Questions about Evolution?

[painted wolf]

"A" can become "a" , this is "change" , now if I started out with a theory regarding the evolution of letters due to shapes , sounds etc ,lets call it the "abc theory" , now every time my theory was challenged I could mention that it can be seen happening by showing the different forms of the letters, "Look my abc theory can be seen happening in all the literature of the world" ...because I started of with the premise of one letter,or part of it being able to evolve into a new one, and people bought into it as it seemed obvious.

So what about the foxes?
And what about the rest of the canids?

wa:do

 

[fantome profane]

If the classification of a new species is done in the belief that none can no longer breed wit another part of the species, there should be evidence for this in isolated human cultures....eg some of them developing th inability to produce offspring with the general world population, any evidence of this?

This has gone on more than long enough, lets cut to the chase.

Can you give us a single example of a species coming into being without having evolved from a prior species?

Can you give us any evidence that such a thing has ever happened?

Can you explain a mechanism of how such a thing would be possible?

You ask for evidence and evidence has been provided for you time and time again. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming. But can you provide a single shred of evidence for your theory?

I look forward to your answers to these questions.

 

[themadhair]

This has gone on more than long enough, lets cut to the chase.

Can you give us a single example of a species coming into being without having evolved from a prior species?

Can you give us any evidence that such a thing has ever happened?

Can you explain a mechanism of how such a thing would be possible?

You ask for evidence and evidence has been provided for you time and time again. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming. But can you provide a single shred of evidence for your theory?

I look forward to your answers to these questions.

Seconded ^

 

[painted wolf]

What is sad, is that even young earth creationists like Ken Ham admit species evolve.

wa:do

 

[Alceste]

What is sad, is that even young earth creationists like Ken Ham admit species evolve.

wa:do

I know. He makes me sick to my stomach, with his "KINDS" created by god and his variations within each "KIND" (god forbid he use the word species). I saw him flash a picture of the "dog kind" with foxes, coyotes, gerbils, porcupines, bears, German shepherds and god knows what else. ***!?

 

[Alceste]

So if evolution happens then why cant we see it happening this way?

Hi, Eddy, I personally think this thread would be better if it didn't turn into yet another debate about whether or not the sky is blue, if you get my meaning. Painted Wolf has been very generous with her offer to share her expansive knowledge on the subject with the rest of us, and I for one am very interested in seeing where this discussion could go if it didn't turn into yet another "Eddy Daze vs. the Theory of Evolution" thread.

 

[Eddy Daze]

This has gone on more than long enough, lets cut to the chase.

Can you give us a single example of a species coming into being without having evolved from a prior species?

Can you give us any evidence that such a thing has ever happened?

Can you explain a mechanism of how such a thing would be possible?

You ask for evidence and evidence has been provided for you time and time again. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming. But can you provide a single shred of evidence for your theory?

I look forward to your answers to these questions.

Science cannot answer this and the sescription of the creation from the Vedas is a very hard concept to imagine

 

[Eddy Daze]

So what about the foxes?
And what about the rest of the canids?

wa:do

AsI said on another thread if evolution is happening slowly over time , in regards to the shaded area ofcolours overlapping analogy , then there should be members of both species within groups , where is this?

 

[Autodidact]

Science cannot answer this and the sescription of the creation from the Vedas is a very hard concept to imagine

Especially if you have no idea what on earth a "sescription" is. What were you even trying to say here?

 

[painted wolf]

AsI said on another thread if evolution is happening slowly over time , in regards to the shaded area ofcolours overlapping analogy , then there should be members of both species within groups , where is this?

I answer in that thread... I agree with Alceste that this thread should not become bogged down and confused with jumping from thread to thread and circular questions.

wa:do

 

[Autodidact]

AsI said on another thread if evolution is happening slowly over time , in regards to the shaded area of colours overlapping analogy , then there should be members of both species within groups , where is this?

YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THE THEORY. It's hard to argue with someone who has no grasp at all of what we're discussing. You have no idea what the Theory of Evolution (ToE) says. Your statement doesn't even make sense. You don't even understand what it means for a word to have a definition. It's like fencing with someone who's shooting you with a water pistol and thinks he's scoring points. Think of it this way:
1st generation. All individuals are black.
2d generation. All individuals are black, except for one dark gray.
3d generation. 3/4 of the individuals are black; 1/4 dark gray.
4th generation. 1/2 of the individuals are black, almost 1/2 are dark gray, and one is medium gray.
5th generation. 1/4 of the individuals are black, 3/8 are dark gray, and 1/8 are medium gray.
6th generation. None are black, 1/2 are dark gray, almost 1/2 are medium gray, and 1 is light gray.
Etc. etc., until, at the end, all are white except for one light gray individual.

Thus, over time, a species that was black will become a species that is white, without any individuals ever changing their color.

See, e.g. Peppered moth.

 

[painted wolf]

Please keep this discussion to the thread it originated in....

wa:do

 

[Alceste]

OK, back to questions about evolution then.

What became of the "hobbits" they found a few years back? I only vaguely recall it so I can't remember where they were found but they hadn't determined where they fit in the hominidae family when I read about them. I'd also like to know how many similar hominid species have been discovered, and where, and how they all fit together. Was there a kind of "boom" of hominid species, or has it been kind of steady?

 

[painted wolf]

The hobbits still make the news... just not as high profile...
In 2007 a study done on the carpel bones of the hand showed that their anatomy is more primitive than the majority of Homo... more like Australopiths.

A study done on the foot showed that the feet were flatter and a little larger than more advanced homo, meaning that the Hobbit's were incapable of running like we do. They would have moved more slowly and with more knee flexation.

All in all, so far the evidence is pointing to H. floresiensis being the descended from the most basal of the Homo and not a branch of H. erectus.

Thus far there are two good individuals... They want to look around the area for more, but last I heard, there is still some fuss with the government over digging... and there is talk of looking on other islands in the area.

There is some evidence of both boom and steady evolution in hominids... but how much of that is an artifact of the fossil record I don't know.

What is important is that for most of the history of the hominids, there was always more than one species around... until the end of the ice age and we were alone.

wa:do

 

[Eddy Daze]

PW...what do you think of the doubts regarding the peppered moth?

In the News: The Peppered Myth

i just accepted it as fact and part of the change which would occur due to natural selection.


this also may be of interest

Y-Origins.com - Science and the Origin of Life

 

[Autodidact]

PW...what do you think of the doubts regarding the peppered moth?

In the News: The Peppered Myth

i just accepted it as fact and part of the change which would occur due to natural selection.

There are none. You must have been reading those lying creationists again. The most helpful thing when reading creationists is to remember that C

reationists lie. They always lie, they lie worse than politicians, they lie worse than used car salesmen, they lie when their argument is weakened by a lie..--Gary Hurd, Talk.Origins Feedback, March 2006

 

[painted wolf]

Actually Auto there were some very good and genuine concerns about the peppered moth study.
It was rushed and in many ways poorly set up.

It has since been repeated, with more rigorous controls and more repetition... What is good about this is that the new studies have helped to clear up those problems... and show that the premise behind the experiments was correct. Places with high industry have high melanism while the country has low melanism and now that pollution reduction is in place melanism in the urban/industrial areas is declining.

Wells however "jumps the shark" a bit in his assessment of the situation. (not to mention getting several facts quite wrong) I wouldn't trust Wells as a source.

The peppered moth was not meant to trick anyone, it isn't used today in science books to fool children... and recent research has backed up many of the conclusions of the otherwise flawed initial studies.

All in all the peppered moths remain a very valuable tool... not in the least is in teaching children how science works by looking closely at the work of scientists and figuring out what a good experiment is... and how to test if someone has done a good experiment.

Peppered moths are still being studied and still teaching us about adaptation to local conditions.
Moth turns from black to white as Britain's polluted skies change colour - Telegraph

Ultimately despite the original studies flaws, the peppered moths have been shown to be a good example and a worthy subject of study.

wa:do
ps. I'll check out the other link when I have some more time.

 

[Aristocat]

How would you falsify common ancestory?

 

[painted wolf]

One way would be to check the various forms of tracing common ancestry to see if they match up.

Genetics is a good start. We use it everyday to determine paternity and maternity of children... this can and is easily extended to trace larger and larger family trees.
Where there is no common ancestry there should be no genetic match.

If humans and chimps for example were not related, then we should have truly unique genetic codes. This goes even further for say Humans and hagfish.
But in each case we can trace that lineage.

Next you could construct a molecular tree... Molecules like hemoglobin should be most similar in relatives... like in families of humans. Extend this out to cover all things with hemoglobin and you should be able to either see a relationship or not.
If there is no similarities then there should be no relationship. We should all be unique.
But we do see the relationship... and it's the same one shown by the genetic tree.

Next you can look at phylogeny... like human families share traits, so too should larger families of organisms. If we are all unique then we should see analogies and no homologies...
But we do see homologies... and it builds a family tree of species... that matches the other two.

The fossil record should match the pattern of relatedness going back in time... producing cladograms of extinct forms that match up like the phylogeny of living ones... and it does.
There are no rabbits living before the first fish for example.
The cladograms match all the above trees.

If any of these trees had produced something wildly different... especially the genetic one... then we could toss common ancestry.

If anyone can find an animal that is totally unique genetically... with DNA unlike anything else on earth... then you have one of two options... it's an alien... or it was specially created.
You could even extend this and make it easier... if you could find a single unique gene that showed no signs of being related to any other gene in any other animal... you could disprove common ancestry.

Find a rabbit in the Devonian period... find an animal that has no features in common with any other animal on earth...

I'm sure there are other ways as well... but those are the ones that spring to mind.

wa:do

 

[Eddy Daze]

Would it also be reasonable to say that if you were creating, you would stick to basic principles of design, adaptation, materials, program etc..with slight tweeks where need be.