Enough Time for Evolution?

[AndromedaRXJ]

Even still, what is it you want, proof of speciation? As in a group of creatures capable of interbreeding fertile offsprings, and then branching off into two distinct populations of creatures NOT being able to produce such offsprings?

Because that HAS been observed...... in the animal kingdom...... as in, not bacteria or something like that.

Or do you want proof of higher taxons branching off, like genera, families, orders, classes.... even phyla?

 

[Shermana]

Even still, what is it you want, proof of speciation? As in a group of creatures capable of interbreeding fertile offsprings, and then branching off into two distinct populations of creatures NOT being able to produce such offsprings?

Because that HAS been observed...... in the animal kingdom...... as in, not bacteria or something like that.

Or do you want proof of higher taxons branching off, like genera, families, orders, classes.... even phyla?

No, we're discussing what exactly observed forms of "Speciation" actually constitute in order to draw conclusions, such as concluding that the Giant Cave Bear and Saber Tooth Tiger had the same ancestor.

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

So you basically are asking for branches of higher taxons. Speciation isn't good enough anymore, apparently.

But you do accept speciation, right?

 

[Shermana]

So you basically are asking for branches of higher taxons. Speciation isn't good enough anymore, apparently.

But you do accept speciation, right?

Absolutely, the problem is that the word "Speciation", when it's used for what is observed, is often used as claims of proof for much more than what has been observed, and such speculations are relying on stretches of leaps of faith that make the most devout believer's faith-based beliefs look like nothing in comparison.

When different bacteria, fruit flies and mosquitoes developing into new population groups is used as proof that Cave Bears and Saber Tooth Tigers had the same ancestors, that's where the problem arises.

 

[Alceste]

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?

3.6 billion years is a hell of a long time. If you want to argue that it's "not enough" time, you're going to have to show your math.

 

[Shermana]

3.6 billion years is a hell of a long time. If you want to argue that it's "not enough" time, you're going to have to show your math.

Actually I'm most concerned about complex land animals, which is in the hundreds of millions, and the huge unresolved problem of the suddenly formed creatures of the post-Cambrian era.

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

Absolutely, the problem is that the word "Speciation", when it's used for what is observed, is often used as claims of proof for much more than what has been observed, and such speculations are relying on stretches of leaps of faith that make the most devout believer's faith-based beliefs look like nothing in comparison.

When different bacteria, fruit flies and mosquitoes developing into new population groups is used as proof that Cave Bears and Saber Tooth Tigers had the same ancestors, that's where the problem arises.

Oh so I was wrong the first time. You're NOT asking for proof of branches of the higher taxons in general. You just want proof for specific creatures having common ancestory, i.e. you accept that A and B had common ancestory but not X and Y. Is that right?

 

[Alceste]

Absolutely, the problem is that the word "Speciation", when it's used for what is observed, is often used as claims of proof for much more than what has been observed, and such speculations are relying on stretches of leaps of faith that make the most devout believer's faith-based beliefs look like nothing in comparison.

When different bacteria, fruit flies and mosquitoes developing into new population groups is used as proof that Cave Bears and Saber Tooth Tigers had the same ancestors, that's where the problem arises.

It's not a problem unless you have evidence of a specific mechanism that prevents small morphological changes over a short period of time from becoming large morphological changes over a much longer time.

Do you?

No, you don't.

 

[Alceste]

Oh so I was wrong the first time. You're NOT asking for proof of branches of the higher taxons in general.

You just want proof for specific creatures having common ancestory, i.e. you accept that A and B had common ancestory but not X and Y.

Silly, isn't it?

 

[Shermana]

It's not a problem unless you have evidence of a specific mechanism that prevents small morphological changes over a short period of time from becoming large morphological changes over a much longer time.

Do you?

No, you don't.

I'm sorry if you're not able to understand the concept of the mutation issue, but denying it over and over won't help.

 

[Shermana]

Oh so I was wrong the first time. You're NOT asking for proof of branches of the higher taxons in general. You just want proof for specific creatures having common ancestory, i.e. you accept that A and B had common ancestory but not X and Y. Is that right?

Assuming "A" and "B" are extremely similar, while "X" and "Y" are vastly less similar, yes that's right. You have to qualify your A's and B's.

I already believe in Epigenetics, which is actually hyper-evolution, the ability for new "subspecies" and isolated populations to have slightly different forms from a single ancestor, like lions and tigers. Not lions and Grizzlies.

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

Assuming "A" and "B" are extremely similar, while "X" and "Y" are vastly less similar, yes that's right. You have to qualify your A's and B's.

All that requires is that speciation is able to happen indefinitely. As in each time speciation happens, the new distinct sets of populations can repeat the same thing. For example:

A

Branches too:

B and C

Branches too:

B1, B2 and C1, C2

Branches too"

B1a, B1b & B2a, B2b and C1a, C1b & C2a, C2b

And you get the idea.

I already believe in Epigenetics, which is actually hyper-evolution, the ability for new "subspecies" and isolated populations to have slightly different forms from a single ancestor, like lions and tigers. Not lions and Grizzlies.

And what about the crocodilians(note I said crocodilians, not crocodiles. The former is the entire order)? If you believe those share a common ancestor but not the carnivora order, then why? Just because the way bears look from dogs?

 

[Alceste]

I'm sorry if you're not able to understand the concept of the mutation issue, but denying it over and over won't help.

I'm not the one insisting there is a limit to how much a species can change, regardless of how many generations go by in reproductive isolation. That's you. Coincidentally, it's also the epitome of "not getting" the subject of genetic mutation.

 

[Shermana]

Just because the way bears look from dogs?

It's not just about "Carrying on indefinitely". You have to prove that such changes can transition into the structural changes being proposed, and so far, the differences between crocodilians and caimans don't exactly prove anything other than differentiation of a similar base type. The difference between them and bears and cats is extreme.

If you think the difference between Grizzlies and House Cats is just a matter of looks, we're on different pages. The evolution of Retractable claws, let alone things like "purring" require a complicated series of coordinated mutations that I simply don't see anything close to what's been observed being indicative of.

Technically, every animal can be said to just "look differently" if we're going to just brush off their vast structural, skeletal, and biological differences as somehow being reconciled by the speculative notion that they may have once been the same thing.

At some point, you have to actually be able to prove the connection was there instead of only insisting that it be disproven. The skepticism on the part of the "Creationist" is partly based on waiting for the Evolutionist to have a burden of proof other than claims of a series of gaping-gap-filled dots to connect.

For instance, they can't figure out how the bat got its wings. They understand the genes involved better, but they still have no clue how it developed. Same with the arched foot.

 

[Shermana]

I'm not the one insisting there is a limit to how much a species can change, regardless of how many generations go by in reproductive isolation. That's you. Coincidentally, it's also the epitome of "not getting" the subject of genetic mutation.

I'm the one insisting that there's evidence insisting that observed beneficial mutations (including neutral) have not changed anything structural and that it seems populations with radical changes will mostly die off. And this relates to the points of the Review. Until there's evidence that population groups can develop beyond incremental changes, as Dr. Stewart Newman points out is not the case (though there is apparently argument on this, I have yet to see the reasoning for such), I don't see how what's been observed regarding such mutations isn't such evidence.

But of course, lack of evidence and observation needn't be evidence of what could happen, especially when assertions about such speculation are being made. Skepticism has to disprove things that have no evidence. If only this standard applied to the literary and historical scholarly world.

But I don't see why it's the epitome of not getting it, feel free to explain in detail.

 

[Alceste]

It's not just about "Carrying on indefinitely". You have to prove that such changes can transition into the structural changes being proposed, and so far, the differences between crocodilians and caimans don't exactly prove anything other than differentiation of a similar base type. The difference between them and bears and cats is extreme.

If you think the difference between Grizzlies and House Cats is just a matter of looks, we're on different pages. The evolution of Retractable claws, let alone things like "purring" require a complicated series of coordinated mutations that I simply don't see anything close to what's been observed being indicative of.

Technically, every animal can be said to just "look differently" if we're going to just brush off their vast structural, skeletal, and biological differences as somehow being reconciled by the speculative notion that they may have once been the same thing.

At some point, you have to actually be able to prove the connection was there instead of only insisting that it be disproven. The skepticism on the part of the "Creationist" is partly based on waiting for the Evolutionist to have a burden of proof other than claims of a series of gaping-gap-filled dots to connect.

For instance, they can't figure out how the bat got its wings. They understand the genes involved better, but they still have no clue how it developed. Same with the arched foot.

So you've never heard of a flying squirrel? You don't need fully developed wings to trigger selection for airborne travel. After that, it's just "he who flies farthest gets the most mating opportunities" and boom: rodents with wings.

Bat wings are actually more like long, webbed fingers than bird wings.

 

[Alceste]

I'm the one insisting that there's evidence insisting that observed beneficial mutations (including neutral) have not changed anything structural and that it seems populations with radical changes will mostly die off. And this relates to the points of the Review. Until there's evidence that population groups can develop beyond incremental changes, as Dr. Stewart Newman points out is not the case (though there is apparently argument on this, I have yet to see the reasoning for such), I don't see how what's been observed regarding such mutations isn't such evidence.

But of course, lack of evidence and observation needn't be evidence of what could happen, especially when assertions about such speculation are being made. Skepticism has to disprove things that have no evidence. If only this standard applied to the literary and historical scholarly world.

But I don't see why it's the epitome of not getting it, feel free to explain in detail.

You don't need detail. Your head is already addled with too much detail that you can not understand because you skipped the basics. You need to get a rudimentary grasp off the concept of incremental changes over a short period of time - which you believe in - adding up to large changes over a much longer period of time - which you inexplicably reject.

 

[Shermana]

While researchers speculate it is from a gliding ancestor, they are clueless as to the transitional problem.

The best answer they have is the "Rogue finger" concept, and it itself is based on wild speculation and assumption, but I have yet to see the further science for this conclusion on how it promoted powered flight.

Rogue finger gene got bats airborne - 13 November 2004 - New Scientist

 

[Shermana]

You don't need detail. Your head is already addled with too much detail that you can not understand because you skipped the basics. You need to get a rudimentary grasp off the concept of incremental changes over a short period of time - which you believe in - adding up to large changes over a much longer period of time - which you inexplicably reject.

Well that was a dodge if I ever saw one.

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

the differences between crocodilians and caimans don't exactly prove anything other than differentiation of a similar base type.

The base type for cats, dogs and bears is the carnivora order. You're basically doubting that this order should exists and the sub groups of cats, dogs and bears should have no higher taxon than genera or families. Which is a problem because now we can't place them under mammals, a HIGHER taxon than carnivora. Consider the VAST mammalian(let alone carnivoran) similarities first and how they could have them before you call them "extremely different".

Off to bed now. May resume this tomorrow.