|
|
|
larry_boy
New Member
14 Posts |
 Posted - 07/20/2005 : 12:20:20 [Permalink]
|
but . . . but . . . wait, Hybrid, aren't you and I on the same side here? I mean, alright, I accept a theory of common descent and, therefor, necessarily some means for transforming organisms from one to another, but clearly I am arguing against natural selection as that means.
If you would like to help me out by presenting evidence that one of the arguments I am forced to concede on the basis of facts...
Evolution clearly isn't just 'a way of thinking' because there is a material world and a way to approach that world though rational analysis and debate.
I am really not trying to mock you. I have a friend who is a doctor and a YEC, I know a mathematician Mormon, a computer programmer who believes in astrology and ghosts. . . heck just about every one I know opposes evolution or relativity or quantum-physics or findings in some other well established scientific field. (I personally suspect that the Copenhagen interpretation is malarky, but I am not vocal about this because I couldn't tell the top of a quark from it's bottom. *HA! That's a good one!* [come on, if I don't laugh at my jokes, who will?]) They are all great people. Kind, generous, smart, and humble (come on, it is not easy being a Doctor, I don't care who you are.)
I wouldn't rather have a bunch of *beep*'s for friends, even if their epistemology was more rigorous. So I am not trying to say you are stupid. In RL, we might be friends. I don't know how to tell people gracefully that they are wrong, or call them clearly to correct their ways, so here is my best shot.
I think what you accept as evidence is flawed. This is not a problem unique to you. It would be unique, in fact, if this wasn't the case.
To put it simply, and perhaps painfully, your standard of evidence is simply too low. You can't believe everything you read, hear, or see. Heck, you can't believe most of it. You don't seem to realize that people LOVE make up all kinds of crap that isn't true. Reports don't feel responsible to check to see if what some one is saying is true, they just pass the buck cause it makes a good story. So we have Noah's arc found by the most obvious fraud since Joe Smith, Artist from New York passing themselves off in Australia as enlightened thinkers by old and cheep magic tricks. People who can tele-keneticly move light bits of paper, if they are close enough to that persons mouth. Hank Hanagraph. You name it, the world is full of frauds. One of the only people that Gandhi actually got angry at where the glut of enlightened eastern frauds in India. After Gandhi chased them out, they set up shop a couple miles north of here in Fairfield, and have managed to make money hand over fist. It is clearly in a person's capability to think they are right when they are glaringly wrong.
Now, in the two thread's that I have read, no offense is meant to you, but you have, unfortunately, not presented any reliable sources of information, nor made sufficiently long and complex theories to allow proper support of your assertions. I wouldn't say that arheopterix is a fraud because Hank Hanagraph says it is, because I honestly don't think he knows what he is talking about. The people who's books you have read, who's programs you have watched, and who's sites you have visited, appear to be in the same boat. This doesn't mean you are stupid.
The bible warns that “Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness. (James 3:1)” and that “the time is coming when people will not endure sound[1] teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions. (2 Timothy 4:3)”
I interpret these passages as indicating that we should be careful not to be false teachers ourselves. We should be more careful with other peoples beliefs than we are even with our own, and will be condemned for clouding other peoples judgment with our own poor thinking. So the lions share of the blame likely falls on the people who's writings you have been reading, and not on yourself. However, I advise you to think and consider very carefully what you read. It will not only shape your intellectual life, but your spiritual and emotional life as well. It appears to me that you are engaging in a form of cowardice. I'm sorry that the words are so harsh, but I hope you will not think that I say them lightly, or simply because I do not like the words that you are saying. Clearly entering into an intellectual debate which you cannot, in theory, lose, risk you nothing, and you can hope to gain nothing from it. Please, if you are right, and so many of us are wrong, then perhaps you have a greater insight into life then even Newton did. It is your moral obligation to dedicate yourself to working out the implications of your thoughts with painstaking effort. Please, do not be too foolish, there are many intelligent people in this world to who's judgment we must defer.
If I am wrong, please tell me, I do not wish to do you injustice.
I think we are chiefly called in this life to be moral agents, and to this end, to develop our minds to be as careful as possible to avoid error. |
 |
|
|
larry_boy
New Member
14 Posts |
Posted - 07/20/2005 : 12:46:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
quote:
Now the stuff on molecular evolution is great, grand and glorious, but cannot properly be said to be experimental results, because the data were not generated under controlled conditions.
Which has what to do with the observations supporting common descent?
OK, I think I have been crystal clear on that one, Go back and read the thread till you figure it out.
-Edit: I am creating a new rule: If you think I am making a non-sequitur, you must rephrase my argument, and then you make a quotation. All arguments must have at least three parts. If in your post you say 'what relevance does this have' or 'why do I care' or blank, following said procedure, I will not read your post, because you are wasting my time. I promise I am not in the mood to go around saying that dogs bark just because I enjoy typing, I will eventually respond to the rest of this particular post. |
| Edited by - larry_boy on 07/20/2005 12:59:11 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 07/20/2005 : 13:15:19 [Permalink]
|
You are, apparently, trying to marginalize the molucular evidences that support common descent by claiming that they don't count, because they weren't "generated under controlled conditions".
Which makes no sense, since these are all just observations. Facts, if you will.
It is a fact that common ERVs are detected in hominid genomes. These ERVs in exactly the same place, in the genome of multiple closely related species, indicates common descent.
Your argument about "generated under controlled conditions" is not relevent to this particular bit of information. Its akin to me saying, "the sky is blue.", and you dismissing that observation because the conditions of the observation weren't controlled.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 07/20/2005 : 15:38:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
So to rephrase once more, While it is true that seeing an organism's fossils change into a closely related organism's fossils over millions of years supports the idea that all organism are related, it is not true that such a transformation indicates that the organism has changed as a result of differential mortality among various traits.
quote:
Now all of this has been building up to the idea that Natural Selection may not be vindicated as the driving force behind Evolution by the fossil record when properly interpreted.
quote:
No one would argue that I can't kill off A whole bunch a organisms with a disaster. Death of organisms which do not have the ability to survive is not particularly interesting. Now, after the catastrophic event, there is a radiation of species, however, what evidence is there that natural selection is the force that has been crafting these new organisms to fill up the empty space?
We see natural selection operating today. Therefore we assume that it has taken place in the past. We can't prove this uniformitarianism, but it's something we assume is valid. We could be wrong, but there is no reason to believe we are.
As others have said as well, there are more forces than natural selection shaping evolution. Is natural selection the main one? Do you want a figure as to how important it has been? 80%? 50%? 10%? No one knows. We do know (or assume if you will) that it is one of them.
quote:
*tut tut* Uhm. . . Dude? Are you seriously telling me that you think that a scientist said that speciation doesn't have to cause morphological change? If two species are identical, how exactly do you think they are different? In all fairness you may have been confused by my use of morhpological when phynotypic was more apropriate.
I think we are going to have to sort out exactly what you mean by phenotype here. Is it a change in color? A change in size? A change in rate at which a channel pumps sodium? The first two can easily said to be phenotypical. How about the third? Small changes like the last could in theory lead to two organisms becoming sexually incompatible and thus new species.
Also, depending on how you define species (there are quite a few ways), two organisms can be sexually compatible and be able to produce viable offspring and still be considered separate species-providing they don't actually mate for whatever reason.
quote:
“Every local population is very precisely adjusted in its phenotype to the exacting requirements of the local environment. This adjustment is the result of selection of genes producing an optimal phenotype.”
I might have been Mayr who said it, but I would like to add something to this. No species (as far as we know) is OPTIMALLY adapted to its environment. Some are just better adapted than others.
quote:
So the fact that we spend 2/3 of the earths history fine tuning small simple organisms (when evolution is fast, and there is little to be done), and only 1/3 generating the much greater amount of genetic information contained in all multicellular life on the planet earth (when it is slow, and there is lots to be done) seems preposterous.
Is there more genetic information in multicellular organisms? |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 07/20/2005 : 16:20:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by larry_boy
Anyway, this is just to reiterate the often ignored/trivialized central claims of Punctuated Equilibrium, that morphological change is very correlated closely with speciation (originally postulated as a causal relation ship, though evidence for this has weakened.)are left to be found. Anywhere. (say oh, 10,000 years.)
I'm not sure what you are getting at.
Evolution has happened, spices are seen in strata, gradually changing. Punctuated Equilibrium just means that the speed of the morphological changes aren't linear, but fluctuating. When we talk about the Cambrian Explosion (which I've seen used as an argument for P.E.) we are looking back several hundred million years into the past in the strata. In that context 10'000 years is a blink of the eye. Radiometric dating with a 1% accurracy will still give a few million years give or take. A lot can happen during a few million years, especially if there are many changes in the climate.
Aliens five hundred million years from now looking at our bones in strata wouldn't be able to say if we or neanderthals came first. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 07/20/2005 : 17:24:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by larry_boy
Luckily, there is! Recent studies estimate many dinosaur's generation times based on bone growth patterns, and logically any large complex organism will tend to have longer generation times then small, simple, organisms. So the fact that we spend 2/3 of the earths history fine tuning small simple organisms (when evolution is fast, and there is little to be done), and only 1/3 generating the much greater amount of genetic information contained in all multicellular life on the planet earth (when it is slow, and there is lots to be done) seems preposterous.
You seem to be missing something important: the source of the mutations: the most common cause for mutations in the DNA is transcription error.
If one transcription error occurs every billion base-pairs, then we have ~3 transcription errors in every cell division in humans. On the other hand, a cyanobacteria like with about 5 million base-pairs have a mutation rate at one mutation every 200 generations.
And with a less sofisticated energy source and enery utilization, and slower metabolism, they will have a longer life cycle. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 07/20/2005 : 18:06:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Hawks
We see natural selection operating today. Therefore we assume that it has taken place in the past. We can't prove this uniformitarianism, but it's something we assume is valid. We could be wrong, but there is no reason to believe we are.
As others have said as well, there are more forces than natural selection shaping evolution. Is natural selection the main one? Do you want a figure as to how important it has been? 80%? 50%? 10%? No one knows. We do know (or assume if you will) that it is one of them.
To me it seems clear that the ratio between the different forces that shape evolution changes depending on the circumstances. During ecologically stable periods, the impact of natural selection will be relatively small, and thus most of the major changes in a spices will come from genetic drift. The platypus and the crocodile are good examples. When the environment changes (quickly) like in the case of the London Subway, mosquitoes move into a new ecological niche and natural selection selects the offspring best suited for living in the tunnels. Eventually with enough generations the differences are large enough that the London Subway Mosquito is no longer able to breed with it's surface cousins. It only took 100 years. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 07/20/2005 : 19:09:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Posted by Dr. Mabuse
You seem to be missing something important: the source of the mutations: the most common cause for mutations in the DNA is transcription error.
If one transcription error occurs every billion base-pairs, then we have ~3 transcription errors in every cell division in humans.
Minor quibble. Transcription errors would probably only be a minor component in DNA mutations, such as when the mRNA of DNA polymerase is mis-transcribed. DNA duplication errors would be the most common error (which is probably what you meant).(And of course, mis-transcribed DNA polymerase would (probably) lead to duplication errors anyway).
|
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
larry_boy
New Member
14 Posts |
Posted - 07/20/2005 : 22:19:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
You are, apparently, trying to marginalize the molucular evidences that support common descent by claiming that they don't count, because they weren't "generated under controlled conditions".
Which makes no sense, since these are all just observations. Facts, if you will.
It is a fact that common ERVs are detected in hominid genomes. These ERVs in exactly the same place, in the genome of multiple closely related species, indicates common descent.
Your argument about "generated under controlled conditions" is not relevent to this particular bit of information. Its akin to me saying, "the sky is blue.", and you dismissing that observation because the conditions of the observation weren't controlled.
I have at no point attempted to say any such thing, and why you would think I did is beyond me. (marginalizing said evidence) Perhaps you simply read any assertion that 'X is not experimental evidence' as an attack on the validity of that evidence, but that is your personal problem, and not mine. But, clearly, as you point out, the fact that the sky is blue is not know from experiment ion, which should perhaps make you reevaluate your knee jerk reactions when this assertion is made, because I am, after all, very confident that the sky is sometimes blue. |
|
|
|
larry_boy
New Member
14 Posts |
Posted - 07/20/2005 : 22:40:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
quote:
Originally posted by larry_boy
Anyway, this is just to reiterate the often ignored/trivialized central claims of Punctuated Equilibrium, that morphological change is very correlated closely with speciation (originally postulated as a causal relation ship, though evidence for this has weakened.)are left to be found. Anywhere. (say oh, 10,000 years.)
I'm not sure what you are getting at.
Evolution has happened, spices are seen in strata, gradually changing.
Really? Evidence? I am not currently aware of sufficiently rigorous studies to validate this assertion for sexually reproducing species, though I don't doubt that this might occasionally happen, but, if you would be so kind as to find an example it would be much appreciated.
quote:
Punctuated Equilibrium just means that the speed of the morphological changes aren't linear, but fluctuating.
That is what Dawkins' claims punctuated equilibrium is, but he is a filthy liar. Punctuated equilibrium now, and has always (as far as I am aware) been a theory that asserts there is mechanistic association between phynotypic change and speciation, which is quite clearly, not what you are saying. So you are . . . wrong.
quote:
When we talk about the Cambrian Explosion (which I've seen used as an argument for P.E.) we are looking back several hundred million years into the past in the strata. In that context 10'000 years is a blink of the eye. Radiometric dating with a 1% accurracy will still give a few million years give or take. A lot can happen during a few million years, especially if there are many changes in the climate.
Aliens five hundred million years from now looking at our bones in strata wouldn't be able to say if we or neanderthals came first.
Right right, I will grant all this, and perhaps a great deal of confusion has been sown by me half on purpose and half on accident, but this will all become clear later. [real maniacal laugh this time! *MWHAHAHAHAH*]
(OK, I'm not entirely sure what I am trying to do, but whatever. . . .)
Crap, now I have to think up why none of that matters, gees, why do you have to go pointing out vexing things like that! Oh well, I will just sweep it under the rug of, “BUT natural selection predict GRADUAL change, honest.” until I think of something better. (which, btw. I think it does, but it is a thorny issue and I don't want to commit myself to much just yet.)
anyway don't feel to bad about the P.E. thing, modern textbooks are doing their darndest to assert there is nothing to it, or macro-evolutionary theory in general. So unless you have read an works by someone who actually thinks P.E. is interesting, it is unlikely to be represented accurately.
God I hate Dawkins sometimes. He's such a twit. A really smart twit, but a twit. |
|
|
|
larry_boy
New Member
14 Posts |
Posted - 07/20/2005 : 22:45:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
quote:
Originally posted by Hawks
We see natural selection operating today. Therefore we assume that it has taken place in the past. We can't prove this uniformitarianism, but it's something we assume is valid. We could be wrong, but there is no reason to believe we are.
As others have said as well, there are more forces than natural selection shaping evolution. Is natural selection the main one? Do you want a figure as to how important it has been? 80%? 50%? 10%? No one knows. We do know (or assume if you will) that it is one of them.
To me it seems clear that the ratio between the different forces that shape evolution changes depending on the circumstances. During ecologically stable periods, the impact of natural selection will be relatively small, and thus most of the major changes in a spices will come from genetic drift. The platypus and the crocodile are good examples. When the environment changes (quickly) like in the case of the London Subway, mosquitoes move into a new ecological niche and natural selection selects the offspring best suited for living in the tunnels. Eventually with enough generations the differences are large enough that the London Subway Mosquito is no longer able to breed with it's surface cousins. It only took 100 years.
FYI, the vast majority of speices originate in, and go extinct in, periods of relative stability. 95% of all extinctions occure at the background rate. Not sure what this means. I am going to bed now. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 07/21/2005 : 01:50:32 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Hawks
DNA duplication errors would be the most common error (which is probably what you meant).
That was what I meant. Good thing you could read that from the context. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 07/21/2005 : 06:16:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by larry_boy
That is what Dawkins' claims punctuated equilibrium is, but he is a filthy liar.
I was under the impression you wanted to have a rational argument about evolution. Characterizing someone as a "filthy liar" does not promote rationality.quote:
Punctuated equilibrium now, and has always (as far as I am aware) been a theory that asserts there is mechanistic association between phynotypic change and speciation, which is quite clearly, not what you are saying. So you are . . . wrong.
This is interesting to me because it relies on a definition of speciation which may not be valid. After all, how 'species' is defined for living creatures depends on context, and a single definition does not cover all known data. As an easy example, domestic dogs display a wide variety of phenotypes (only a single Y, please), but are all of the same species. On the other hand, the London Subway mosquito is almost phenotypically identical to its above-ground cousins (and is probably indistinguishable at a glance), but is reproductively isolated by behavioural differences (and so has speciated).
Given these problems with the word "species," the only defition of "species" which can apply to fossil data is based on phenotypical differences. In other words, if fossils A and B look like different species, then they're classified as such. This classification would fail for chihuahuas and akitas, however.
And so, given that for fossils, phenotypic change equals speciation, by definition, it would be puzzling to see anyone make the sort of mistake that would lead to an assertion that one must drive the other. As above, such a mistake rests on the idea that the fossils record the entirety of a phenotype.quote:
Oh well, I will just sweep it under the rug of, “BUT natural selection predict GRADUAL change, honest.” until I think of something better.
And genetic drift predicts rapid change among small populations - the founder effect - and may very well be the more "important" mechanism of evolution.quote:
So unless you have read an works by someone who actually thinks P.E. is interesting, it is unlikely to be represented accurately.
Does Gould count? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
larry_boy
New Member
14 Posts |
Posted - 07/21/2005 : 09:46:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by larry_boy
That is what Dawkins' claims punctuated equilibrium is, but he is a filthy liar.
I was under the impression you wanted to have a rational argument about evolution. Characterizing someone as a "filthy liar" does not promote rationality.
Yes, but not someone who was posting here, so I thought of it as rather tongue in cheek. If I have hurt someones feelings, I apologize, it is simply that Dawkins is a well known opponent of P.E., and his characterizations of it are, by a fair criteria, inaccurate.
quote:
quote:
Punctuated equilibrium now, and has always (as far as I am aware) been a theory that asserts there is mechanistic association between phenotypic change and speciation, which is quite clearly, not what you are saying. So you are . . . wrong.
This is interesting to me because it relies on a definition of speciation which may not be valid. After all, how 'species' is defined for living creatures depends on context, and a single definition does not cover all known data. As an easy example, domestic dogs display a wide variety of phenotypes (only a single Y, please), but are all of the same species.
Sorry, about mis-spelling. Well, clearly the phenotypic variability of dogs cannot be considered normal as the breeding dynamics that would characterize a natural species have not applied for a thousand years.
quote:
On the other hand, the London Subway mosquito is almost phenotypically identical to its above-ground cousins (and is probably indistinguishable at a glance), but is reproductively isolated by behavioral differences (and so has speciated).
what would be interesting to see is if in the next thousand years phenotypic differences accumulate. As you pointed out, speciation only happened a hundred years ago, and neither I (nor Gould) would ever have said that phynotypic differences had to accumulate before speciation happened or instantaneously afterwards. Give the critters a few thousand years, and if they aren't extinct, I would be surprised if there weren't more significant difference than we see now.
quote:
Given these problems with the word "species," the only defition of "species" which can apply to fossil data is based on phenotypical differences. In other words, if fossils A and B look like different species, then they're classified as such.
Ah, an old accusation. Luckily smarter people than me have responded to this one. First off, your assuming that modern species are often morphological indistinguishable. While there are rare case of such cryptic species, I think you will admit it is not generally the case. If morphological data is in 1% or so agreement with natural species differences, then I think any objections on this basis are fairly irrelevant. (and of course, if with careful statistical analysis you can characterize species by their fossilizable parts just as accurately or more accurately then an experienced biologist can by looking at the living organisms, then I think the objection continues to dwindled.) Often times, careful morphological analysis can reveal cryptic species if the statistics are rigorously analyzed.
quote:
This classification would fail for chihuahuas and akitas, however.
a single failure does not mean that it is impossible to test the theory, nor is this evidence for systematic overestimation of speciation events. (which would be a problem for supporting P.E., but this is of course an argument that proves that the fossil record should be MORE HOSTILE to P.E. then modern studies, meaning if we can validate it with the fossil record, then that is strong evidence indeed.)
quote:
And so, given that for fossils, phenotypic change equals speciation, by definition, it would be puzzling to see anyone make the sort of mistake that would lead to an assertion that one must drive the other.
Ah, but Gould and Eldrige, and a host of other people have made just that 'mistake.'
And, in palenotological studies it does not equal speciation, by definition, (though they will be 'called' different paleo-species) because they may be the same species seen transforming over time, in which case no speciation event occurred. Evidence for speciation (i.e. That species A becomes species A AND B) only occurs if the ancestor survives (unchanged) after the new species appears. (Edit->And does so for several million years.)
quote:
As above, such a mistake rests on the idea that the fossils record the entirety of a phenotype.quote:
Oh well, I will just sweep it under the rug of, “BUT natural selection predict GRADUAL change, honest.” until I think of something better.
And genetic drift predicts rapid change among small populations - the founder effect - and may very well be the more "important" mechanism of evolution.quote:
So unless you have read an works by someone who actually thinks P.E. is interesting, it is unlikely to be represented accurately.
Does Gould count?
It would count, but you seem to not have been a big fan, being as you are attempting to assert that his life's work was to prove the trivial assertion that evolutionary rates are variable, which as Dawkins points out, no one in their right mind would disagree with.
First off, Let us look at how the 'species problem' affects the alternative hypothesis (or null, or something) that anagenisis has occurred. (i.e. phenotypic transformation of a species.) [Just so you know, anagenisis is the traditional example of micro-evolution, the peppermoth BECOMES black after a sufficient amount of time to fix the allele |
| Edited by - larry_boy on 07/21/2005 11:04:11 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 07/21/2005 : 12:17:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by larry_boy
Well, clearly the phenotypic variability of dogs cannot be considered normal as the breeding dynamics that would characterize a natural species have not applied for a thousand years.
Nobody asserted that such variability was "normal." Please don't put words in my mouth. Thus is how tempers get lost.quote:
quote:
Given these problems with the word "species," the only defition of "species" which can apply to fossil data is based on phenotypical differences. In other words, if fossils A and B look like different species, then they're classified as such.
Ah, an old accusation. Luckily smarter people than me have responded to this one. First off, your assuming that modern species are often morphological indistinguishable.
I'm assuming no such thing. Again, please avoid constructing straw men from my words.quote:
(and of course, if with careful statistical analysis you can characterize species by their fossilizable parts just as accurately or more accurately then an experienced biologist can by looking at the living organisms, then I think the objection continues to dwindled.)
And you're missing the point. The "species" concept is a man-made categorical division, and not something which nature imposes upon organisms. The "experienced biologist" may be able to suggest that two morphologically similar fossils were of separate species per a paleontological definition of "species," but that may not be a correct conclusion given a time machine and direct observation of the creatures in life.quote:
a single failure does not mean that it is impossible to test the theory, nor is this evidence for systematic overestimation of speciation events.
I wasn't arguing for either point.quote:
Ah, but Gould and Eldrige, and a host of other people have made just that 'mistake.'
From my readings, quite the opposite. It is often their opponents who demand a rigid definition of "species" that applies the same way in all contexts, and thus manufacture that mistake through simple equivocation.quote:
And, in palenotological studies it does not equal speciation, by definition, (though they will be 'called' different paleo-species) because they may be the same species seen transforming over time, in which case no speciation event occurred.
Indeed, I should have used the term "macroevolution" instead of "speciation."quote:
It would count, but you seem to not have been a big fan, being as you are attempting to assert that his life's work was to prove the trivial assertion that evolutionary rates are variable...
Look, again, please ask me about what I'm arguing, rather than make incorrect assumptions about my posts. Besides which, I think calling punk-eek Gould's "life's work" would probably insult Gould.quote:
First off, Let us look at how the 'species problem' affects the alternative hypothesis (or null, or something) that anagenisis has occurred. (i.e. phenotypic transformation of a species.) [Just so you know, anagenisis is the traditional example of micro-evolution, the peppermoth BECOMES black after a sufficient amount of time to fix the allele [which, it turns out didn't occur *shrug*]]
Just so you know, anagenesis is an example of macroevolution:In evolutionary biology today, macroevolution is used to refer to any evolutionary change at or above the level of species. It means the splitting of a species into two (speciation, or cladogenesis, from the Greek meaning "the origin of a branch") or the change of a species over time into another (anagenesis, not nowadays generally used). Any changes that occur at higher levels, such as the evolution of new families, phyla or genera, is also therefore macroevolution, but the term is not restricted to the origin of those higher taxa. But back to your post:quote:
If speciation has occurred without detectable morphological change, then there has not been any anagenisis, and we are systematically UNDER estimating the number of speciation events. (*woot!*)
But we know speciation can (and does) occur without morphological change (but still with phenological change). Again, the London Subway mosquito is behaviourally different from its above-ground cousins, in such a way as to make mating in the wild highly improbable. Reproductive isolation due to behavioural differences is one criteria for speciation.quote:
This would mean that if speciation invisibly occurs, and species B is just slightly different than species A, then the gradual replacement of species A with species be will be interpreted as traditional Darwinian anagenisis. If the speciation event is missed entirely, then it will not be taken as evidence for P.E., and ISN'T evidence for anagenisis, in any case. So, if anything the fossil record is biased AGAINST P.E.
I don't know how you come up with that, as punk-eek is based partly upon the idea that lots of the individual species which have existed are not represented in the fossil record at all. How much more "invisible" can these events be? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
