Scientific American - Evolution in Action (faith, Hebrew)

[Willamena]

This is a lovely and informative slide show that shows "Evolution in Action" (the first slide).

http://www.sciam.com/includes/galler...4083414B7FFE87

[Willamena]

Re the stilted spider one, scientists can be sadistic, can't they?

[sandy whitelinger]

Originally Posted by Willamena

Re the stilted spider one, scientists can be sadistic, can't they?

Evolution within a species is not proof of the evolution of species as far as I know. to say that if A leads to B then B must lead to C is a hasty generalization.

Your tag line is interesting by the way. Is that a typo? "Faith is believing that witch cannot exist."It could mean that"Faith is believing that 'a' witch cannot exist."

Or did you mean that "Faith is believing that 'which' cannot exist?" If it is this one then it is not scriptural. Hebrews states that faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen. This does not preclude the existence of those things.

Believing in something which does not not exist is more a form of insanity.

[sparc872]

Evolution within a species is not proof of the evolution of species as far as I know. to say that if A leads to B then B must lead to C is a hasty generalization.

How is that not? That is what evolution is. This group of birds is seperated from the other birds and they "are becoming genetically distinct from the larger population."

If what they are saying is true, then this group of birds will eventually lead to a new species seperate from the main population and it will carry along on a seperate line of species.

[JerryL]

Evolution within a species is not proof of the evolution of species as far as I know. to say that if A leads to B then B must lead to C is a hasty generalization.

So you are saying that mutations changing morphology within a group capable of interbreeding (a species) does not establish that mutaiton can cause changes which will result in inter-non-fertility (speciation)?

I'd agree that the first statement, in isolation, does not establish the second. But you seem to be setting up an argument that you don't actually make. Are you disupting the formation of new species? Considering that's been establised through any number of mechanisms, including direct obsevation, that would be silly:

Goatsbeard ("Three species of wildflowers called goatsbeards were introduced to the United States from Europe shortly after the turn of the century. Within a few decades their populations expanded and began to encounter one another in the American West. Whenever mixed populations occurred, the specied interbred (hybridizing) producing sterile hybrid offspring. Suddenly, in the late forties two new species of goatsbeard appeared near Pullman, Washington. Although the new species were similar in appearance to the hybrids, they produced fertile offspring. The evolutionary process had created a separate species that could reproduce but not mate with the goatsbeard plants from which it had evolved.")

[Seyorni]

Small changes occur with each generation. If you split a species into two seperate breeding populations mere chance can be expected to result in observable differences eventually. If you put the two populations into different environments natural selection kicks in and differentiation is accelerated.

Sometimes a genetic change in otherwise similar populations will result in an inability to interbred. Sometimes considerable morphological variation can occur before reproductive variation prevents reproduction.

No-one contends that an individual's offspring are invariably identical to the parent. Why is it hard to accept the fact that a million small variants might result in a creature considerably different from the prototype?

[Willamena]

Originally Posted by sandy whitelinger

Evolution within a species is not proof of the evolution of species as far as I know. to say that if A leads to B then B must lead to C is a hasty generalization.

Speciation takes place by the mechanisms of evolution within a species.

Originally Posted by sandy whitelinger

Your tag line is interesting by the way. Is that a typo? "Faith is believing that witch cannot exist."It could mean that"Faith is believing that 'a' witch cannot exist."

Or did you mean that "Faith is believing that 'which' cannot exist?" If it is this one then it is not scriptural. Hebrews states that faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen. This does not preclude the existence of those things.

Believing in something which does not not exist is more a form of insanity.

It's a pun.

[sandy whitelinger]

Originally Posted by JerryL

So you are saying that mutations changing morphology within a group capable of interbreeding (a species) does not establish that mutaiton can cause changes which will result in inter-non-fertility (speciation)?


I'd agree that the first statement, in isolation, does not establish the second. But you seem to be setting up an argument that you don't actually make.

You, sir, are pretty observant. You summed up what I was saying correctly. While not discounting the possibility of new species development I was only pointing out the logical flaw in the argument. I'll also admit that I was stirring the pot in order to jump start a dying thread.

Originally Posted by JerryL

Are you disupting the formation of new species?

To be more precise I should have said that a change within a species does not nescassarily lead to a new "kind" of species. Birds remain birds, fish remain fish, dogs remain dogs, etc.

Originally Posted by JerryL

Considering that's been establised through any number of mechanisms, including direct obsevation, that would be silly:

Goatsbeard ("Three species of wildflowers called goatsbeards were introduced to the United States from Europe shortly after the turn of the century. Within a few decades their populations expanded and began to encounter one another in the American West. Whenever mixed populations occurred, the specied interbred (hybridizing) producing sterile hybrid offspring. Suddenly, in the late forties two new species of goatsbeard appeared near Pullman, Washington. Although the new species were similar in appearance to the hybrids, they produced fertile offspring. The evolutionary process had created a separate species that could reproduce but not mate with the goatsbeard plants from which it had evolved.")

Does the appeance of "new" species prove the mutation of a new species. Is there a genetic record of the changes that led to this "observation?"

[JerryL]

o be more precise I should have said that a change within a species does not nescassarily lead to a new "kind" of species. Birds remain birds, fish remain fish, dogs remain dogs, etc.

There is no actual definition for "kind". It's tautologically defined as "whatever we haven't seen"

Does the appeance of "new" species prove the mutation of a new species. Is there a genetic record of the changes that led to this "observation?"

Was every mutation in every gene in every generation obsserved under a microscope and repeated? No. Is that a good or useful standard? No.

Let's imagine that we watched every mutation happen in nature from algie to human. Let's then imagine that we could reproduce it over and over in a lab.
Does that disprove that DNA has nothing to do with morphology, but rather that it's a prank being played by underpants gnomes who want us to think it does? No it does not.

The simple matter is that absolute proof doesn't exist for anything. You seem to be moving your standard of proof up to a level which is not only unralistic, but inconsistant with how you judge the rest of reality.

[sandy whitelinger]

Originally Posted by JerryL

There is no actual definition for "kind". It's tautologically defined as "whatever we haven't seen"

Was every mutation in every gene in every generation obsserved under a microscope and repeated? No. Is that a good or useful standard? No..

No matter the changes it has only been observed that birds are still birds, dogs are still dogs, etc.

Originally Posted by JerryL

Let's imagine that we watched every mutation happen in nature from algie to human. Let's then imagine that we could reproduce it over and over in a lab.
Does that disprove that DNA has nothing to do with morphology, but rather that it's a prank being played by underpants gnomes who want us to think it does? No it does not.

The simple matter is that absolute proof doesn't exist for anything. You seem to be moving your standard of proof up to a level which is not only unralistic, but inconsistant with how you judge the rest of reality.

It doesn't seem that it would all that difficult to take genetic samples and trace