Posted on 07/03/2006 10:05:56 AM PDT by doc30
We humans customarily assume that our visual system sits atop a pinnacle of evolutionary success. It enables us to appreciate space in three dimensions, to detect objects from a distance and to move about safely. We are exquisitely able to recognize other individuals and to read their emotions from mere glimpses of their faces. In fact, we are such visual animals that we have difficulty imagining the sensory worlds of creatures whose capacities extend to other realms--a night-hunting bat, for example, that finds small insects by listening to the echoes of its own high-pitched call. Our knowledge of color vision is, quite naturally, based primarily on what humans see: researchers can easily perform experiments on cooperative human subjects to discover, say, what mixtures of colors look the same or different. Although scientists have obtained supporting information from a variety of other species by recording the firing of neurons, we remained unaware until the early 1970s that many vertebrates, mostly animals other than mammals, see colors in a part of the spectrum that is invisible to humans: the near ultraviolet. ...
(Excerpt) Read more at sciam.com ...
You didn't answer the question. What makes you think brontosaurus was straightened out, or was ever in error?
The extremes found in domestic animals are rarely, if ever, found in nature. There's fairly clear lines between the gray and red wolves and the coyotes; I'm not sure how finely they would be classified by paleontologists, but it wouldn't be far off. The point I'm making is that it's somewhat arbitrary where the species lines are drawn, but that doesn't change the phylogeny deduced from the bones.
...The mechanics of such a fertilization are irrelevant. ...
Totally disagree. If they can't mate, that's it - no puppies. (Keep in mind that I'm using dogs as a stand-in for naturally-occurring animals, because human intervention has sped up their variation so much).
If Chihuahuas and Great Danes are not both canis familiaris, then show it. Otherwise, your feigned skepticism is just evo irrelevancy double-talk.
I'm not feigning anything; I'm claiming the difference in size is simply too great to allow mating.
Do you understand what a ring species is? A can breed with B, B with A and C, C with B and D, but A can't breed with D. Gulls are a classic example. Chihuahuas can breed with Jack Russells, Jack Russells with spaniels, ... hounds ... great Danes.
bump
Evos always fail to produce evidence to support their claim that 'leg evolution' is the result of 'gene duplication' and congratulate themselves when they are able to turn the requirement for evidence around on their opponent.
That's not difficult to do. It's almost a basic debating lesson. It is merely a function of where you draw the line. It is no surprise that evos draw the line after their claim and before mine.
What's difficult is to produce evidence to support the initial claim, which is still lacking.
I suppose it works to keep the little evos deceived, however.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brontosaurus
Gray wolves, red wolves and coyotes can all interbreed. There are no 'lines' there.
Yes, it is very arbitrary where species lines are drawn in living animals. How much more arbitrary where only fossils are available? Much.
Yep, also sympatric, allopatric and parapatric speciation.
The real question (and one that evos don't have a good anser to) is, "Why should erecting reproductive barriers to genetic variety (speciation) be considered evidence 'supporting' evolution when we all know that access to genetic variety is what helps ensure a population (or species') reproductive success and fitness?"
The lines are arbitrary for the same reason that the lines you draw between relatives and non-relatives are arbitrary.
Does this mean you can't defend the specific claim you made regarding gene duplication in "leg development genes?"
Yes, in fact red wolves may be a gray wolf - coyote hybrid. Interesting discussion in wikipedia about wolf taxonomy; the upshot is that the experts disagree.
Yes, it is very arbitrary where species lines are drawn in living animals. How much more arbitrary where only fossils are available? Much.
There will always be lumpers and splitters. Whether wolf/coyote fossils are classed as one species with local varieties or subspecies, or as three closely-related species, doesn't matter very much; they are clearly related to, but not the same species as, say, hyenas.
The real question (and one that evos don't have a good anser to) is, "Why should erecting reproductive barriers to genetic variety (speciation) be considered evidence 'supporting' evolution ...
It isn't; it's part of the mechanism of evolution. It's important to avoid ambiguity here: let's agree that "reproductive barriers" means that otherwise suitable individuals from the two different populations don't produce offspring under natural conditions, either because they don't mate or they're not inter-fertile. It doesn't mean the mountains, rivers, specialized niches, etc, that isolate populations of the same species.
If two populations are isolated from each other, eventually enough genetic and/or behavioral changes will accumulate that a reproductive barrier is formed and unambiguous speciation occurs.
Part of the evidence for common ancestry is the existence of all degrees of inter-fertility in various animals, ranging from the wolf/coyote case, to domestic horse/donkey whose offspring are almost always infertile, (a few mules actually are fertile), to domestic horse/Mongolian wild (Przewalski's) horse which always have fertile offspring, even though they have different numbers of chromosomes. And don't forget the ring species phenomenon.
Sure, it's possible to say that the common ancestor was a "created kind", but this leads to absurdities like claiming horses and donkeys are the same species (since they are occasionally inter-fertile), even though the Bible and Koran distinguish them. Or lions and tigers, wolves and hyenas, ... Go with the evidence! There really are *all degrees* of relatedness.
... when we all know that access to genetic variety is what helps ensure a population (or species') reproductive success and fitness?"
This is true. A small, inbred population is likely to go extinct. But not all of them do. Also, especially if the environment is changing, the small population may be able to adapt more quickly and will eventually replace the original one (this is one of the forms of punctuated equilibrium - the fossil record usually (but not always) looks like there had been a "sudden" replacement of one species by another.
No, it means that whoever made the claim in the first place is unable to defend that claim.
OK, you have explained the process of raising reproductive barriers. Good job.
Now, explain why that is evidence supporting evolution.
Or does it not support evolution?
Oh, and 'punctuated equilibrium' was developed to 'explain away' the lack of transitional fossils and the sudden appearance and stasis that the fossil 'record' exhibits.
Basically, showing again that when the evidence doesn't support evolution, it is 'explained away'.
And that would be you, Sunny Jim.
Wow, just how grossly ignorant of biology and paleontology does someone have to be to say something this blatantly wrong?
Actually, wishful thinking is what created the evolutionary 'genetic relationships' between living things.
Wrong again.
This relationship is also explained by a common designer.
No, it isn't. Try reading some science journals for a change instead of Jack Chick cartoons. There is a vast and overwhelming amount of evidence along multiple independent cross-confirming lines which match, in very specific details of both the similarities and the differences between species, at everything from the molecular level to the contents of DNA to morphological similarities to biogeography to the fossil record, which match to a very detailed degree the exact and specific features which would be produced by evolutionary common descent, and do NOT match the kinds of features which would be expected due to just a "common designer".
Run off and learn something about this topic before you spew any more complete nonsense about it.
It is the evolutionists who are sticking their heads in the sand and clinging desparately to a failed theory that was crafted long before the true complexity of biology was ever imagined.
Uh huh. Sure. You betcha. That's pretty funny coming from the guy who hasn't a clue as to the actual nature of the evidence, apparently because he's been sticking *his* head in the sand.
Everything is interpreted from the basic assumption that evolution is true, and the evolutionary reality proceeds from there.
Wrong again. Go learn something about how hypotheses are tested and validated, then try again when you aren't so clueless on the topic.
This does not make it an actual reality except in the minds of true evo believers.
Oh, the irony.
Efforts to re-define the Linnaean structure according to the Biblical kind framework is proceeding in the context of baraminology.
ROFL! Sorry, but hand-waving and force-fitting square pegs into round holes in order to try to pretend that the Bible is some kind of science textbook just doesn't cut it.
As for "baraminology", b_sharp's quotes from the baraminology charlatans pretty much says it all:
The first major scientific advancement to occur in science in the last 100 years in science has recently been developed."First major scientific advancment to occur in science in the last 100 years in science [sic]"? Just how ignorant *are* these yahoos? How about Einstein's General Relativity, for just one example? E=mc2? The discovery of DNA? The invention of the transistor? The sequencing of the genome? The discovery of the atomic nucleus? The discovery of continental drift? Most of the discoveries of quantum physics? How many more would you like? Just how stupid are these folks to be able to think that farting around by reclassifying animals into "Biblical groups" is the first "real" scientific advance since 1906? Oh, right, stupid enough to say things like:
This advancement is called baraminolgy, an advanced method of taxonomy (scientific classification) of earthly organisms. Its been known for many years that the evolutionary approach to taxonomic division of organisms is fraught with potential confusions. The systematic approach to classification, called phyletic systematics, used by evolutionists has grave difficulty placing numerous borderline organisms, organisms which superficially appear to contain features that span more than one species (A basic phyletic classification) eg. platypus. The platypus (Ornithorhynchus anatinus) commonly known as the duckbilled platypus is an animal that has webbed feet, flat tail (much like a featherless bird's), a duck's bill and lays eggs for reproduction. Because the evolutionary method (EM) uses similarities to place organisms this animal is generally placed taxonomically with mammals, simply because its feathers resemble fur.PLATYPUS FEATHERS? Yup, these creationists are complete idiots. Platypuses don't have feathers, sorry.
Nor does the rest of their idiotic rambling make any sense. And no, evolutionary biology has no "grave difficulty", or any problem at all, placing platypuses in the proper group. They're mammals. Period. They're not birds, as these dolts are apparently clueless enough to conclude, and THEY DON'T HAVE FEATHERS.
Here's what I wrote in reply to the last creationist moronic enough to think that platypuses had "bird" features just because their bill and a few other features VERY SUPERFICIALLY resemble features on some birds:
The duckbill platypus stands as a case in point. This creature possesses a combination of mammalian and avian (bird-like) features.And remember, *these* are the clueless folks who want to dictate how science is taught to America's kids... "Teach the controversy -- platypuses have feathers, that's what our 'Biblical groups' curriculum says, and nothing else major has been done in science in the past 100 years!"Just how stupid and grossly ignorant does someone have to be to claim that the platypus has "avian (bird-like) features"? Oh, right, stupid enough to be an anti-evolutionist.
Hint: While the platypus's "bill" may superficially *look* like a duck's bill at first glance, due to general shape, no one who has ever actually bothered to compare them could possibly say something as stupid as calling it an "avian feature". Structurally it's entirely different. Furthermore, the platypus's bill even generates an electric field and is a very sensitive electric sensor -- it uses electric fields in the same way that dolphins use echolocation and bats use sonar. How "avian" is that?
And the platypus's webbed feet are no more "avian" than the otter's. The webbed foot of an otter or platypus or seal could not possibly be mistaken for anything other than a mammal's foot, and only an idiot would call it an "avian feature", since it bears no resemblance whatsoever to the foot of a duck. Even the webbing itself is different.
As for egg-laying, the platypus's eggs are far more similar to the eggs of reptiles (to which they are far more closely related than birds) than to the eggs of birds. Other semi-reptilian features of the platypus (being more basal to the reptilian/mammal split than eutherian mammals) are using the same opening for reproduction and eliminating waste products, cervical ribs, local Vitamin-C synthesis in the kidney, and legs that extend outward from the body instead of extending downard under the body (playtpuses walk with a shuffling motion more like an reptile's than like most other mammals).
And that's even apart from all the DNA evidence clearly establishing that platypuses are basal mammals and not any close relation to birds.
Yet, evolutionists do not propose that mammals evolved from birds with the duckbill platypus representing a transitional form between these two groups.
Because they're not as stupid as the anti-evolutionists, and not ignorant enough to mistake a platypus's bill or foot or eggs for any kind of "avian" feature, because they very clearly aren't.
Only the anti-evolutionists are such shallow "thinkers" as to be fooled by the most superficial of appearances. Real biologists sit down and have an actual look.
I've got an idea -- why don't you anti-evolutionists try some arguments that aren't completely retarded for a change?
Spectacularly poor choice of acronym.
(Dr. Sigmund Freud, please pick up the white courtesy phone)
[Thunderous applause, with angels singing in the background!]
Nice strawman post.
You debated every point except mine, which you merely asserted were incorrect.
So far your 'point' has consisted of asserting that an 'Evolutionary bias' pervades the many sciences that contribute to the SToE.
Ichy did indeed address your 'point, as I did in a previous post. The refutation of your 'point' is contained in the following comment from Ichneumon:
"There is a vast and overwhelming amount of evidence along multiple independent cross-confirming lines which match, in very specific details of both the similarities and the differences between species, at everything from the molecular level to the contents of DNA to morphological similarities to biogeography to the fossil record, which match to a very detailed degree the exact and specific features which would be produced by evolutionary common descent, and do NOT match the kinds of features which would be expected due to just a "common designer"."
The point both Ichneumon and I have made to you is that the convergence of evidence from multiple lines tends to remove any 'interpretive bias' from the conclusions. The more independent lines that contribute to the overall conclusion the fewer the possible conclusions. This is an artifact of evidence collection and as a process is validated not only in the sciences linked to Evolution but in all forensic sciences and physical sciences such as Quantum Physics. Each new data point eliminates one or more alternative interpretations.
What you seem to miss is that many of the initial sources of data for modern Evolution came well before Darwin. On top of that, many of the pre-Darwinian evidence sources were theists. To claim - to assert, as you have done - with absolutely no factual basis that the multitude of evidenciary lines are interpreted says much more about your bias than it could possibly about the bias of scientists. Scientists routinely deal with data points which have to be considered in light of other data points. This forms the basis for their considered evidence.
What you have brought to the table is nothing but conjecture and assertion. If you want to be taken seriously then you need to back your assertions with more than other foundless assertions.
That's not a refutation.
That's a generalized assertion.
Course, no one expects evos to know the difference because they demonstrate that they don't quite regularly, like you just did.
Thanks.
The following is incomplete:
"To claim - to assert, as you have done - with absolutely no factual basis that the multitude of evidenciary lines are interpreted says much more about your bias than it could possibly about the bias of scientists."
It should read:
To claim - to assert, as you have done - with absolutely no factual basis that the multitude of evidenciary lines are interpreted with an unfounded bias says much more about your bias than it could possibly about the bias of scientists.
You assert that all the evidence brought to the table is nothing but a specific heavily biased 'interpretation' of data, yet you present nothing to back up that claim.
Present your evidence.
Or is your evidence nothing but metaphysical wanderings?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.