Enough Time for Evolution?

[mycorrhiza]

And thus begins the "Species" problem once again.

Species problem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If your argument relies mainly on the Semantic concept of "Species" and "Speciation" without the individual specifics in question, then you're gonna have a bad time.

With that said, truly observed "Macro-evolution" is more or less actually Micro-evolution in all observed cases, unless you want to use the word "Macro-evolution" to cover a broad concept that does not do the TOE any favors, which is apparently how its most often employed.

If your argument is that "Macro-evolution has been observed" as if what's been actually observed means cats, dogs, and bears have a similar ancestor, you're barking up the wrong tree.

So like "Species", the term "Macro-evolution" apparently has a murky swamp that has to be navigated without falling into the sharp jaws of misuse of what's actually been observed that the term applies to and its applicability in speciation speculation.

Then tell me what your definitions of species, speciation and macro- & microevolution are, since you seem to disapprove of the scientific definitions.

Also, provide evidence (through peer-reviewed scientific papers, preferably) for the barrier that exists between microevolution and macroevolution, since there must exist a barrier to allow for microevolution, but not macroevolution.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Then tell me what your definitions of species, speciation and macro- & microevolution are, since you seem to disapprove of the scientific definitions.

Also, provide evidence (through peer-reviewed scientific papers, preferably) for the barrier that exists between microevolution and macroevolution, since there must exist a barrier to allow for microevolution, but not macroevolution.

I thought that barrier was extinction?

 

[mycorrhiza]

I thought that barrier was extinction?

So a group of organisms that change too much will inevitably go extinct?

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

So a group of organisms that change too much will inevitably go extinct?

Well the fate of every species is extinction, so there will come a point where a species just goes extinct and no longer exists...so technically they can't keep changing.

 

[Ouroboros]

There are DNA viruses, notably the Herpes viruses.

Oh, yeah! You're right. My bad.

 

[mycorrhiza]

Well the fate of every species is extinction, so there will come a point where a species just goes extinct and no longer exists...so technically they can't keep changing.

Does this extinction always happen before speciation is possible? If a group of animals are divided and move into areas with very different characteristics, will all groups inevitably die out before they're unable to sexually reproduce between the groups? If so, what causes the death to always happen before they're sexually isolated from other groups?

 

[Debater Slayer]

***Mod Post***

Please keep all forum rules in mind while posting, especially Rules 1, 3, and 11.

1. Personal comments about Members and Staff
Personal attacks, and/or name-calling are strictly prohibited on the forums. Speaking or referring to a member in the third person, ie "calling them out" will also be considered a personal attack. Critique each other's ideas all you want, but under no circumstances personally attack each other or the staff.

3. Trolling and Bullying
We recognize three areas of unacceptable trolling:
1)Posts that are deliberately inflammatory in order to provoke a vehement response from other users. This includes both verbal statements and images. Images that are likely to cause offense based on religious objections (e.g. depictions of Muhammad or Baha'u'llah) or the sensitive nature of what is depicted (e.g. graphic photos of violence) should be put in appropriately-labeled spoiler tags so that the viewer has freedom to view the image or not. Such images are still subject to normal forum rules and may be moderated depending on their contents.
2)Posts that target a person or group by following them around the forums to attack them. This is Bullying. Deliberately altering the words of another member by intentionally changing the meaning when you use the quote feature is considered a form of bullying. The ONLY acceptable alteration of a quotation from another member is to remove portions that are not relevant or to alter formatting for emphasis.
3)Posts that are adjudged to fit the following profile: "While questioning and challenging other beliefs is appropriate in the debates forums, blatant misrepresentation or harassment of other beliefs will not be tolerated."

11. Subverting/Undermining the forum Mission
The purpose of the forum is to provide a civil, informative, respectful and welcoming environment where people of diverse beliefs can discuss, compare and debate. Posts while debating and discussing different beliefs must be done in the spirit of productivity. If a person's main goal is to undermine a set of beliefs by creating unproductive posts/threads/responses to others, etc, then they will be edited or removed and subject to moderation.

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

And thus begins the "Species" problem once again.

Species problem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If your argument relies mainly on the Semantic concept of "Species" and "Speciation" without the individual specifics in question, then you're gonna have a bad time.

With that said, truly observed "Macro-evolution" is more or less actually Micro-evolution in all observed cases, unless you want to use the word "Macro-evolution" to cover a broad concept that does not do the TOE any favors, which is apparently how its most often employed.

If your argument is that "Macro-evolution has been observed" as if what's been actually observed means cats, dogs, and bears have a similar ancestor, you're barking up the wrong tree.

So like "Species", the term "Macro-evolution" apparently has a murky swamp that has to be navigated without falling into the sharp jaws of misuse of what's actually been observed that the term applies to and its applicability in speciation speculation.

So Macro-evolution isn't "species branching off" anymore. Now it's different genera, families and orders branching off. Well how about instead of just crocodiles, it's crocodiles, alligators, caiman and gharial now? All belong to four different genera and three different families with only caiman and alligators belonging to one family.

The three different families are just as close to each other as a dog, cat and bear are to each other.

 

[Alceste]

A perfect example of the Epigenetics and Micro-evolution we're talking about. Not exactly the "Speciation" you would need to demonstrate Cats and Dogs and Bears having the same ancestor.

Sure it is, unless you have finally figured out exactly what the mechanism is that prevents species from deviating from one another after they reach some kind of morphological limit. What was that again? Was it the becauseisaidsotron? Oh yeah, it was.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Does this extinction always happen before speciation is possible? If a group of animals are divided and move into areas with very different characteristics, will all groups inevitably die out before they're unable to sexually reproduce between the groups? If so, what causes the death to always happen before they're sexually isolated from other groups?

Well lets say a Subset Population of Species A goes about and through evolution becomes Species B, Species A still exists, but if Species A becomes extinct it can no longer continue to produce a population that can become Species C or D or E. At that point Species A has died out before they were unable to change in a sense that Species A no longer exists.

Mind you I'm just throwing out a possibility. What Shermana seems to be pointing out is that there is a point that a species can't reach the only point that exists that can produce that is extinction.

 

[Shermana]

So Macro-evolution isn't "species branching off" anymore. Now it's different genera, families and orders branching off. Well how about instead of just crocodiles, it's crocodiles, alligators, caiman and gharial now? All belong to four different genera and three different families with only caiman and alligators belonging to one family.

The three different families are just as close to each other as a dog, cat and bear are to each other.

This is another problem with the classification system. Minor variations can be grouped in various categorizations for rather arbitrary reasons.

Camels and Llamas are different genera altogether, yet they are capable of making fertile offspring.

What is the reason that they have different orders? What exactly are the differences within the internal structure?

Are you honestly saying that Caimans are as different from Crocodiles as Grizzly Bears are as different from the Domestic House Cat? If that's what you're saying, please explain your reasoning other than the classification system. Or rather, why do you suppose the classification system renders them as such?

 

[Shermana]

Sure it is, unless you have finally figured out exactly what the mechanism is that prevents species from deviating from one another after they reach some kind of morphological limit. What was that again? Was it the becauseisaidsotron? Oh yeah, it was.

Isaidosotron? Is that your way of saying that extremely rare beneficial mutations within complex species and their compensatory negative effects simply aren't possibly able to account for the extreme changes of the structure itself, especially within the time frame in question?

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

Camels and Llamas are different genera altogether, yet they are capable of making fertile offspring.

Source? Pretty sure Camel-Llama hybrids are not fertile.

What is the reason that they have different orders?

Because Camel's are already a genus with distinct similarities that the Llama doesn't share. Yet there are different groups of camel's that can't reproduce fertile offsprings. So Camels can't be ranked as a species and llamas can't be placed with camels. And they don't have different orders, by the way. They share the same order and family, but not genera.

If that's what you're saying, please explain your reasoning other than the classification system.

Pretty much the same reasoning behind the camels and llamas.

 

[Shermana]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cama_(animal)

Though there have been successful and fertile hybrids within both major groups of camelids, the cama marks the first instance of cross-breeding

^ a b "Meet Rama the cama ... BBC". BBC News. 1998-01-21. Retrieved 2012-08-10.
^ Duncan Campbell (2002-07-15). "Bad karma for cross llama without a hump". The Guardian. Retrieved 2009-03-02. mirror
^ Fahmy, Miral (21 March 2002). "'Cama' camel/llama hybrids born in UAE research centre". Science in the News. The Royal Society of New Zealand. Retrieved 28 November 2012.
^ a b "Xanadu Farms". Xanadu Farms. 2002-02-27. Retrieved 2012-08-10.
^ "World’s First Camel And Llama Cross Now Has Friends". Impactlab.net. April 8, 2008. Retrieved 2012-08-10.[dead link]
^ World Book Encyclopedia. World Book. 1998. ISBN ISBN 0-7166-0098-6.
^ Great Book of the Animal Kingdom. New York: Crescent Books. 1993. pp. 328–330. ISBN 0-517-08801-0.
^ Kindersley, Dorling (2005). Camels and Relatives, Animal The Definitive Visual Guide to the World’s Wildlife. pp. 236–237. ISBN 0-7894-7764-5.


Point being, you can't point to the Crocodile, Gharial and Caiman and say "See, Polar Bears and House Cats can have the same ancestor too". Doesn't work like that.

 

[secret2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cama_(animal)



^ a b "Meet Rama the cama ... BBC". BBC News. 1998-01-21. Retrieved 2012-08-10.
^ Duncan Campbell (2002-07-15). "Bad karma for cross llama without a hump". The Guardian. Retrieved 2009-03-02. mirror
^ Fahmy, Miral (21 March 2002). "'Cama' camel/llama hybrids born in UAE research centre". Science in the News. The Royal Society of New Zealand. Retrieved 28 November 2012.
^ a b "Xanadu Farms". Xanadu Farms. 2002-02-27. Retrieved 2012-08-10.
^ "World’s First Camel And Llama Cross Now Has Friends". Impactlab.net. April 8, 2008. Retrieved 2012-08-10.[dead link]
^ World Book Encyclopedia. World Book. 1998. ISBN ISBN 0-7166-0098-6.
^ Great Book of the Animal Kingdom. New York: Crescent Books. 1993. pp. 328–330. ISBN 0-517-08801-0.
^ Kindersley, Dorling (2005). Camels and Relatives, Animal The Definitive Visual Guide to the World’s Wildlife. pp. 236–237. ISBN 0-7894-7764-5.


Point being, you can't point to the Crocodile, Gharial and Caiman and say "See, Polar Bears and House Cats can have the same ancestor too". Doesn't work like that.

Exactly. It doesn't work like this. That's why people have to put up the effort to learn and research. Your brand of "I don't think it will work" armchair science is not the right way to do it.

 

[Shermana]

Exactly. It doesn't work like this. That's why people have to put up the effort to learn and research. Your brand of "I don't think it will work" armchair science is not the right way to do it.

What of anything I said is "I don't think it will work" in regards to the mutation rates, and does this apply to "I think it will work" in light of the evidence against it regarding life forms more complex than bacteria?

At least you agree with me that using Crocodiles and Caimans as proof of the same kind of "Macro-evolution" as the claim for Polar Bears and Himalayan Cats having the same ancestor is...wrong.

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cama_(animal)



^ a b "Meet Rama the cama ... BBC". BBC News. 1998-01-21. Retrieved 2012-08-10.
^ Duncan Campbell (2002-07-15). "Bad karma for cross llama without a hump". The Guardian. Retrieved 2009-03-02. mirror
^ Fahmy, Miral (21 March 2002). "'Cama' camel/llama hybrids born in UAE research centre". Science in the News. The Royal Society of New Zealand. Retrieved 28 November 2012.
^ a b "Xanadu Farms". Xanadu Farms. 2002-02-27. Retrieved 2012-08-10.
^ "World’s First Camel And Llama Cross Now Has Friends". Impactlab.net. April 8, 2008. Retrieved 2012-08-10.[dead link]
^ World Book Encyclopedia. World Book. 1998. ISBN ISBN 0-7166-0098-6.
^ Great Book of the Animal Kingdom. New York: Crescent Books. 1993. pp. 328–330. ISBN 0-517-08801-0.
^ Kindersley, Dorling (2005). Camels and Relatives, Animal The Definitive Visual Guide to the World’s Wildlife. pp. 236–237. ISBN 0-7894-7764-5.


Point being, you can't point to the Crocodile, Gharial and Caiman and say "See, Polar Bears and House Cats can have the same ancestor too". Doesn't work like that.

I don't see anything about a fertile cama in those links and a couple even said the hybrid was sterile.

Regardless, fertility has to be able to happen regularly though, like 90% of the time.

Camas are generally sterile with exceptional cases. With a species, it's the opposite. Generally fertile with exceptions.

 

[secret2]

What of anything I said is "I don't think it will work" in regards to the mutation rates, and does this apply to "I think it will work" in light of the evidence against it regarding life forms more complex than bacteria?

At least you agree with me that using Crocodiles and Caimans as proof of the same kind of "Macro-evolution" as the claim for Polar Bears and Himalayan Cats having the same ancestor is...wrong.

I didn't say that. Stop putting words in my mouth. I said nobody simply look at those organisms and make conclusion. Those examples are provided for amateurs like you and me to get a taste of what is going on.

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

What is your source that Camas are 90% unfertile, because I'm finding things that say they are ALWAYS fertile. Please back up your claim and I'll try to find something you'll find acceptable as a source.

None of the links you showed ever mentioned anything about a fertile cama.

You are the one who has to prove that before we even move on to the next point.

 

[Shermana]

None of the links you showed ever mentioned anything about a fertile cama.

You are the one who has to prove that before we even move on to the next point.

You responded too fast, I deleted my post as I was going to post this, which agrees with you, that says they are likely to be sterile.

Bad karma for cross llama without a hump | World news | The Guardian

The British scientist, Dr Julian "Lulu" Skidmore, who helped develop the cama for the Dubai camel reproduction centre said the cross-breeding is not as outlandish as, say, mating an elephant and a giraffe, as the camel and llama were part of the same species millions of years ago.

Hang on while I find where these sources are getting their claim.