Evolution: Do you see the resemblence

[England my lionheart]

England... you asked me about speciation.. I gave you a list of examples.
You asked me about transitional species... I showed you the fossils.

I asked you about kinds (what are they and what kind the fossils are)... you have not answerd

I asked you to define "information" in genetics.... I know its not your field but if you are going to argue no new information, then I need to know what you are talking about... You havent answered.

I think I have answered your questions... dispite your attmepts to tell me I havent.
It is your turn.
Answer my questions.... please.

wa:do

I'm back from my xmas binge .......wel temperarilly :the fossils are of creaturesfrom a long time ago that show features that may be construed to be a creature in transition to another creature.

The verital fruit fly experiment showed that although the fruit fly experiment has run equivilent to mans life on earth in timescale and the mutation rate 15,000 faster than normal no new species has appeared and nothing in the experiment has supplied any other evidence to support evolution which includes dna

 

[Autodidact]

I'm back from my xmas binge .......wel temperarilly :the fossils are of creaturesfrom a long time ago that show features that may be construed to be a creature in transition to another creature.

The verital fruit fly experiment showed that although the fruit fly experiment has run equivilent to mans life on earth in timescale and the mutation rate 15,000 faster than normal no new species has appeared and nothing in the experiment has supplied any other evidence to support evolution which includes dna

I take it then that you can't answer any of painted wolf's questions? You can't define "kind" or say what "kind" his picture is, you can't define "information"? Is that right? So are you planning on stop making these bogus claims?

It may be...time to fold 'em.

 

[painted wolf]

ok so the fossils show a transition from fish to amphibian... but you don't want to come right out and say it.
So you don't have a definition for "kind".

You still haven't addressed information.

As for the fruit fly experiments its already been explained. First the point of the experiments weren't to make a fruit fly into something else... they were to explore genetics and speciation. It will take a lot longer than 50 years to reproduce genus level changes and even longer than that to get Family level changes. What the fruit flys show is that mutations lead to genetic variablility and thus to change over time. (decent with modification)

Other things the fruit fly experiments show... that all life operates on the same genetic code. Did you know about the experiments to plug mouse HOX genes into the flys? It produces fly legs just like the fly HOX gene does. Same for eye genes. We are built the same way with the same materials because of shared ancestry.

If we were truly different "kinds" we wouldn't be able to do that... just look what happens when you try to run a Macintosh program on a Windows computer... let alone Linux
But DNA... no problem because we all use the same information passed down from that first shared common ancestor.

Now please define Information for me so I can understand what it is you want to know.

wa:do

 

[England my lionheart]

I take it then that you can't answer any of painted wolf's questions? You can't define "kind" or say what "kind" his picture is, you can't define "information"? Is that right? So are you planning on stop making these bogus claims?

It may be...time to fold 'em.

I helped an old lady with her shopping she said"oh thats very kind of you",later i watched a film and the heroine said "i'm kind of hungry".
My teenage daughter said i've kind of got a problem,"oh i said whats that"i've bought the same handbag as mum.
I said i've got a problem"what says she" "i've bought another pet" what kind says she,a dog says i ,get it.
The picture that i saw looked like a rusty piece of metal kind of fossil.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I helped an old lady with her shopping she said"oh thats very kind of you",later i watched a film and the heroine said "i'm kind of hungry".
My teenage daughter said i've kind of got a problem,"oh i said whats that"i've bought the same handbag as mum.
I said i've got a problem"what says she" "i've bought another pet" what kind says she,a dog says i ,get it.

So... in summary, "kind" means:

- considerate (adj.)
- somewhat (adj.)
- type (n.)

No, I don't get it. How does this help us determine what "kind" means in terms of the discussion at hand, i.e. the "God said 'let there be ____ after their kind" statements of Genesis that the Creationists use to allow a measure of evolution in their theology (which they term "micro"-evolution, and declare it to only happen within "kinds"), but deny the theory as a whole?

 

[painted wolf]

not very kind of them is it?

wa:do

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

not very kind of them is it?

No, in fact it's kind of unkind. I'm tempted to say we should repay them in kind, but you don't have to be a wunderkind to see that that wouldn't be kind.

 

[Autodidact]

I helped an old lady with her shopping she said"oh thats very kind of you",later i watched a film and the heroine said "i'm kind of hungry".
My teenage daughter said i've kind of got a problem,"oh i said whats that"i've bought the same handbag as mum.
I said i've got a problem"what says she" "i've bought another pet" what kind says she,a dog says i ,get it.
The picture that i saw looked like a rusty piece of metal kind of fossil.

At this point you're deliberately being flippant. Please come back if and when you are ever interested in discussing the subject seriously. Until then, I ask that you refrain from posting your ignorant and not very well thought out personal opinions on the subject.

 

[England my lionheart]

So... in summary, "kind" means:

- considerate (adj.)
- somewhat (adj.)
- type (n.)

No, I don't get it. How does this help us determine what "kind" means in terms of the discussion at hand, i.e. the "God said 'let there be ____ after their kind" statements of Genesis that the Creationists use to allow a measure of evolution in their theology (which they term "micro"-evolution, and declare it to only happen within "kinds"), but deny the theory as a whole?

I'm not a creationist, well i am in a kind of way because i build stuff but in the kind of way you are thinking ,no i am not.Equus is a kind ,bovine etc and although you have a picture of a fossil and all creatures have dna and a human ear can be grown on a mouse its does'nt mean much
I have cited steven hawking before and he says perhaps this happened or maybe ,if this happened then maybe that happened rubbish,if a building collapses or a bridge collapses after investigation i could tell you why.

 

[England my lionheart]

Anyway while i've been on this forum this evening i had moulles marnier(which i love)and how unfortunate for the humble mussel that it did not progress beyond a mussel as i don't think i could keep Arnold Swarzenegger down.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

To a mussel, "progressing beyond" being a mussel would imply being better at doing mussel-y things, such as surviving on the sea floor. In the mussel's environment, it would be quite a disadvantage to be Arnold Schwarzenegger. Even he were to overcome the problem of breathing underwater, it'd be difficult for a creature attached to a rock to eat food at a quick enough rate to sustain an Arnie-sized appetite.

I'm not a creationist, well i am in a kind of way because i build stuff but in the kind of way you are thinking ,no i am not.Equus is a kind ,bovine etc and although you have a picture of a fossil and all creatures have dna and a human ear can be grown on a mouse its does'nt mean much

Okay... let's try another tack. There are several accepted taxonomic "ranks" for living things. From widest to narrowest, the major ones are:

- all life
- domain
- kingdom
- phylum/division
- class
- order
- family
- genus
- species

Where does "kind" fit into this heirarchy?

You mentioned Equus; Equus is a genus that includes many species of donkey, horse and zebra. Does "kind" mean "genus"?

You mentioned bovines; Bovinae is a subfamily that includes cows, yaks, bison and some (but not all) species of antelope. Does "kind" mean "subfamily"? What about other antelopes? If they're in different "kinds", does that mean that Antilopinae antelopes and Bovinae antelopes could not have evolved from a common ancestor?

I have cited steven hawking before and he says perhaps this happened or maybe ,if this happened then maybe that happened rubbish,if a building collapses or a bridge collapses after investigation i could tell you why.

I have no idea what you're getting at here.

 

[England my lionheart]

So,if you can tell me what our common ancestor was and how we got to this stage in our evolution a nobel prize awaits,i have said this before,do not give a monkeys chuff if we came from a lump of phlegm from a passing alien as i have nothing to prove.
Toe...ists are the ones with the difficult job of doing that and so far its like cutting an incomplete video tape into thousands of pieces and putting them back together and losing some.

 

[painted wolf]

actually a human ear wasn't grown on a mouse... a template for a human ear was.

It was made of cow cartilage cells grown in a mold and then transplanted onto the mouse. The idea was to demonstrate that we could grow replacements for surgery.

this has basically nothing to do with evolution.

wa:do

 

[ericmurphy]

I'm back from my xmas binge .......wel temperarilly :the fossils are of creaturesfrom a long time ago that show features that may be construed to be a creature in transition to another creature.

So in other words, you have abandoned the claim that there are no transitional fossils. Well, that's progress, anyway.

Although as soon as I point out that's what you've admitted, you'll backpedal and claim you've admitted no such thing.

The verital fruit fly experiment showed that although the fruit fly experiment has run equivilent to mans life on earth in timescale and the mutation rate 15,000 faster than normal no new species has appeared and nothing in the experiment has supplied any other evidence to support evolution which includes dna

First, new species have appeared. Second, you still don't get that a hundred years is not nearly long enough, even for fruit flies, to generate significant morphological change. You'd need at least a few thousand times as much time.

Why can't you understand that?

 

[painted wolf]

So,if you can tell me what our common ancestor was and how we got to this stage in our evolution a nobel prize awaits,i have said this before,do not give a monkeys chuff if we came from a lump of phlegm from a passing alien as i have nothing to prove.
Toe...ists are the ones with the difficult job of doing that and so far its like cutting an incomplete video tape into thousands of pieces and putting them back together and losing some.

you mean like this?

wa:do

 

[Autodidact]

So,if you can tell me what our common ancestor was and how we got to this stage in our evolution a nobel prize awaits,i have said this before,do not give a monkeys chuff if we came from a lump of phlegm from a passing alien as i have nothing to prove.
Toe...ists are the ones with the difficult job of doing that and so far its like cutting an incomplete video tape into thousands of pieces and putting them back together and losing some.

Yes, all of these questions are answered, but the answers take entire books, entire courses, too much for a single post on the internet. And actually you're mistaken, the Nobel prize is awarded in physics, chemistry, physiology or medicine, literature and for peace, not in Biology. However, Watson and Crick did win in 1962 for DNA.

 

[ericmurphy]

So,if you can tell me what our common ancestor was and how we got to this stage in our evolution a nobel prize awaits,i have said this before,do not give a monkeys chuff if we came from a lump of phlegm from a passing alien as i have nothing to prove.
Toe...ists are the ones with the difficult job of doing that and so far its like cutting an incomplete video tape into thousands of pieces and putting them back together and losing some.

Tell you what: Read this brief summary of the evidence for Macroevolution. When you're finished with it, a few weeks from now, then come back and tell us about how there's no evidence for evolutionary theory.

Until then, you have nothing intelligent to say on the topic.

 

[England my lionheart]

To a mussel, "progressing beyond" being a mussel would imply being better at doing mussel-y things, such as surviving on the sea floor. In the mussel's environment, it would be quite a disadvantage to be Arnold Schwarzenegger. Even he were to overcome the problem of breathing underwater, it'd be difficult for a creature attached to a rock to eat food at a quick enough rate to sustain an Arnie-sized appetite.



Okay... let's try another tack. There are several accepted taxonomic "ranks" for living things. From widest to narrowest, the major ones are:

- all life
- domain
- kingdom
- phylum/division
- class
- order
- family
- genus
- species

Where does "kind" fit into this heirarchy?

You mentioned Equus; Equus is a genus that includes many species of donkey, horse and zebra. Does "kind" mean "genus"?

You mentioned bovines; Bovinae is a subfamily that includes cows, yaks, bison and some (but not all) species of antelope. Does "kind" mean "subfamily"? What about other antelopes? If they're in different "kinds", does that mean that Antilopinae antelopes and Bovinae antelopes could not have evolved from a common ancestor?


I have no idea what you're getting at here.

LOL cool
I think kind is like cloven hooves goats ,sheep,

 

[England my lionheart]

Yes, all of these questions are answered, but the answers take entire books, entire courses, too much for a single post on the internet. And actually you're mistaken, the Nobel prize is awarded in physics, chemistry, physiology or medicine, literature and for peace, not in Biology. However, Watson and Crick did win in 1962 for DNA.

I wonder why

 

[painted wolf]

I think kind is like cloven hooves goats ,sheep,

ok... now we are getting somewhere...

so we have animals with cloven hooves... goats, sheep, cattle, giraffes, deer, camels, pigs, hippo's... whales... These are all the same 'kind'.

animals with or without horns... with or without complex stomachs... with or without legs even.
Its true they all share a common ancestor.

so you say evolution can happen with any animal that has cloven hooves... (even numbered in this case)

here it is Diacodexis... about the size of a modern rabbit. This is the oldest and most primitive artiodactyl known.

wa:do