Evolution? How?

TR

KINGDOM
PHYLUM
CLASS
ORDER
FAMILY
GENUS
SPECIES

Now, try to focus on the above Linnean hierarchy. If a new FAMILY is evolved then obviously, by definition a new species is evolved. I think youre using a term (micro evolution) and dont have any appreciation of its meaning.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

TR

KINGDOM
PHYLUM
CLASS
ORDER
FAMILY
GENUS
SPECIES

Now, try to focus on the above Linnean hierarchy. If a new FAMILY is evolved then obviously, by definition a new species is evolved. I think youre using a term (micro evolution) and dont have any appreciation of its meaning.

Any system of classification is, by it's own definition, subjective. So categorizing any creature as a new species or part of a new genus, etc is simply a function of the taxonomist's desire to call it so.

It's just a matter of where someone decides to draw a line and what traits will and won't make one creature 'different enough' from another to call it something else.

In the case of the cichlids, the fish are still fish, if I recall. This remains so, whether you classify them as new species , etc....... or not.

If a new taxonomical system is adopted, with more levels of gradation , say 12 instead of the 7 you listed, then no doubt taxonomy will be given much more emphasis in the classroom in order to solidify in young skulls full of mush the idea that great changes from "A level" all the way to "E level" have taken place among the cichlids, and can't we now plainly see that evolution has taken place since these many classificational barriers have been traversed by this famous critter?

(No really! The pea DID move from under that cup to under this one! )

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

I think youre using a term (micro evolution) and dont have any appreciation of its meaning.

Actually, I have a feeling the term micro evolution was invented as a substitute for the word adaptation in order to make the evolutionary hypothesis more palatable to guys like Joe Sixpack. (Who, BTW, doesn't buy it.)

But he says you're still welcome anytime at the Barbecue.

http://web4.ehost-services.com/el2ton1/pepsi.gif

0 Replies

Nowhere near as subjective as you think, real. Very few people would be inclined to consider cod and guppies one species, tho they are both fish. Chihuahuas and Great Danes are very clearly both dogs. Amoebas and elephants are clearly not the same species, and there isn't really any subjectiv9ity involved there.

You can ask some very specific questions, including but not limited to: do they occupy the same ecological niche(s), do they interbreed, CAN they interbreed (not the same question)? And how closely are their genomes related--if they diverged, how long ago (based on mutation rates).

At some edges, there definitely are questions, yes, as to when two closely related organisms can be considered separate species.

For example, consider this one, which you creationists and IDers seem to avoid: Given the very, very close genetic similarity, it is not at all clear that chimpanzees and us are different species. The differences are not so much in the genes, but rather in the expression of the genes, when they get switched on and off. A chimpanzee-human cross would very likely be fertile, except that chimpanzees don't find puny, bald, annoying humans very attractive or sexy and aren't inclined to try mating with us. But they could.

0 Replies

username wrote:

Nowhere near as subjective as you think, real. Very few people would be inclined to consider cod and guppies one species, tho they are both fish. Chihuahuas and Great Danes are very clearly both dogs. Amoebas and elephants are clearly not the same species, and there isn't really any subjectiv9ity involved there.

You can ask some very specific questions, including but not limited to: do they occupy the same ecological niche(s), do they interbreed, CAN they interbreed (not the same question)? And how closely are their genomes related--if they diverged, how long ago (based on mutation rates).

At some edges, there definitely are questions, yes, as to when two closely related organisms can be considered separate species.

For example, consider this one, which you creationists and IDers seem to avoid: Given the very, very close genetic similarity, it is not at all clear that chimpanzees and us are different species. The differences are not so much in the genes, but rather in the expression of the genes, when they get switched on and off. A chimpanzee-human cross would very likely be fertile, except that chimpanzees don't find puny, bald, annoying humans very attractive or sexy and aren't inclined to try mating with us. But they could.

The recently decoded chimpanzee genome reveals there are 40,000,000 differences in the DNA of humans and chimps.

If you think interbreeding is possible, the burden of proof is yours. But I'll not be a monkey's uncle. Laughing

0 Replies

Sounds like a lot, real, but in comparison to the huge amount of information in the DNA, that IS indeed very small, and many species have greater genetic difference within their populations and still interbreed.

0 Replies

and real, you ARE a monkey's uncle, or great-great-great-great-....uncle, at least (well, strictly speaking, an ape's great-great-great-....uncle). They may be the side of the family you try to hide, but they're there anyway

0 Replies

real life

Quote:

Any system of classification is, by it's own definition, subjective. So categorizing any creature as a new species or part of a new genus, etc is simply a function of the taxonomist's desire to call it so.

RL, Im not gonna call you a hypocrite , since that may engage the auto censor. However, you are the one who began the entire Micro.macro evolution discussion. So, we now know that Creationists, when confronted with dull facts, will resort to bifurcatus ejaculus. neo

Quote:

Actually, I have a feeling the term micro evolution was invented as a substitute for the word adaptation in order to make the evolutionary hypothesis more palatable to guys like Joe Sixpack. (Who, BTW, doesn't buy it.)

The fact that Joe Sixpack doesnt "get it" i not a worry of mine. Hes too busy trying to follow WBE and NASCAR.
The terms micro/ versus macro evolution have been within the science since the 1940s and haqve been resurrected as the discussion of the concept of "Punctuated euilibrium" became more heated. ALAS, most of the heat seems to have gone to the grave with Gould and, as Mayr said (before he too died)
"All macroevolutionary processes take place in populations and in the genotypes of individuals, and are thus simulataneously microevolutionary processes"
The discussion of the Cichlid fish that TR missed entirely, is really a study in "fast gradualness" as is the study of gradual and total acquired resistance by bacteria to Penecillin , or the complete resistance to DDT by Anapholes mosquitoes wherever its used in the world.
Good discssions (probably at a level that would be uncomfortable to a Joe Sixpack) can still be gotten in MAyrs last Book "WHAT EVOLUTION IS". The seminal work by Rensch"Neure Probleme der Abstammungslebre" or EO Wilsons "The Diversity of Life"
Doug Futuyamas "Evolutionary Biology" and Goulds"The STructure of Evolutionary Theory" each have more scholarly (in depth) discussions of the processes from a gene to a paleo view.

I cant do anything about the Linneaen system of classification there real life, Instead of fighting its arbitrariness, you should be ecstatic. As everyone recognizes, its entire expression is Creationist in structure. However, there is a movement afoot to recognize the genetic "Roots" of organisms and to radically change the system of binomial nomenclature to make it more " evolutionarily scientific" and less Creationist Seems like the last foothold in science that you guys can claim will be soon a thing of "The old school" How surprising for evolution, which is, as you all agree, a "theory in Crisis".

0 Replies

real life

Quote:

Any system of classification is, by it's own definition, subjective. So categorizing any creature as a new species or part of a new genus, etc is simply a function of the taxonomist's desire to call it so.

RL, Im not gonna call you a hypocrite , since that may engage the auto censor. However, you are the one who began the entire Micro.macro evolution discussion. So, we now know that Creationists, when confronted with dull facts, will resort to bifurcatus ejaculus. neo

Quote:

Actually, I have a feeling the term micro evolution was invented as a substitute for the word adaptation in order to make the evolutionary hypothesis more palatable to guys like Joe Sixpack. (Who, BTW, doesn't buy it.)

The fact that Joe Sixpack doesnt "get it" i not a worry of mine. Hes too busy trying to follow WBE and NASCAR.
The terms micro/ versus macro evolution have been within the science since the 1940s and haqve been resurrected as the discussion of the concept of "Punctuated euilibrium" became more heated. ALAS, most of the heat seems to have gone to the grave with Gould and, as Mayr said (before he too died)
"All macroevolutionary processes take place in populations and in the genotypes of individuals, and are thus simulataneously microevolutionary processes"
The discussion of the Cichlid fish that TR missed entirely, is really a study in "fast gradualness" as is the study of gradual and total acquired resistance by bacteria to Penecillin , or the complete resistance to DDT by Anapholes mosquitoes wherever its used in the world.
Good discssions (probably at a level that would be uncomfortable to a Joe Sixpack) can still be gotten in MAyrs last Book "WHAT EVOLUTION IS". The seminal work by Rensch"Neure Probleme der Abstammungslebre" or EO Wilsons "The Diversity of Life"
Doug Futuyamas "Evolutionary Biology" and Goulds"The STructure of Evolutionary Theory" each have more scholarly (in depth) discussions of the processes from a gene to a paleo view.

I cant do anything about the Linneaen system of classification there real life, Instead of fighting its arbitrariness, you should be ecstatic. As everyone recognizes, its entire expression is Creationist in structure. However, there is a movement afoot to recognize the genetic "Roots" of organisms and to radically change the system of binomial nomenclature to make it more " evolutionarily scientific" and less Creationist Seems like the last foothold in science that you guys can claim will be soon a thing of "The old school" How surprising for evolution, which is, as you all agree, a "theory in Crisis".

0 Replies

fm wrote-

Quote:

So, we now know that Creationists, when confronted with dull facts, will resort to bifurcatus ejaculus. neo

I think you are a word short there meester.You ought to have "some" after "that".It's an assertion anyway which I could easily fire at SDers.

And again in-

Quote:

How surprising for evolution, which is, as you all agree, a "theory in Crisis".

"all" is ridiculous fm.

How many SDers use language so loosely?

0 Replies

Worse than your usual pathetic efforst, Spendius--and that's quite an accomplishment . . .

0 Replies

Oh dear!

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

So, we now know that Creationists, when confronted with dull facts, will resort to bifurcatus ejaculus. neo

Joe say this means double talk. And I thought it meant menage a trois.

http://web4.ehost-services.com/el2ton1/doh.gif

The great thing about the bible is that you don't have to be a genius to understand it.

The worst thing about being a genius is that you may 'mistake that which is only complex for that which is profound.' - Edgar Allen Poe paraphrased.

0 Replies

neo

Quote:

The worst thing about being a genius is that you may 'mistake that which is only complex for that which is profound.'

Whereas with "active" ignorance , you can discern neither.-Farmermans handy Phrase fake sheets

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

neo
Quote:
The worst thing about being a genius is that you may 'mistake that which is only complex for that which is profound.'

Whereas with "active" ignorance , you can discern neither.-Farmermans handy Phrase fake sheets

I'll race you through the Sunday Times crossword puzzle anytime. In pen - with no reference books.

0 Replies

NEO-And Ill bet youll even get a few right.
Why dont we move over to the "insult thread" its more in proper form with that one. We hadnt gotten really ad-0hominem in this thread (save a few who started getting a bit testy )

0 Replies

Sorry. I really do have great respect for your encyclopedic knowledge. I just don't agree with your conclusions.

And, I resent the implication that I came about my beliefs by falling off a turnip truck.

0 Replies

Your relative ability to keep your seat on a turnip truck does not address the titular issue of this thread.

0 Replies

neo, Im sure you have an encyclopedic knowledge in what is your chosen line. I do this for a living, so why shouldnt I know this stuff. I equally take umbrage at you, and others, who are untrained and (it shows) yet that doesnt stop you from insinuating that I am somehow involved in a profesion that chases rainbows and falsities.

You may well win a crossword puzzle Im more a fan of math puzzles and spatial puzzles, but I know that Ill find more oil and minerals than you and I wont , as I suspect that you and real life and thunder runner and momma angel and Intrepid would probably do, youd make a small fortune out of a big one.

Employing technical training is every bit as valid in prospecting as it is in bridge building. The days when guys like "Hayseed Harcutt" would convince an investor to drill a well here 'cause this is where the Bibles springs of pitch were located, these days are gone and the "diviners" have been shown to be pretty much con men who preyed on the believers.

I dont care whether you do or do not "buy"
my conclusions. I just hope you understand them, thats all.

The differences between our "schools" is that mine has left a very good trail of evidence to follow and to reason from, and the trail keeps getting more evident each day.

I hope you have a chance to see the Darwin exhibit at the NY Museum of Natural History. (Im not sure whether the Romulans will let you out for a day). A colleague, whose a Darwin scholar has had a hand in its curation and hes assured me that its a hum dinger.

0 Replies

Will they have a copy of Darwin's grandpa's book on evolution as part of the display? I'd kinda like to see that.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know