Originally posted by dj2beckerGet it out of your head that "Origion of Species" and C Darwin are comperable to the bible and moses . Darwin started the ball rolling , but TOE has come much further since . There is so much more evidence , research , and new science since Darwin that he had no access to . Saying "You need millions of transitional fossils for macroevolution to be true . Ask Darwin." is as ridiculous as saying "Overhead cam and fuel injection will never work . Ask Henry Ford ."
You need millions of transitional fossils for macroevolution to be true. Ask Darwin.
But you can even give me one...
Darwin got the basic theory right . Did he get every nuance right ? - No . Did Henry Ford have his proccess of mass production perfect from the first day he set it up ? No . Does that mean that his concepts of mass production are bankrupt and should be abandon ? No . He got the concept right and had to tinker , other's built further on it . "Origion of Species" and CD's other works are similarly a solid conceptual foundation from which modern TOE was built . You fundies always try to use him/his origional writings as a final , end source . "Origion of Species" was a beginning , not end .
BTW - You're always referencing Darwin , have you ever read "Origion of Species", or anything by Darwin ? If you haven't , I'm going to bust you on this every time you say "ask Darwin".
Originally posted by Moldy CrowRight on.
Get it out of your head that "Origion of Species" and C Darwin are comperable to the bible and moses . Darwin started the ball rolling , but TOE has come much further since . There is so much more evidence , research , and new science since Darwin that he had no access to . Saying "You need millions of transitional fossils for macroevolution to be tru ...[text shortened]... by Darwin ? If you haven't , I'm going to bust you on this every time you say "ask Darwin".
It's like saying helicopters are no more than outlandish theory because Leonardo never built one.
It's time to stop singing lullabies and wake the children; Jesus left Birmingham (just ask John Mellencamp).
Originally posted by dj2beckerMacroevolution can be defined simply as evolution above the species level, and its subject matter includes the origins and fates of major novelties such as tetrapod limbs and insect wings, the waxing and waning of multi-species lineages over long time-scales, and the impact of continental drift and other physical processes on the evolutionary process. With its unique time perspective, paleontology has a central role to play in this area: the fossil record provides a direct, empirical window onto large-scale evolutionary patterns, and thus is invaluable both as a document of macroevolutionary phenomena, and as a natural laboratory for the framing and testing of macroevolutionary hypotheses. This is a vibrant field (if underpopulated relative to the wealth of material and questions within its domain), with a steady stream of papers, books and symposia and an increasing interaction with a broad range of disciplines from astrophysics to developmental biology. The result has been a number of insights into the processes that have shaped the major evolutionary patterns of present-day and ancient organisms.
I am using these definitions from the "Confused about evolution" thread:
Microevolution: Variations within a kind, a phenomenon that Darwin witnessed and extensively documented from which he postulated his theory of evolution. This process in nature is scientific and completely observable.
Macroevolution: A culmination of microevolution to the exte ...[text shortened]... f in 'Macroevolution' is based solely on theory with no scientific backup or viable mechanism?
Originally posted by dj2beckerPlease explain what mechanism prevents the continuing process of microevolution resulting in macroevolution?
I am using these definitions from the "Confused about evolution" thread:
Microevolution: Variations within a kind, a phenomenon that Darwin witnessed and extensively documented from which he postulated his theory of evolution. This process in nature is scientific and completely observable.
Macroevolution: A culmination of microevolution to the exte ...[text shortened]... f in 'Macroevolution' is based solely on theory with no scientific backup or viable mechanism?
Originally posted by HalitoseThe definition of a species given above as taken from Mayr, is somewhat idealistic. Since it assumes sexual reproduction, it leaves the term undefined for a large class of organisms that reproduce asexually. Biologists frequently do not know whether two morphologically similar groups of organisms are "potentially" capable of interbreeding. Further, there is considerable variation in the degree to which hybridization may succeed under natural and experimental conditions, or even in the degree to which some organisms use sexual reproduction between individuals to breed. Consequently, several lines of thought in the definition of species exist:
If the definition of "kind" is vague, could you offer a difinition of "specie"?
* A morphological species is a group of organisms that have a distinctive form: for example, we can distinguish between a chicken and a duck because they have different shaped bills and the duck has webbed feet. Species have been defined in this way since well before the beginning of recorded history. Although much criticised, the concept of morphological species remains the single most widely used species concept in everyday life, and still retains an important place within the biological sciences, particularly in the case of plants.
* The biological species or isolation species concept identifies a species as a set of actually or potentially interbreeding organisms. This is generally the most useful formulation for scientists working with living examples of the higher taxa like mammals, fish, and birds, but meaningless for organisms that do not reproduce sexually. It distinguishes between the theoretical possibility of interbreeding and the actual likelihood of gene flow between populations. For example, it is possible to cross a horse with a donkey and produce offspring, however they remain separate species—in this case for two different reasons: first because horses and donkeys do not normally interbreed in the wild, and second because the fruit of the union is rarely fertile. The key to defining a biological species is that there is no significant cross-flow of genetic material between the two populations.
* A mate-recognition species is defined as a group of organisms that are known to recognise one another as potential mates. Like the isolation species concept above, it applies only to organisms that reproduce sexually.
* A phylogenetic or evolutionary or Darwinian species is a group of organisms that shares an ancestor; a lineage that maintains its integrity with respect to other lineages through both time and space. At some point in the progress of such a group, members may diverge from one another: when such a divergence becomes sufficiently clear, the two populations are regarded as separate species.
* See also microspecies under apomixis, for species that reproduce without meiosis or mitosis so that each generation is genetically identical to the previous generation.
In practice, these definitions often coincide, and the differences between them are more a matter of emphasis than of outright contradiction. Nevertheless, no species concept yet proposed is entirely objective, or can be applied in all cases without resorting to judgement. Given the capricious nature of life, some have argued that such an objective definition is in all likelihood impossible, and biologists should settle for the most practical definition
Originally posted by aardvarkhomeDoes a rec for that nice little essay on the definition of the term "species" help ?
Because I'm barking mad.
You're my best friend, you are........
Don't let the hit and run tactics of these half-wit hacks get you down . They'll be back with something equally insane and illogical cut and pasted from some wacko webpage next week . And we'll be here to stuff it back under the wet rock they found it under . Think of it as sport , like swatting cockroaches .
Originally posted by Moldy Crowwell said, and prescient
Does a rec for that nice little essay on the definition of the term "species" help ?
Don't let the hit and run tactics of these half-wit hacks get you down . They'll be back with something equally insane and illogical cut and pasted from some wacko webpage next week . And we'll be here to stuff it back under the wet rock they found it under . Think of it as sport , like swatting cockroaches .
Originally posted by Moldy CrowUmm, he cut and pasted - without citing the author - this essay you recced.
Does a rec for that nice little essay on the definition of the term "species" help ?
Don't let the hit and run tactics of these half-wit hacks get you down . They'll be back with something equally insane and illogical cut and pasted from some wacko webpage next week . And we'll be here to stuff it back under the wet rock they found it under . Think of it as sport , like swatting cockroaches .
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Species