65
   

Don't tell me there's no proof for evolution

 
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Nov, 2007 08:32 am
real life wrote:
Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

If none of the extinct species ever went extinct, it would be impossible to state which organism belongs to what species because the defining line would be blurred.

You might want to rethink this one, Wolf.

Why would he want to rethink it. It's basically right. I started a whole thread on this a while back.

Without extinctions, the blend between species would be seamless.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Nov, 2007 08:47 am
patiodog wrote:
parados wrote:
Since a lightning strike from ground to earth can be 3-4 miles long and if it is straight down, why would these compounds be widely dispersed unless gravity doesn't exist in your world. 1. The amino acids would fall to the earth. Gravity works in a straight line. 2. Because of gravity, water flows to the lowest point collecting there. Any amino acids would flow with that water.


Does rain always fall straight down?
Not always but it often does. But lets assume the rain falls at a 20% angle. Any lightning that strikes at that same 20% angle would have the same result as lighting straight down with a straight down rain. real life claimed that the amino acid results from a lightning strike would be geographically wide spread. Yes, in violent storm they would be but on many occasions gravity would ensure they were not wide spread.
Quote:
Does lightning tend to strike when the air is still?
Does lightning only strike when the air is swirling and rain is not falling in a consistent direction? When it 'tends' to strike isn't really relevent. Either gravity exists or it doesn't. There are lots of storms that don't bring strong winds but have lightning. Would some lightning strikes cause any byproducts to be dispersed geographically? Yes. Would all? No, I don't think so based on physics.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Nov, 2007 09:09 am
rosborne979 wrote:
real life wrote:
Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

If none of the extinct species ever went extinct, it would be impossible to state which organism belongs to what species because the defining line would be blurred.

You might want to rethink this one, Wolf.

Why would he want to rethink it. It's basically right. I started a whole thread on this a while back.

Without extinctions, the blend between species would be seamless.


The definition of a 'species' is 'taxonomic group whose members can interbreed '

What you are saying is that ALL critters would be able to interbreed? I don't think so, and I don't think you do either. But that is what his (and your) statement implies.

You are saying there would be NO dividing line between species? C'mon ros.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Nov, 2007 09:27 am
real life has come full circle to his "species" argument. Rolling Eyes If a new species is only one member how can it breed? Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
Wolf ODonnell
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Nov, 2007 09:56 am
Let me get this straight. I paraphrased Darwin and basically gave you the jist of what he was saying in one section of Origin of Species, but you think I have to rethink what I said. Well, no, because I'm right. That is what Darwin said.

Equus asinus is a species.
Equus caballus is also a species.

However, if you breed a male E. asinus with a female E. caballus, what do you get? It's called a mule. E. asinus is a donkey. E. caballus is a horse.

What you fail to grasp, RL, is that there is no reason that varieties cannot reproduce. However, if you were to revive every single extinct organism that ever existed, you would find that all living things are a variety of each other. That is the argument that Darwin made.

The closer they are together, they more likely they are to reproduce. The species only arises when intermediates die off, thus severing the connection between one group and another.

In other words...

Let's say A evolves into B then C.

A can reproduce with B, but not C. Their offspring can then reproduce with C.
C can reproduce with B, but not A. Their offspring can then reproduce with A.

They are all varieties of each other, however. But due to B's closeness to both A and C, it will be competing with both A and C. Eventually, the combined forces of A and C will wipe out B. Their ability to cross-breed thus disappears.

The above is a gross oversimplification and I might have accidentally got it wrong in my haste to get this post up.

P.S. parados, this is all still in relation to the "Evolution is racist" argument of RL's. What he fails to understand is that even if RL is right, my point still stands because that is what Darwin said in his book and the viewpoint he advocated. That all species are in essence varieties.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Nov, 2007 11:00 am
I understand that Wolf but I am anticipating real's response.

"Species" is an arbitrary hard line that humans have placed in the fuzzy area that separates creatures that can't interbreed. Real wants us to believe because "species" is a hard line then there is no fuzzy area.

Your argument is similar to one that was made months ago to refute real on this thread. He will attempt to twist it by utilizing the hard line of "species" as being able to interbreed and produce fertile offspring. Never mind that I pointed out months ago that mules CAN be fertile even though the majority are not.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Nov, 2007 01:16 pm
Wolf_ODonnell wrote:
In other words...

Let's say A evolves into B then C.

A can reproduce with B, but not C. Their offspring can then reproduce with C.
C can reproduce with B, but not A. Their offspring can then reproduce with A.

They are all varieties of each other, however. But due to B's closeness to both A and C, it will be competing with both A and C. Eventually, the combined forces of A and C will wipe out B. Their ability to cross-breed thus disappears.

The above is a gross oversimplification and I might have accidentally got it wrong in my haste to get this post up.


Yeah , I think you got it wrong, alright.

Seems like B would have a survival advantage.

B can breed with A, B, or C.

But A can only breed with A or B.

And C can only breed with B or C.

Doesn't B have the advantage? Isn't that what evolution is all about?
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Nov, 2007 01:40 pm
I was agreeing with you Wolf, and , in response to RL's implied "racism" of the use of the tyerm race in the "Origin" , my quotes above clearly show the context in which the terms were used. RL is just being himself.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Nov, 2007 01:44 pm
Quote:
The definition of a 'species' is 'taxonomic group whose members can interbreed
. RL, the geologic definition of species recognizes that and therefore relies upon significant morphologic changes through temporal or environmental strata.

No problem.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Nov, 2007 03:08 pm
It seems real misses completely how life forms on this planet started and developed into what we have today. This occurred over thousands of years with some species disappearing and others in the process of change based on the change in environment.

Charles Darwin was considered a crackpot when he first came out with his "Origin of Species." He knew that the religious' folks would be "up in arms."

People of religion have a very difficult time admitting we are part of the primate family that includes "monkeys."
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Nov, 2007 03:21 pm
real life wrote:
You are saying there would be NO dividing line between species? C'mon ros.

Repeat after me, "without extinction, the blend between species would be seamless".
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Nov, 2007 04:27 pm
Please let's try to avoid the whole species argument again. I really don't want to read another 20-30 pages on that one.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Nov, 2007 04:57 pm
ros: Repeat after me, "without extinction, the blend between species would be seamless".


ROFL Betcha dollars to donuts, he comes back with that same argument in the future.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Nov, 2007 09:08 pm
RL resurrects topics after a few months hoping that the answers will change. ISnt that like something I heard about beating your head into a wall expecting a different outcome each time?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Nov, 2007 09:55 pm
The one thing we can expect from real is consistency.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Nov, 2007 10:05 pm
maporsche wrote:
Please let's try to avoid the whole species argument again. I really don't want to read another 20-30 pages on that one.

Oh come on, RL's species argument is the only halfway interesting argument he's ever come up with.

How many people realize that not a single living species on the planet today, coexists with it's progenitor line. I hadn't ever thought about it until RL started challenging the minutia of species definition.

It led to this thread, in which we cannot point to a single species alive today which coexists with its direct ancestor species.

The Coelacanth is the closest animal we came up with, and then someone suggested plants might be a more likely kingdom to consider. I think we left it at Ginko's.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Nov, 2007 10:10 pm
It did lead to some interesting research ros.

I don't know if you saw the bit about a bird "species" that covers the country. The ones on the east coast can't breed with the ones on the west coast but in the middle of the country they can breed together. By the definition of "species" that real was insisting we use they would be 2 species on the coasts and not so in the midwest.
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Nov, 2007 01:31 am
cicerone imposter wrote:
The one thing we can expect from real is consistency.

Consistant silence and dumbfoundary.

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
Wolf ODonnell
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Nov, 2007 03:37 am
It seems that RL is missing the point of my arguments. My first argument was against that Creationist's assertion that Darwin and Evolutiony Theory was racist. I paraphrased what Darwin said, something which any idiot could see, would make racism seem rather illogical and against the spirit of Evolution.

Instead, RL seems to have completely avoided the original argument and gone on to try and debunk something Darwin said, based on what is essentially an arbitrary definition of species that fails to take into account why certain species cannot reproduce with one another whereas certain others can. He seems to fail to realise that the definition of species is highly problematic, as it doesn't seem to apply very well to species that do not reproduce sexually and to those that somehow break the strict strawman definition he gave.

[quote="RL]Yeah , I think you got it wrong, alright.

Seems like B would have a survival advantage.

B can breed with A, B, or C.

But A can only breed with A or B.

And C can only breed with B or C.

Doesn't B have the advantage? Isn't that what evolution is all about?[/quote]

No. This is another point that Darwin made in Origin of Species. B can interbreed with A and C, but it also competes against A and C. Evolution is about competition as well as reproduction. C only has to compete against B. A, likewise only has to compete against B.

B has to compete against A and C. So it has to work twice as hard to survive. Due to Malthus' (I do believe it is Malthus) theory (which I forgot the name of), which helped inspire Darwin's theory, B is therefore more likely to become extinct and eventually will become extinct if the geological evidence is anything to go by.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Nov, 2007 06:36 am
Wolf_ODonnell wrote:
No. This is another point that Darwin made in Origin of Species. B can interbreed with A and C, but it also competes against A and C. Evolution is about competition as well as reproduction. C only has to compete against B. A, likewise only has to compete against B.

B has to compete against A and C. So it has to work twice as hard to survive. Due to Malthus' (I do believe it is Malthus) theory (which I forgot the name of), which helped inspire Darwin's theory, B is therefore more likely to become extinct and eventually will become extinct if the geological evidence is anything to go by.

And from what we see alive today, A, B, and C never exist contemporaneously. Even A and B don't coexist. By the time a new species evolves, it's progenitor is either extinct or has already led to a cousin species.

For each species, your toughest competitor will always be your own descendants. In the biological explosion of evolution, the descendants always overwhelm the ancestors, and squeeze them out of the picture.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 11/27/2024 at 04:28:43