|
|
Post by Running Deer on Sept 3, 2023 22:10:44 GMT
"Species" is a human attempt to label biology. The label works reasonably well for some animals, though not all, especially birds. It doesn't work particularly well in plants. At the microbial level, it's a mess.
When talking about one species evolving into another, there seems to be a common misconception that there is a bright line between species. There seems to be the idea that, one morning, a dinosaur's egg hatched the first bird. Or that, perhaps, there was a day 300,000 years ago when a Homo heidelbergensis female gave birth to the first Homo sapiens child.
Evolution doesn't work like that. The "first" bird was obviously related to its "last" dinosaur parent. In fact, there was no bright line separating the first bird from the last dinosaur, nor any such line separating the last Heidelbergensis from the first Sapiens. In fact, if there were any living Heidelbergensis left, Sapiens could likely interbreed with them with no problem. Consider that many Sapiens also carry genes from relatively recent intermarriages with Neanderthals and Denisovans.
What has happened is that changes accumulate, and humans try to categorize the animals and plants based on those changes. But as the old saying goes, "The map is not the territory." Species categories are guides to thinking about biology; they are not the biology itself.
|
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 7,336
|
Post by Paleocon on Dec 5, 2023 5:21:02 GMT
Well, then it should be a piece of cake for you to produce some of the "uncountable examples" of creatures transitioning from one type to another for us to peruse. So far, you've produced nothing, but hey, maybe you're ready to give it a try now.
Oops. You just changed the goalposts. You said “shared features.” There are uncountable examples: Eyes Ears Hearts Circulatory systems Toes Hair/fur Brains Hormones Livers Bones Nostrils Pancreases Need I go on? I like watching you fumble around in the dark. So far there's no evidence of a common ancestor for the different types of creatures, and it is statistically impossible for the shared features that you list above to have evolved exactly the same in so many dissimilar creatures, all by chance. Your list is an excellent case for intelligent design. The eyes alone are so complex that natural selection and random mutations would have to defy all mathematical and statistical logic. And the words "shared features" are not in my post that you quoted, so you seem to be engaging in a little strawman song and dance. |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Dec 5, 2023 23:12:38 GMT
Oops. You just changed the goalposts. You said “shared features.” There are uncountable examples: Eyes Ears Hearts Circulatory systems Toes Hair/fur Brains Hormones Livers Bones Nostrils Pancreases Need I go on? I like watching you fumble around in the dark. So far there's no evidence of a common ancestor for the different types of creatures, and it is statistically impossible for the shared features that you list above to have evolved exactly the same in so many dissimilar creatures, all by chance. Your list is an excellent case for intelligent design. The eyes alone are so complex that natural selection and random mutations would have to defy all mathematical and statistical logic. And the words "shared features" are not in my post that you quoted, so you seem to be engaging in a little strawman song and dance. You've used "shared features" as evidence for "intelligent design" while at same time saying it's impossible for them to have evolved similarly. They're either similar or they're not. |
|
|
|
Post by atreyu on Dec 6, 2023 22:06:45 GMT
Oops. You just changed the goalposts. You said “shared features.” There are uncountable examples: Eyes Ears Hearts Circulatory systems Toes Hair/fur Brains Hormones Livers Bones Nostrils Pancreases Need I go on? I like watching you fumble around in the dark. So far there's no evidence of a common ancestor for the different types of creatures, and it is statistically impossible for the shared features that you list above to have evolved exactly the same in so many dissimilar creatures, all by chance. Your list is an excellent case for intelligent design. The eyes alone are so complex that natural selection and random mutations would have to defy all mathematical and statistical logic. And the words "shared features" are not in my post that you quoted, so you seem to be engaging in a little strawman song and dance.
Is this the deep insightful brain power you brag about all the time?
Wow...
|
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 7,336
|
Post by Paleocon on Dec 19, 2023 16:42:53 GMT
I like watching you fumble around in the dark. So far there's no evidence of a common ancestor for the different types of creatures, and it is statistically impossible for the shared features that you list above to have evolved exactly the same in so many dissimilar creatures, all by chance. Your list is an excellent case for intelligent design. The eyes alone are so complex that natural selection and random mutations would have to defy all mathematical and statistical logic. And the words "shared features" are not in my post that you quoted, so you seem to be engaging in a little strawman song and dance.
Is this the deep insightful brain power you brag about all the time?
Wow... Running circles around you, Sparky. But enlighten us, little genius, with what you thin is wrong with what I posted, if you can. You seem to be the hit and run type. |
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 7,336
|
Post by Paleocon on Dec 19, 2023 17:10:43 GMT
I like watching you fumble around in the dark. So far there's no evidence of a common ancestor for the different types of creatures, and it is statistically impossible for the shared features that you list above to have evolved exactly the same in so many dissimilar creatures, all by chance. Your list is an excellent case for intelligent design. The eyes alone are so complex that natural selection and random mutations would have to defy all mathematical and statistical logic. And the words "shared features" are not in my post that you quoted, so you seem to be engaging in a little strawman song and dance. You've used "shared features" as evidence for "intelligent design" while at same time saying it's impossible for them to have evolved similarly. They're either similar or they're not. No one said that they're not similar, but the theoretical mechanism of evolution is impossibly flawed in trying to explain those similarities.
"Darwin anticipated that microevolution would be a process of continuous and gradual change. The term macroevolution, by contrast, refers to the origin of new species and divisions of the taxonomic hierarchy above the species level, and also to the origin of complex adaptations, such as the vertebrate eye. Macroevolution posed a problem to Darwin because his principle of descent with modification predicts gradual transitions between small-scale adaptive changes in populations and these larger-scale phenomena, yet there is little evidence for such transitions in nature. Instead, the natural world is often characterized by gaps, or discontinuities. One type of gap relates to the existence of 'organs of extreme perfection', such as the eye, or morphological innovations, such as wings, both of which are found fully formed in present-day organisms without leaving evidence of how they evolved."-- Reznick, David N., Robert E. Ricklefs. 12 February 2009. Darwin's bridge between microevolution and macroevolution. Nature, Vol. 457, pp. 837-842
|
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Dec 19, 2023 18:41:27 GMT
You've used "shared features" as evidence for "intelligent design" while at same time saying it's impossible for them to have evolved similarly. They're either similar or they're not. No one said that they're not similar, but the theoretical mechanism of evolution is impossibly flawed in trying to explain those similarities.
"Darwin anticipated that microevolution would be a process of continuous and gradual change. The term macroevolution, by contrast, refers to the origin of new species and divisions of the taxonomic hierarchy above the species level, and also to the origin of complex adaptations, such as the vertebrate eye. Macroevolution posed a problem to Darwin because his principle of descent with modification predicts gradual transitions between small-scale adaptive changes in populations and these larger-scale phenomena, yet there is little evidence for such transitions in nature. Instead, the natural world is often characterized by gaps, or discontinuities. One type of gap relates to the existence of 'organs of extreme perfection', such as the eye, or morphological innovations, such as wings, both of which are found fully formed in present-day organisms without leaving evidence of how they evolved."-- Reznick, David N., Robert E. Ricklefs. 12 February 2009. Darwin's bridge between microevolution and macroevolution. Nature, Vol. 457, pp. 837-842
That's interesting, because there are also "not fully formed examples" which are easy to find. An ostrich cannot fly. |
|
|
|
Post by Biggles on Dec 19, 2023 23:10:10 GMT
Somebody should tell Charles Darwin...
|
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 7,336
|
Post by Paleocon on Dec 21, 2023 1:16:41 GMT
No one said that they're not similar, but the theoretical mechanism of evolution is impossibly flawed in trying to explain those similarities.
"Darwin anticipated that microevolution would be a process of continuous and gradual change. The term macroevolution, by contrast, refers to the origin of new species and divisions of the taxonomic hierarchy above the species level, and also to the origin of complex adaptations, such as the vertebrate eye. Macroevolution posed a problem to Darwin because his principle of descent with modification predicts gradual transitions between small-scale adaptive changes in populations and these larger-scale phenomena, yet there is little evidence for such transitions in nature. Instead, the natural world is often characterized by gaps, or discontinuities. One type of gap relates to the existence of 'organs of extreme perfection', such as the eye, or morphological innovations, such as wings, both of which are found fully formed in present-day organisms without leaving evidence of how they evolved."-- Reznick, David N., Robert E. Ricklefs. 12 February 2009. Darwin's bridge between microevolution and macroevolution. Nature, Vol. 457, pp. 837-842
That's interesting, because there are also "not fully formed examples" which are easy to find. An ostrich cannot fly. That is interesting, since the lack of flight in the ostrich is a regressive feature, i.e. evolution in reverse, but still a bird with fully formed wings. It's both the weight and the "keel" breastbone deficiency. But keep trying....you're doing great. |
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 7,336
|
Post by Paleocon on Dec 21, 2023 1:17:53 GMT
Somebody should tell Charles Darwin... Charles Darwin told us:
"The number of intermediate varieties which have formerly existed on earth must be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological
formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and
this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory." - Charles Darwin
|
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Dec 21, 2023 12:57:14 GMT
That's interesting, because there are also "not fully formed examples" which are easy to find. An ostrich cannot fly. That is interesting, since the lack of flight in the ostrich is a regressive feature, i.e. evolution in reverse, but still a bird with fully formed wings. It's both the weight and the "keel" breastbone deficiency. But keep trying....you're doing great. If evolution isn’t true, it’s not a “regressive feature.” |
|
|
|
Post by Running Deer on Dec 30, 2023 20:58:20 GMT
That's interesting, because there are also "not fully formed examples" which are easy to find. An ostrich cannot fly. That is interesting, since the lack of flight in the ostrich is a regressive feature, i.e. evolution in reverse, but still a bird with fully formed wings. It's both the weight and the "keel" breastbone deficiency. But keep trying....you're doing great. It's not a regressive feature. The ostrich evolved for a different ecological niche, one where being heavier and faster-running was an advantage. (They often weigh over 300 lbs. and can run over 40 mph.) There were a number of dinosaurs that filled that ecological niche, and it's not at all surprising that a bird (which descends from dinosaurs) would evolve to fill a similar niche. Until recently it has been a very successful niche, too. Ostriches broke off from similar birds 20 million years ago, and they covered not only Africa but also much of Asia until the last Ice Age. Human hunting drastically shrank its range and drove other animals to total extinction. (See "Quaternary Megafauna Extinction".) It's worth noting that evolution does not really "progress" or "regress". Features can be gained or lost through evolution, and what survives and breeds is, by definition, successful. If losing fur, or the ability to fly, or the ability to walk on land aids the creature in surviving and breeding, it's a successful change. However, when the environment changes, successful features can suddenly become very detrimental. The dodo bird evolved from flying pigeons, and it found tremendous successful by evolving to walk around Mauritius, an uninhabited island. Then, Mauritius was colonized by the Portuguese in 1598, and the dodo was extinct within a hundred years. Nature's rough. |
|
