Originally posted by jaywillYour only complaint about evolutionary theory is that there is no evidence that species arise from other species (as opposed to, for instance, all arriving together in an arc). This, however, is happening while we speak. A case example is dogs. According to evolutionary theory, all dogs came from the same common ancestor, and in fact share so much of their DNA that they are still technically considered the same species. However, according to the dictionary definition for species as being a "taxonomic group whose members can interbreed", great danes and chihauhaus are definitely not the same species. This is a case where breeders (I don't think they like to be called dog farmers) have selectively bred as animal of one species and produces several new ones. Oh, and don't say every type of dog came over on the arc, because many breeds have not been around nearly that long.
[b]
Fact: Selective breading works.
Demonstration: Ask any farmer.
Has any farmer selectively bread an animal of one species and produced another of a different species?
Let me guess. That would take too long so it can’t be demonstrated?
Fact: Selective breading takes place in nature (Natural selection)
Demonstration: Antibiotic resis ...[text shortened]... tree diagrams do not prove that you are the distant offspring of an ape like missing link.
Not convinced? How about the case of mules? A mule is the offspring of a male donkey and a female horse (two species that do not even have the same number of chromosomes). It is almost always sterile, but is able to reproduce. Another example of farmers selectively breeding one species from another.
Evolution is a gradual process. You don't breed two dogs and get a cow. However, you might breed two dogs and get a really big dog with a funny head, then breed that dog to get more big dogs of which one has a funny tail, etc. Eventually you get something which looks nothing like your original, and in fact can be classed as a different species.
To boil it down for you, it is the telephone effect. You know the game where you whisper one thing in someone's ear, and by the time it gets around the circle the last person hears something completely different? At any point along the way, small changes get made, which eventually add up to a completely different sentence.
Originally posted by jaywillInteresting that you have actually accepted most of my evidence and demonstrations as correct. Your only objections are in the interpretation.
Has any farmer selectively bread an animal of one species and produced another of a different species?
I did say that there is a vast amount of evidence that I cannot cover without writing a book and thats been done already many times starting with "the Origin of Species".
You asked about farmers breeding new species and the answer is definitely yes. Almost all farm animals are distinct species from their wild ancestors. Cows, pigs, chickens, dogs etc are clearly related to similar wild animals but are distinct species.
In fact selective breading is so successful that we have largely stopped using the species name for domestic animals as we would have to keep making up new names. Hybrids which are effectively new species are common. The same applies to crops.
Originally posted by jaywillI said evidence in every case not proof.
Notice your own words – ”two species BELIEVED to be closely related (such as humans and chimpanzees)”
I’m sure you can recognize the circular reasoning of using a belief as proof of the belief.
This particular example was an example of a prediction made by the Theory being validated. And no it was not circular. I did not say that I believe they are related therefore I believe they are related. I said "I believe (as in have other evidence) that they are related and this evidence (DNA) helps to validate it."
Originally posted by jaywillPlease don't tell me that you think that dinosaurs might really have been fish or that the fossil shells that I have seen were really bird bones.
Besides "99 percent of the biology of any organism resides in its soft anatomy, which is inaccesible in a fossil." It is very difficult to discover th biological makeup of a creature by looking at its fossil remains.
99% of an organism may be soft tissue (I dispute that figure actually) but that does not mean that we cant identify a creature from the 1%.
Surely you don't really believe that your bones only make up 1% of your body? Next time, think before you copy - paste.
7 edits
Originally posted by whiteroseYou have given two examples - dogs and the mule.
Your only complaint about evolutionary theory is that there is no evidence that species arise from other species (as opposed to, for instance, all arriving together in an arc). This, however, is happening while we speak. A case example is dogs. According to evolutionary theory, all dogs came from the same common ancestor, and in fact share so much of their e way, small changes get made, which eventually add up to a completely different sentence.
The theory of macro evolution is very momentous and hugely significant. And these two examples are rather scant and arguable evidence for macro evolution.
In the dog example I think you are merely playing with words slightly. You still have a dog in the beginning and a dog in the end as a product. Close but are you going to base the huge implications of macro evolution on that? I would expect more than that as conclusive evidence.
In the second example with the mule nature seems to play an ironic joke on us because nothing is going to be produced by a mule. Ancestry stops dead cold in its tracks because a mule can have no descendents.
Now you can take enter - dog breeding (albeit very different kinds of dogs) and the terminal case of the mule as evidence that macro evolution took place, if you want. But I think your eagerness is having great enfluence over you.
I think many more example of dog to non dog breeding or sheep to non-sheep breeding would be much more conclusive. And if the mule could have kids who were like it and those could be selectively bred into something, that would be more conclusive.
Where's the beef? If Cats and Dogs are transitional descendent of one another why can't we breed some Dats and some Cogs?
As for the fossil record - I think there should be thousands if not millions of clear examples of transitional stages.
For your macro evolution theory I have two words for these demonstratable facts you submit -
SCANT and ARGUABLE
The foundation is far too weak for the tremendous edifice you are attempting to construct upon it - that the amoeba (just to start somewhere) eventually had its distant progenity of the human being.
Originally posted by jaywillThere are numerous examples.
You have given two examples - dogs and the mule.
The theory of macro evolution is very momentous and hugely significant. And these two examples are rather scant and arguable evidence for macro evolution.
Nobody said it was the only piece of evidence.
In the dog example I think you are merely playing with words slightly. You still have a dog in the beginning and a dog in the end as a product.
You asked a specific question and he gave a good answer. If you choose to ignore the answer and claim he is playing with words so be it.
Now you can take enter - dog breeding (albeit very different kinds of dogs) and the terminal case of the mule as evidence that macro evolution took place, if you want. But I think your eagerness is having great enfluence over you.
I think many more example of dog to non dog breeding or sheep to non-sheep breeding would be much more conclusive. And if the mule could have kids who were like it and those could be selectively bred into something, that would be more conclusive.
Dogs bread successfully with wolves. There a numerous other examples, just look up hybridization on the internet.
Where's the beef? If Cats and Dogs are transitional descendent of one another why can't we breed some Dats and some Cogs?
Simple biology. Go do a course.
As for the fossil record - I think there should be thousands if not millions of clear examples of transitional stages.
Every fossil is a transitional stage. I notice you just ignore that every time we say it and keep reposting your false claim.
SCANT and ARGUABLE
The foundation is far too weak for the tremendous edifice you are attempting to construct upon it - that the amoeba (just to start somewhere) eventually had its distant progenity of the human being.
Nobody said it was the foundation. You asked for some evidence I provided some.
Originally posted by twhiteheadReview of the exchange: Scotty said s/he had demonstratable facts to back up the validity of Evolution.
There are numerous examples.
[b]The theory of macro evolution is very momentous and hugely significant. And these two examples are rather scant and arguable evidence for macro evolution.
Nobody said it was the only piece of evidence.
In the dog example I think you are merely playing with words slightly. You still have a dog in the beginning ...[text shortened]... an being.
Nobody said it was the foundation. You asked for some evidence I provided some.[/b]
Then I asked you for the demostratable facts. If you presented your weaker demonstratable facts first and the biggies are yet to come, then let me know when you want to present your strongest evidences.
By the way, where were you in the 1974 - 1975 range? Where were you in your education at that time?
2 edits
Dogs bread successfully with wolves. There a numerous other examples, just look up hybridization on the internet.
Has anyone bred a mammal from a reptile? Now THAT would blow me away.
Has anyone bred an amphibian from a fish? If so chalk one up for macro evolution.
Has anyone bred a human from a "primate"? Now that would impress me that maybe macro evolution was the way.
I need more than changing color moths or K9 breeding. Let me see a one celled animal bred into a multi celled animal or a reptile bred into a bird.
Originally posted by jaywillI think you misunderstand evolutionary theory- which is that some of evolutions you talk about have alreay happened. AS to a reptile turning into a bird- the genetics are so different, and they live so differently, there would be no reaso to evolve from one to another. The time taken for the evolutions you talk about to occur is rather longer than your life time (conviniently).
[b]Dogs bread successfully with wolves. There a numerous other examples, just look up hybridization on the internet.
Has anyone bred a mammal from a reptile? Now THAT would blow me away.
Has anyone bred an amphibian from a fish? If so chalk one up for macro evolution.
Has anyone bred a human from a "primate"? Now that would impress me ...[text shortened]... Let me see a one celled animal bred into a multi celled animal or a reptile bred into a bird.[/b]
3 edits
Originally posted by wedgehead2I realize that some of the proposed transformations have allegedly already taken place over long time scales.
I think you misunderstand evolutionary theory- which is that some of evolutions you talk about have alreay happened. AS to a reptile turning into a bird- the genetics are so different, and they live so differently, there would be no reaso to evolve from one to another. The time taken for the evolutions you talk about to occur is rather longer than your life time (conviniently).
This is what makes the claim of "demonstatable facts" misleading. One claims that he has "demonstratable facts" to prove macro evolution only to end up having to admit that some of the most vital "facts" cannot be demonstrated.
We in fact CANNOT demonstrate the "fact" that a human is the progenity of an ape like primate, let alone an amoeba.
Originally posted by jaywillFossil records, synteny in DNA and protein sequences, intermediate forms. I could go on. You're not going to be satisfied unless you see 100 000 years of evolutionary history in an afternoon so you're not worth bothering with.
I realize that some of the proposed transformations have allegedly already taken place over long time scales.
This is what makes the claim of "demonstatable facts" misleading. One claims that he has "demonstratable facts" to prove macro evolution only to end up having to admit that some of the most vital "facts" cannot be demonstrated.
We in fact CAN ...[text shortened]... te the "fact" that a human is the progenity of an ape like primate, let alone an amoeba.
Originally posted by jaywillYou asked for proof that there were relationships of decent between different species. I gave it to you. So if all dogs can be descended from a single canid, why can't humans be descended from apes? They are not any more dissimmilar than a great dane and a chihuahua. As I already demonstrated, just because two animals have a common ancestor does not mean they can breed together (e.g. dogs). So why should being able to breed cats with dogs be a prerequisite for them having a common ancestor?
You have given two examples - dogs and the mule.
The theory of macro evolution is very momentous and hugely significant. And these two examples are rather scant and arguable evidence for macro evolution.
In the dog example I think you are merely playing with words slightly. You still have a dog in the beginning and a dog in the end as a product. C ...[text shortened]... the amoeba (just to start somewhere) eventually had its distant progenity of the human being.
Originally posted by jaywillNo, actually you would not be impressed or blown-away. You would simply ask for more evidence stating that whatever was presented was not good enough.
Has anyone bred a mammal from a reptile? Now THAT would blow me away.
Has anyone bred an amphibian from a fish? If so chalk one up for macro evolution.
Has anyone bred a human from a "primate"? Now that would impress me that maybe macro evolution was the way.
I need more than changing color moths or K9 breeding. Let me see a one celled animal bred into a multi celled animal or a reptile bred into a bird.
Your initial objections have all been shown to be invalid so now you ask for something you know is not possible nor part of evolutionary theory in the first place - a strawman.
Your argument is starting to shape up like kellys favorite "cant join the dots" argument. You basically want to see every single living thing past an present, and watch them breading from before the first life form to the present day and even then you will say "thats impossible."
1 edit
Originally posted by whiteroseWould you say that the difference between a Pigmy and Watusi (one being very small and the other very tall) is less dissimmilar than the difference between great dane and a chihuahua?
You asked for proof that there were relationships of decent between different species. I gave it to you. So if all dogs can be descended from a single canid, why can't humans be descended from apes? They are not any more dissimmilar than a great dane and a chihuahua. As I already demonstrated, just because two animals have a common ancestor does not mean t ...[text shortened]... should being able to breed cats with dogs be a prerequisite for them having a common ancestor?