No! I was not asking that. I don't see how you got that from what I said.Quote:
Originally Posted by 450donn
|
No! I was not asking that. I don't see how you got that from what I said.Quote:
Originally Posted by 450donn
450donn,
I always try to keep in mind that what mankind does, or says is WITHIN the will of God.
That within is man's God given gift of free will.
So our discussion here concerning God's creation and evolution is within God's will.
Actually I think He is interested in what is being said in discussion on that.
Peace and kindness,
Fred
Thanks, Fred. So you are saying that you feel God created each species and then let evolution happen to let life change, in the same way it's understood by biologists today?Quote:
Originally Posted by arcura
Science cannot disprove God and is not intended to do so. Science is just a way of posing questions about the natural world and then answering those questions. It has nothing to say about God. It would make me feel more comfortable here if you would not make statements about science proving or disproving God. I don't want anyone here to think that is what I advocate or intend. I also feel uncomfortable with your statement about the religious preferences of future scientists. I am happy to discuss evolution so that people here can better understand what it says. I also responded to New York in a way that I hope you will approve of.
Asking,
Yes I approve of everything you have said here in explanation of modern evolution.
It is VERY interesting.
When I was a cattle rancher there were and still are people who interbreed various breeds of species for various reasons.
Now, is that natural selection? Yes and no I think since man is a natural being.
But without man's effort, interbreeding could and did take place. Thus a form of evolution did.
Is that is what is called "drift"?
Peace and kindness,
Fred
Asking,
Then please explain to me exactly what you are trying to say here when you said
"In particular, in anything I say here, I am not talking about Darwin's understanding, but a more modern view that incorporates genetics, cladistics, and a more thorough understanding of how populations of organisms work."
As that to my mind is what you were saying.
Yes, please, and what are cladistics?
Fred
Cladistics is a taxonomic system that classifies groups of organisms according to the order of their divergence from genetically ancestral species.
Your experience with artificial selection, cattle ranching, is very relevant to what I am talking about. And I agree that artificial selection can be said to be "natural" in the sense that humans are natural beings. But not everyone would agree with that. I see where you are going with that, too, but won't follow. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by arcura
Genetic drift is what happens when genetic change occurs without there being any adaptation in the form of natural selection. In one kind of genetic drift, for example, a population of animals could be greatly reduced by some disaster such as a hurricane, so that only a few animals are left. When their population expands again, so that there are 100,000 of them instead of 10, the genetic diversity is gone. Many of the genes that the bigger original population carried is gone. This is called a "bottleneck." A classic example is the northern elephant seal. Also, cheetahs and Florida cougars have very low genetic diversity because they have been through a bottleneck (very small population size).
In another kind of drift, a few rare genes that might carry resistance to a parasite (for example) disappear just because the individuals that carry that gene happen to not reproduce for reasons unrelated to the gene. So it's not selection. The gene just winks out of the population. Genetic drift is changes in gene frequency in a population (not an individual) that are due to events unrelated to how adaptive the gene is.
I hope this makes sense.
PS. Glad you approve. :)
But, is that really evolution in the true sense? I do not have the answer to that question.
Yes. What Akoue said.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
I'm going to expand on this:
Historically, species were classified into species, genera, families, and so on according to how similar they appeared. The different species of oak trees all went together into the genus "Quercus" which means "cork" because wine corks come from oak bark. The cats, lions, and tigers all went together, too. This kind of lumping is called "taxonomy." Most of the time this system seemed to work, but sometimes a group of organisms seemed to share one set of characteristics, but not another. It wasn't clear how they should be classified.
For comparison, if you went to a big family reunion, where almost everyone had red hair, you might think that someone with black hair was an in-law, not a blood relative. But it could turn out you were wrong, since not everyone in a family is exactly alike. And it might turn out that some of the people with red hair were not actually relatives, but friends or in laws.
Biologists have the same problem classifying organisms. If two animals both have similar horns, does that mean they are closely related? Or are they only distantly related, but this lineage of animals just has a tendency to have similarly twisted horns sometimes?
Nowadays, biologists try to classify organisms by how they are related, just like a real family tree, an approach called "cladistics." So instead of just looking at similar traits, they try to infer how different species are actually related--who descended from whom. By combining information from anatomy, embryology, and genetics it's been possible to construct a family tree for all of life with remarkable accuracy. DNA taken from modern animals and plants nearly always confirms the relatedness or family tree constructed from anatomical traits. This confirmation gives biologists confidence that they have classified extinct animals correctly.
So a DNA analysis might suggest that an animal first split off from a relative 5 million years ago. But the fossil record shows that the animal first appears 4.8 million years ago. These two numbers, which are 200,000 years apart, might seem way off, but they are actually pretty close. It's perfectly possible that the animal did first appear 5 million years ago, but the oldest fossil so far found is only 4.8 million years old. If the fossil was 10 million years old, that would contradict the DNA evidence and present a classification problem. But most of the time, these numbers are in approximate agreement, tending to confirm not only that two species split apart but also when they split.
If God created all species, why would evolution even be necessary?Quote:
Originally Posted by asking
This is where I disagree. God created all nature and science is a study of what God created.Quote:
Science cannot disprove God and is not intended to do so. Science is just a way of posing questions about the natural world and then answering those questions. It has nothing to say about God.
That is micro-evolution. That is well proven and as you have shown, we have considerable evidence of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcura
Since it is so easy to show micro-evolution, it is interesting that no one has ever shown an example of macro-evolution.
The evolution of the horse is an example of macroevolution--that is, evolution at the species level.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
There are many assumptions here, one of which is what Akoue and I already discussed and that is the unproven belief that similarity in DNA proves that one evolved from the other. It doesn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by asking
It is interesting that you raise the fossil record, because right from Darwein himself, through to today, we have scientists who will tell you that the fossil record is one of the biggest problems for the theory of evolution.Quote:
But the fossil record shows that the animal first appears 4.8 million years ago. These two numbers, which are 200,000 years apart, might seem way off, but they are actually pretty close.
Show me the evidence of a transition between a horse and something which was not a horse.Quote:
Originally Posted by asking
You can just Google horse evolution.
For example:
North American Horse Encyclopedia
ORQuote:
Equus
The oldest species of "true" horse, Equus stenonis, was discovered in Italy, and is believed to have evolved from Plesippus-like animals at the end of the Tertiary or beginning of the Quaternary periods. Equus stenonis proliferated into two branches, one lighter in body mass and one heavier.
Equus stenonis crossed into North America, where similar forms known as Equus scotti are common; some types (Equus scotti var. giganteus) exceeded the modern horse in size. However, all the horses in North America ultimately became extinct, approximately 11,000 years ago, perhaps due to climate change or some pandemic. It has also been suggested that humans hunted horses to extinction, as the appearance of humans in the Americas occurred at about the same time as the extinction of most large mammals in the Americas. However, there are no known kill sites of Pleistocene horses in North America, and so this scenario remains unsupported.
Recent studies by a team of geneticists headed by C. Vila indicate that the horse line split from the zebra/donkey line between 4 and 2 million years ago. Equus ferus, ancestor species to Equus caballus, appeared 630,000 to 320,000 years bp. Equus caballus was formed from several subspecies of Equus ferus by selective breeding widely over Eurasia for an extended time. The details of this process are currently a target of research by archaeologists and geneticists.
Horse Evolution Over 55 Million Years
But you are talking ALL horses. And much of what is in here regarding even the transitions that they claim are assumptions, not proof, indeed not even any evidence of such a transition having occurred.Quote:
Originally Posted by asking
Where is the PROOF of a transition to or from something which is NOT a horse?
Evolution of the dog.
Evolution: Library: Evolution of the Dog
And you're doing a great job. Your posts have been much appreciated in some quarters.Quote:
Tom, I've already learned not to waste time trying to present evidence to you because you simply reject all evidence. I can only tell other people what is generally known in the field of biology
I have asked for evidence of a transition between a horse (pr any animal) and something not a horse (or not whatever animal you choose). You have not yet presented any evidence. I'd be more than happy to look at it is you can find any. But don't accuse others of not looking at something that you have not posted.Quote:
Originally Posted by asking
If you are saying that I am discerning about what I accept as evidence, somethi8ng that actually meets the criteria of scientific evidence, you are right. That is because I am a researcher with a scientific background and education, and I do not just accept something because someone tells me that is what I must believe even if it is full of unvalidated assumptions.
Same comments as before regarding the horse.Quote:
Originally Posted by asking
Both of these statements are inaccurate and misleading in several ways.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Ah, an accusation without validation. Like evolution without evidence.:DQuote:
Originally Posted by asking
So wolves aren't part of the genetic ancestry of modern dogs? That's what you mean to say?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Thanks very much for the explanations.
Peace and kindness.
Fred
Fred,
You are very welcome.
Just Asking
You don't believe different breeds of dogs are related to one another or descended from wolves?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Do you believe that chihuahuas were specially created?
They are all varieties of dogs. I said many times that micro-evolution is well-established - I have seen no one argue against micro-evolution, ever. Micro-evolution is not proof of macro-evolution.Quote:
Originally Posted by asking
Just to be clear: So you believe that wolves are a variety of dog? Same species? If so, please justify that claim. If not, do you deny that dogs are descended from wolves?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Akoue,
Very Good question.
Of course I believe that some dogs descended from wolves.
The same for from Foxes.
Peace and kindness,
Fred
-------------------------------Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
"Canidae (IPA: /ˈkænədiː/, ′kanə′dē) is the biological family of the dogs; a member of this family is called a canid. They include wolves, foxes, coyotes, and jackals."
(Source: Canidae - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
-------------------------------
In addition, around here there are laws against people keeping wolf and domestic dog cross-breeds.
Yes, that's nice. I was asking about species, not family.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
I said that they were varieties of dog and they are. They can interbreed with other types of dogs and produce viable offspring. They are dogs. I know of no credible biologist who would deny this fact.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
Not all dog breeds can interbreed with other dog breeds.
If you subscribe to the biological species concept (which says that a species is a population of mutually interbreeding individuals that cannot successfully breed with other such populations), then humans have successfully bred new species in the form of certain dog breeds. Certainly, by their looks alone, most dogs would be recognized as different species if they were found in the wild or the fossil record. If you don't accept the biological species concept, Tj3, then you need to bring your own definition (BOD) of species to the table and adhere to it. What do you think a species is?
A St. Bernard would have trouble physically breeding with a chihuahua - there may be humans who have the same physical problems. That is not what we are discussing. We are discussing the fact that a wolf is a dog and recognized as such and can interbreed with other dogs.Quote:
Originally Posted by asking
Do you deny that fact despite the fact that this is widely known and recognized amongst biologists?
Asking,
Good post.
Good questions,
Fred
A wolf can interbreed with a dog. It can also interbreed with a coyote. Are you saying that a wolf and a coyote and a dog are all the same species? I would not accept that as a "fact." Even the southern red wolf, which is a population descended from a hybrid cross between coyotes and wolves, is protected under the endangered species act.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
I was myself referring to beagles and Irish setters, which can barely interbreed, but not for physical reasons. This is what I'm discussing. These two breeds of dogs are "reproductively isolated." By the usual definition, that makes them separate species. They were bred by humans and so it would be accurate to say that we have witnessed the creation of new species.
Science Netlinks: Science Updates
Quote:
That said, he's found that there are certain combinations of dogs that don't cross-breed easily: for example, beagles and Irish setters.
Acland:
These were dogs with family lines, where they routinely produce big litters, and yet when we tried to breed these fertile beagles to fertile setters, we got no pups at all, despite many attempts to do so, and then eventually, we were able to produce one litter with two pups in it.
They are all dogs.Quote:
Originally Posted by asking
Well then you are out of step with the overwhelming majority of dog experts and biologists.Quote:
I would not accept that as a "fact."
It is odd that when you speak of evolution, you suggest that whatever you believe that the majority of biologists believe to be true must be held to be true by others, with or without evidence, but when it comes to this, which disagrees with your position, you reject the standard position held by biologists.
Interesting. Could you provide references to some of those biologists who claim that wolves and dogs are the same species? (Not genus, but species.) That would be helpful. Thanks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
This is interesting too, since I spoke with a biologist (who is also a dog expert and professor at a veterinary college) and have been told that what you say is not true. So some references would be really helpful.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:54 AM. |