Creation vs. Evolution

[Green_Manelishi]

The evidence clearly points otherwise since all of your flat out incorrect claims have been directly addressed a multitude of times. You are not worth my time anymore (sorry if that phrasing bothers you, Uncle Ricky).

Are you no longer talking to me, or Uncle Ricky? Sorry to know you feel that way. I might not agree with you, but that does not mean I dislike you or feel you are not worth my time.

 

[Green_Manelishi]

No, you have Faith that given a sufficiently large genetic distance between two organisms that there is no evolutionary way for them to have evolved from a common ancestor. You know that the different breeds of dogs evolved from a common ancestor so you have to accept that. You refuse to believe in any extrapolation and assert that there must be some magical genetic distance over which animals cannot inherantly change without giving any kind of quantitative analysis of why there should be such a barrier. The simplest explanation is that the barrier does not exist, and the fossil record is entirely consistent with the barrier not being there. You also cannot explain how different species come into existence constantly throughout the fossil record. We do not see canines at all in the fossil record a hundred million years ago, so where did they come from?

Do you know the barrier does not exist of do you refuse to believe that it exists? Have you actually seen the shift into other orders and classes or do you believe it must have occured? Your argument is circular: the fossil records show it occured and it occured because fossil records show it occured. Your "science" is faith.

You assume the fossil record is somehow chronoligical despite no direct observation. You also assume your dating methods are infallible. How do you date the fossils? By the age of the rocks? Do you date the rocks by the alleged age of the fossils?

Here's another question; statistically, what is the probability of a fully viable human female evolving concurrently to a fully viable human male? "Well it must have happened because ..." is not a scientific answer. And that's only once example of the insanity of your "science".

Continue to believe that you are refined primordial soup; it's your choice.

 

[Soggy]

Are you no longer talking to me, or Uncle Ricky?

I meant that I'm done trying to all your incorrect information. You're wrong, but you either are too stubborn, too lazy, or not intelligent enough to understand it. Since you are able to use a computer and have survived diving for this long, my guess is #1 or #2. But either way, you are just plain wrong.

I was apologizing to Uncle Ricky who got irritated when I said something similar to another user who had reading comprehension problems as well.

 

[Green_Manelishi]

You're stuck in a misunderstanding of what a species is.

I'm stuck in a misunderstanding? ROFLMGAO.

You can’t seem to shake loose of the “kind” concept. I think that most of the misunderstanding of biological science amongst the staunchly religious stems from a rigidity of outlook

Rigidity of outlook? But you are the epitome of open mindedness, eh? Again ROFLMGAO.

and a need for an authoritarian structure, that creates a disharmony in some when they are faced with the more lazie-fair realities of the way in which the universe is constructed.

The universe that just "happened" but noone knows how. They just know that it did.

There are more than one concept of “species.” What is most commonly thought of as species today, in the public mind, is really just a subset of the "Biological Species Concept" (BSC). This term was coined by Ernst Mayr and defined a species as: "species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups." In lay discussions “natural populations” and “reproductively isolated” are oft forgot.

Would that not be more accurately described as the BS Concept?

An offshoot of the BSC is the Recognition Species Concept which says that a species is a set of organisms that recognize one another as potential mates: they have a shared mate recognition system. For example, within a single habitat in the US, there may be 40 different species of crickets, but each female cricket will breed only with a male who sings the “song” specific to the species. The song, and the female recognition of it, constitutes a mate recognition system: the species has a specific mate recognition system by which it can be identified. The recognition concept defines species much as the BSC does: isolation combined with recognition keeps breeding within a defined group or “species.” These two concepts are sometimes jointly referred to as the Reproductive Species Concept.

The Ecological Species Concept (which I favor) is a bit more mathematically sophisticated and lends itself to ecological modeling, a species is viewed as a set of organisms adapted to a particular set of resources, a niche. Hutchinson in 1957 defined niche as: “A region (n-dimensional hypervolume) in a multidimensional space of environmental factors (abiotic and biotic) that affect the welfare of a species.” Think of the niche as the sum total of where, when and how an organism lives. Populations are viewed as forming clusters that we recognize as species only because the ecological and evolutionary processes controlling how the resource states are divided up produce those clusters. It is often seen in closely related species living in the same area, that differences between species in form and behavior can be related to differences in the hypervolume that each species fills.

The third, and last, is the Cladistic Species Concept, a species is simply a lineage of populations between two branch points in the family tree.. Species are recognized by branch points, regardless of how much change occurs between them.

The BSC is useful for placing limits on the boundary of where a “species” is found (e.g., the puma lives in the Western Hemishphere) but is often interpreted too loosely and requires the introduction of subspecies to differentiate between animals that could breed but don’t because of time or space (e.g., Florida Panther and Argentine Puma. There is the additional problem that fertile hybrids of Mountain Lions with Leopards, Ocellots and Jaguars have been reported)

The Cladistic Species Concept is of great use to taxonomists, paleontologists and such since it breaks the branches off the family tree and permits each of the finest branching to be discussed as a separate species.

So, for me, the Ecological Species Concept covers it all and provides the best framework for discussion and modeling.

The way in which evolution works is really rather simple: Niche space is in constant flux and organisms are constantly adapting to best fill it. What that means that the organisms with the best set of genes, make the most out of their immediate environment have more offspring. In time the entire species comes to resemble those who had the best set of genes. Today’s best set may not be tomorrows best set. This is an ongoing process, all the time, 24 x 7. It is only “static” from the perspective of a short lived human. There can be sudden changes in the gene pool (once thought to only occur by slow micro evolution steps but now seen to also occur in rapid steps though processes such as hybridization, see Science Daily, translocation, polyploidy or even extra cellular transmission via micro organisms) as well as sudden or gradual changes in the environment. It is the interaction between the changes in the blueprint and niche that result in the creation of new breeding populations, new subspecies, new species and on to higher taxa as the breeding populations continue to go their separate ways.

Wow, that's quite an explanation.

Let me know when you "prove" that dinosaurs turned into birds, or terrestrial mammals spent too much time in the water lost their legs in favor of flippers, or aquatic species flopped around on damp/wet/dry land long enough to lose their fins and gills to develop legs and lungs. Don't point at the fossil record as your proof; it's circular logic and was not directly observed. I thought direct observation was a key component of scientific method?

 

[H2Andy]

Green, Thas:

infinite force, meet inmovable object...

inmovable object, meet infinite force...

I thought direct observation was a key component of scientific method?

dude... you're wrong...

direct observation of the fossil record is direct observation

but we're never gonna agree, so i think we should get drunk

 

[Hank49]

but we're never gonna agree, so i think we should get drunk

Now that makes sense.

 

[Scuba_Jenny]

but we're never gonna agree, so i think we should get drunk

Somebody mention Rum??

Just a friendly reminder folks to keep it civil. Insulting another is a no no. Passionate arguments are OK.

 

[Thalassamania]

I'm stuck in a misunderstanding? ROFLMGAO

You can roll on the floor in what ever form of fit you choose, the reality is that you did not understand the concepts of species. Perhaps now you do.

Rigidity of outlook? But you are the epitome of open mindedness, eh? Again ROFLMGAO

Yes, perhaps not the epitome but quite open e.g., in my time I’ve gone from a rigid BSC to an ESC that really does away with any static view of species, but you continue to spout mythology that’s about 4,000 years old. Heck, those views could be dug up as ossified remains and be part of the fossil record.

Would that not be more accurately described as the BS Concept?

I prefer BSC, but if it helps you to keep in you mind, do what you have to do.

Wow, that's quite an explanation.

No actually it’s a gross simplification.

Let me know when you "prove" that dinosaurs turned into birds,

Dinosaurs turn into birds, well they may not have. Birds may not exist, there is good data to support the idea that they are surviving dinosaurs.

or terrestrial mammals spent too much time in the water lost their legs in favor of flippers

They don’t spend too much time in the water there’s niche space available there and they utilize that resource(s). Two examples: Seals are related to the Felids (cat family). The evolutionary pathway from a terrestrial mammal to a seal is through a Felid that doesn’t mid the water (tigers are an example today), through an otter like form to a seal. Sea lions are related to bears, again the evolutionary pathway leads from a terrestrial mammal to a highly adapted aquatic bear (today’s polar bear is an example) and on to sea lions. Nothing is static or foreordained. The tiger today (if it survives in the wild) may stay where it is for a while, evolve toward the water or move back toward the land, it all depends on the competition for niche space. Same for the polar bear.

or aquatic species flopped around on damp/wet/dry land long enough to lose their fins and gills to develop legs and lungs.

They don’t loose their fins and gills, all limbs and gill arches are well accounted for in modern terrestrial vertebrates.

Don't point at the fossil record as your proof; it's circular logic and was not directly observed. I thought direct observation was a key component of scientific method?

You tell that lie as many times as you like, it will never turn into the truth. It is not circular. What much science is involves altering perception of things so that they can be observed in human scale. Microscopes make things big enough to see; telescopes bring things closer, various recording devices slow things down or speed things up. In a sense these are all “indirect” because something stands between the observer and the observed. The fossil record is no more indirect than is data from any recording device.

 

[ClevelandDiver]

"Let me know when you "prove" that dinosaurs turned into birds, or terrestrial mammals spent too much time in the water lost their legs in favor of flippers"

Don't you hate it when people give you what you ask for?

It might not be 100% proof, but it is a lot more solid evidence than a book written thousands of years ago by simple people trying to understand a complex world.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/newsid_6120000/newsid_6120600/6120696.stm

"Fishermen netted the creature and were shocked to spot its extra limbs.

The second set of flippers, which are near the creature's tail, are about the size of a pair of human hands and much less powerful than the front set.

Experts say this discovery supports the idea that dolphins used to live on land - as the tiny flippers could be the remains of its back legs! "

 

[Bob3]

Forget that "humans descended from apes" stuff, it looks like we're descended from urchins!!!

Decoded Sea Urchin Genome Shows Surprising Relationship to Humans
If I eat uni, does that make me a cannibal? :11: