the hand of a creator?
Don't just assert that it can be interpretted, show us how it can! So far I have had been given tortured analagies and quotes from famous people. You seem like you want to talk about the cell and molecular biology of evolution so please can you explain the creationist standpoint by dealing with the biological facts.
As for my second question, you mentioned that you were with John Paul asking for how evolution can provide large changes with simple mutation:
So can you give a specific example of an evoltionary step that is too far to be caused by mutation? Define a real (ie one suggested by the theory of evolution not one imagined by creationists) 'macroevoltionary' step and explain why simple changes in DNA could not have caused it.
I feel that if these two questions are directly answered the debate *might* just develop from the normal yes it is, no it isn't format.
Thanks
Ooook!
Edit: a plague of typos
[This message has been edited by Ooook!, 12-19-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by The Elder, posted 12-17-2003 6:56 PM The Elder has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by The Elder, posted 12-20-2003 4:34 AM Ooook! has replied

  
Darwin's Terrier
Inactive Member


Message 97 of 153 (74059)
12-18-2003 9:21 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by The Elder
12-17-2003 6:56 PM


The reason I ask is because I believe cladistics is a process which creates relationships for eukaryotes
The principles would work for anything that has a lineage.
built on the shared derived characters
Yep, synapomorphies in the lingo. But there’s more to it than that, of course.
and part of those shared derived characters are dna/amino acids which they would not have any samples from species millions of years ago
Well duh. Oddly enough, it’s perfectly possible to do cladistic analyses with mere fossils. Funny old thing, science. It tends to work with the evidence there is, rather than worry about the evidence that is unobtainable.
and without these sampals it is only a assumption that if they inserted more character data (i.e. dna from ancient species millions of years ago) that it would continue with the current universal phylogenetic tree.
But cladistics is successful: it enables one to predict the properties of an organism. Are you suggesting that if we had, say, some DNA from Australopithecus afarensis, that it would not fit nicely with at least other ape DNA (and most likely nearer to human)? You’d think it just as likely that it’d be nearer to a tardigrade, I suppose? Scientific assumptions are only made if they’ve previously been well tested, they are not just pulled out of thin air.
I was reading at the 29 evidences websight that biologists hypothosis is that if they entered more character data as in ancient character data then it would not change, basically it is an assumption.
Based on the fact that everything so far has acted in that way already. Why is it not safe to assume, say, that unsupported rocks will fall? They might not, and philosophers of science can get their knickers in a twist over such inductive arguments. But whilst this reasoning may not be watertight, it is certainly good enough to be going on with. It may be an assumption, but it is not an unfounded one.
So tell me: on what grounds do you assume that such assumptions are unfounded?
So it seems that I agree with John Paul still on the mutation leading into big changes problem. We have no evidences of this aspect.
Where’s the problem? We can observe small changes (eg antibiotic resistance); we can observe small changes accumulating (eg the dogs and pigeons in another thread). We can observe large-effect mutations, as with those affecting hox genes (eg this. And we can observe perfectly gradual changes in some groups of fossils (eg here, and Peter Sheldon’s work on Ordovician trilobites).
Remind me what the problem is?
TTFN, DT

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by The Elder, posted 12-17-2003 6:56 PM The Elder has not replied

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1393 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 98 of 153 (74062)
12-18-2003 9:41 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by Dr Jack
12-17-2003 9:07 AM


Don't be too magnanimous, MrJack.
Species by definition should be very imprecise designations, since the process of Darwinian evolution tinkers with ancestral forms to create new ones. Where it becomes its own form is a purely arbitrary distinction, and hot debate is what we expect from any attempt to make clear demarcations.
Kinds, on the other hand, were supposedly created separately. There should be no problem whatsoever differentiating between them.
------------------
The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Dr Jack, posted 12-17-2003 9:07 AM Dr Jack has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by Dr Jack, posted 12-18-2003 11:10 AM MrHambre has replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 99 of 153 (74089)
12-18-2003 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by soldier_of_christ
12-15-2003 5:50 PM


well it would not be as "idiotic" as it currently is if biologists stopped making up straw economics for the student and started to force in some hamiltonian or other in the fulcrum of topobiological frameworks BETWEEN CELLS molecularly but instead the war between chemical biology and technological biology is only the blip on the global request of constraint. I could be wrong be there are clearly unworked in possibilites here. I suspect as well it could not be by chance but the past generation of biologists spent a disproportionate amuont of time on "conceptual issues in evolutionary biology" rather than fostering as sense of the quantitiatve that apparently only Princeton currently recognizes here. Problem there is going to be who is doing the teaching not what they are trying to teach. No there is no "time machine".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by soldier_of_christ, posted 12-15-2003 5:50 PM soldier_of_christ has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 100 of 153 (74092)
12-18-2003 11:10 AM
Reply to: Message 98 by MrHambre
12-18-2003 9:41 AM


As I see it there should only be boundaries over which the 'kind' cannot cross. Defining kinds need not be easy for this to be so.
The thing that really amuses though is that the creationist notion of kind has exactly zero biblical support.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by MrHambre, posted 12-18-2003 9:41 AM MrHambre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by MrHambre, posted 12-18-2003 11:20 AM Dr Jack has replied

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1393 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 101 of 153 (74094)
12-18-2003 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by Dr Jack
12-18-2003 11:10 AM


Devil's Advocate Much?
Sure, they need not be easily defined, but it sure would make their story a lot more believable if they were. If each 'kind' had its own genetic code, for example, that would be clear evidence in favor of kinds and very bad news for Darwinian evolution.
Either way the creationists have nothing going for them. If 'kinds' correspond to species, then there is clear evidence for evolution of new species from old ones. If 'kinds' include a great variety of animals (like the feline family, for example), then they're allowing for such an incredible amount of variation within kinds that they may as well admit that all forms could have evolved from common ancestors.
------------------
The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Dr Jack, posted 12-18-2003 11:10 AM Dr Jack has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by Dr Jack, posted 12-18-2003 11:31 AM MrHambre has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 102 of 153 (74096)
12-18-2003 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by MrHambre
12-18-2003 11:20 AM


Not my intention.
I'm not trying to play Devil's Advocate here, but I am a big stickler for playing fair and respecting the other side (although as a few of my posts may indicate, this does make me an occasional hypocrit). This is particularly true in the evolution/creation debate. Our side is Science. Science works because it is so self critical, we must therefore apply as, or perhaps a more, critical eye over our own posts as we do over theirs.
It seems to me that Crashfrog was asking for something from the opposition more definite than that which we define as useful ourselves. It also seems to me that there is a Creationist definition of kind: groupings that are 'microevolutionarily' distinct. That there is not evidence of any such groupings, and indeed that all the evidence would seem to suggest such groups do not exist is evidence against the Creationist but the failure of the Creationist to provide a clear, easily-applicable definition or list of 'Kinds' is not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by MrHambre, posted 12-18-2003 11:20 AM MrHambre has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by JonF, posted 12-18-2003 12:08 PM Dr Jack has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 103 of 153 (74100)
12-18-2003 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by Dr Jack
12-18-2003 11:31 AM


Re: Not my intention.
It seems to me that Crashfrog was asking for something from the opposition more definite than that which we define as useful ourselves. It also seems to me that there is a Creationist definition of kind: groupings that are 'microevolutionarily' distinct.
I'm not sure exactly what Crashfrog asked for, but the definition you offer as a creationist definition of "kinds" would be rejected by many creationists1 and, more importantly, is far less definite than that which we define as useful ourselves. The "evolutionist" definition2 of species is operational; it defines a test that, in theory, can be applied by anyone to determine if two organisms are the same species or not. It may be difficult or impractical to apply the test, but the test exists. "Groupings that are 'microevolutionarily' distinct" is not operational, since "mcroevolutionarily distinct" is an undefined term.
"Evolutionists" have been begging creationists for an operational definiton of "kind" for years, and it has not been forthcoming.
About all we've got is:
1. Mankind is a separate kind.
2. There are few enough kinds to fit them all on the Ark.
-------------
1"Microevolutionarily distinct" sounds suspiciously like the Bological Species Concept, and is likely to lead to there being far too many kinds to fit on anybody's Ark.
2Yeah, I know there are several definitions of "species", useful in different areas. I'm talking Biological Species Concept (BSC) here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Dr Jack, posted 12-18-2003 11:31 AM Dr Jack has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Abshalom, posted 12-18-2003 1:49 PM JonF has not replied

  
Abshalom
Inactive Member


Message 104 of 153 (74119)
12-18-2003 1:49 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by JonF
12-18-2003 12:08 PM


Re: Not my intention.
You would think that one kind of cockroach and one kind of louse would have been enough for all eternity, but noooooooooooo ...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by JonF, posted 12-18-2003 12:08 PM JonF has not replied

  
The Elder
Inactive Member


Message 105 of 153 (74412)
12-20-2003 4:34 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by Ooook!
12-18-2003 8:26 AM


How can you reinterpret this data to imply the hand of a creator?
The only way I can find to answer your question, (which may not be plausable because it seems you want something more specific to genetics) is if I ask you a question.
How can you intrepret similarites as relatedness?
So can you give a specific example of an evoltionary step that is too far to be caused by mutation?
Come on "Sam" we are not going to play word games tonight, or ever, I just dont do that crap.
Can you show me a evoltionary step that would be considered macro-e which can be proven with factual evidence to have led to that point? (disclude speciation events please refer to organ development, unless the speciation event is leading to organ devolopment but you must include the dna chain which shows relatedness just like the chian that shows me being related to my father or my grandfather,etc)
To answer your lame question, simple, Prove to me with factual evidence "and not just mere indictions" that unicelled life tranformed into humans. (and please include how it is possible to have to mate to conclude new life as a human but then to have devoloped from a species that duplicates without this process).
So for lamen terms, Prove to me before I prove to you, that Unicelled life formes in FACT transformed into Humans, or Apes, or Monkeys, or Whatever, I dont care pick a species of our supposed lineage and PROVE the macro-e without using similarities, and if you must base the development primarly with similarites then show me how just similarites is a factual evidence of each step.
------------------
The Elder

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Ooook!, posted 12-18-2003 8:26 AM Ooook! has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by crashfrog, posted 12-20-2003 5:50 AM The Elder has replied
 Message 107 by NosyNed, posted 12-20-2003 11:25 AM The Elder has replied
 Message 109 by Amlodhi, posted 12-20-2003 12:40 PM The Elder has replied
 Message 138 by Ooook!, posted 12-21-2003 5:49 PM The Elder 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