The Theory of Evolution is supported by the evidence.

[Gunfingers]

I believe you have just perfectly encompassed the feelings of most sane people on this board for the majority of this thread.

Ah, good, i'm not the only one confused by that post.

 

[Danmac]

Ah, good, i'm not the only one confused by that post.

I agree. You are not the only one on here that is confused.

 

[McBell]

I agree. You are not the only one on here that is confused.

More strawmen, I see.
Must be interesting living your life amongst so much straw.

Hope you are not a smoker. Could be a particularly hazardous addiction for one whole is so immersed in straw.

 

[Orias]

Is it not true that trees grow around the others?

Is it not true that man improvises his creations?

The definition of evolution...us.

We share 98% of the gene pool with chimpanzees.

Spiritual development is of love, the drug which oxytocin draws an addiction. So in a sense, even the mammals that love, are of spiritual existence, because of their memory, because of love.

Is that not what love is? The addiction to the present, and the memories and connections of the past? We remember death, we know of death, most men fantasize death.


A matriarch elephant who hasn't seen her daughter for 23 years, will rejoice the return of her lost kin. This is of love, and the memory of what was, and the return of what is. A spiritual exuberance.

All life develops and evolves to the enviroment around us. As man loves and unites, to fight for existence, not for simple religion.

Do you wonder why chimpanzee's are one of the only other animals that enjoys violence besides us? Or why chimpanzee's recognize and watch t.v., and get excited if they remember a part of a movie that is about to happen?

Man is capable of walking on two legs, because of the intellectual development to over come what is.

Apes are capable of learning and understanding the meaning of sign language.


All animals adapt to their enviroment over time. It is simple, it is proven.

You teach animals, and you draw conclusions from their psychology.

To question what is, and to feel sympathy for what is lost, is only of a weak willed mind.

There is no enigma behind existence, for we just are.

Things do change, cells and DNA strands do in fact, reconstruct and mutate.

 

[Autodidact]

observed speciation

O.K. Bearing in mind we're trying to find out whether speciation continues smoothly from a single common ancestor to every species, living or extinct, or whether it only happens within some sort of boundary called a "kind," the question becomes:

What would we expect to observe different for each of these hypotheses? If speciation is limited to within a "kind," what would we expect to see? If speciation can continue indefinitely, what would we expect to see?

Think about this and see if you can come up with anything,.

Although until you define a "kind," I don't see how.

 

[Danmac]

O.K. Bearing in mind we're trying to find out whether speciation continues smoothly from a single common ancestor to every species, living or extinct, or whether it only happens within some sort of boundary called a "kind," the question becomes:

What would we expect to observe different for each of these hypotheses? If speciation is limited to within a "kind," what would we expect to see? If speciation can continue indefinitely, what would we expect to see?

Think about this and see if you can come up with anything,.

Although until you define a "kind," I don't see how.

Let me ask you this.... Assuming the one common ancestor theory is true, why are their distinct species at all? Why are there different classifications if we all belong to the same group? But to answer your question, I believe that all species that belong to the same family have a unique combination of traits that are individually shared with members of other groups within that kind, or family. I believe that reproductive isolation is evidence of two species evolving from the same kind. However, thru a loss of information some species that belong to a kind can become reproductively isolated from their own kind.
Thanks for a polite post.

 

[painted wolf]

Let me ask you this.... Assuming the one common ancestor theory is true, why are their distinct species at all?

Why are there Smiths and Wus?

Why are there different classifications if we all belong to the same group?

Honestly it's a hold over from Linnaean taxonomy.

But to answer your question, I believe that all species that belong to the same family have a unique combination of traits that are individually shared with members of other groups within that kind, or family.

Like eukaryotes? Sounds vaguely like phylogenetics. For example all animals are united by a large suite of shared features.

I believe that reproductive isolation is evidence of two species evolving from the same kind. However, thru a loss of information some species that belong to a kind can become reproductively isolated from their own kind.

What sort of "reproductive isolation" are you considering here?
Pre-zygotic... post-zygotic?
How do you define reproductive isolation?

wa:do

 

[Autodidact]

Let me ask you this.... Assuming the one common ancestor theory is true, why are their distinct species at all?

1. You realize this question applies equally to your hypothesis, right? Whether a single common ancestor or an unspecified number of common ancestors, there is still the question: why species?

2. If you understand the process of speciation, it's hard to imagine how we could NOT get different species. It's unavoidable, once you understand the mechanism. I don't think you do. May I explain it to you?

Why are there different classifications if we all belong to the same group?

Classifications are really a system that we impose on nature to help us understand it.

But to answer your question, I believe that all species that belong to the same family have a unique combination of traits that are individually shared with members of other groups within that kind, or family. I believe that reproductive isolation is evidence of two species evolving from the same kind. However, thru a loss of information some species that belong to a kind can become reproductively isolated from their own kind.
Thanks for a polite post.

None of this answers my question, addresses it in any way, or makes sense. The question is, if your hypothesis were correct, what would we expect to observe in nature that is different from what we expect to observe if your hypothesis is not correct. This is the basic question we always ask when we do science. What's we're looking for is a way to falsify your hypothesis. Do you know what that means?

I have some thoughts if you don't, but I thought I'd give you a chance to come up with something.

I'm not asking what you believe. I'm asking for a prediction from your hypothesis. Very basic scientific procedure.

 

[Danmac]

O.K. Bearing in mind we're trying to find out whether speciation continues smoothly from a single common ancestor to every species, living or extinct, or whether it only happens within some sort of boundary called a "kind," the question becomes:

What would we expect to observe different for each of these hypotheses? If speciation is limited to within a "kind," what would we expect to see? If speciation can continue indefinitely, what would we expect to see?

Think about this and see if you can come up with anything,.

Although until you define a "kind," I don't see how.

1) If the one common ancestor is correct then the fossil record should consistently show smooth intergradations from one species to the next. It doesn't.

2) If creationists are right then we should find exactly what we do find. Variations within a kind.

 

[Wotan]

" If creationists are right then we should find exactly what we do find. Variations within a kind."

Since you can't - or won't - define "kind" know do you know what "kind" any organism is?

 

[Autodidact]

1) If the one common ancestor is correct then the fossil record should consistently show smooth intergradations from one species to the next. It doesn't.

To begin with, you forgot that you chose "speciation events," not the fossil record. It was your choice; can you try to bear it in mind for a page or two? Have you ever been diagnosed with ADD?

You keep forgetting that you agree with ToE. The only thing you take issue with is the number of common ancestors. Why would a smooth transition from one species to another only work with a single common ancestor? Your hypothesis calls for equally smooth transitions from one species to the next.

You have no idea what the fossil record shows or doesn't show, since you've never looked at it.

ToE makes no predictions about how many fossils we will find. We could have no fossils, and ToE would still be correct. We're lucky to have found as many as we have.

2) If creationists are right then we should find exactly what we do find. Variations within a kind.

Until you define "kind," or tell us how to recognize one, it is impossible to say whether something is happening within, without, or did the hokey pokey and shook it all about, a "kind." I'm afraid you can't use that term until you can define it. Let me know when that happens. Until then, it's just a FAIL.

Once again, returning to the subject that Danmac chose: speciation events.

Under Danmac's hypothesis,--well, Danmac, I'm afraid we can't do anything with your hypothesis until you define it better. Oh, and I'm still sick and tired of repeating myself, and you still model excrutiatingly bad manners.

Let's take those beetles, Danmac. Are they a single kind, at leat 450,000 kinds, or something else? And how do you know?

Because the answer will help us to make predictions that can support or falsify your hypothesis.

 

[Autodidact]

Maybe you'll find this one easier. You say that all members of the dog family are a single "kind," correct? I'm guessing by this you mean all canids, comprising wolves, foxes, jackals and wild and domestic dogs, both existing and extinct species, is that correct?

 

[DeitySlayer]

1) If the one common ancestor is correct then the fossil record should consistently show smooth intergradations from one species to the next. It doesn't.

The reason being you look for intergradations that didn't happen. Like cat to dog, or horse to walrus, or something ridiculous like that. That's equivalent to claiming that reproduction is impossible because I did not give birth to my second cousin. Of course I bloody didn't. We're diverging lines of the same 'tree'. Similarly dogs and cats are diverging lines in the mammalian tree. Looking for integradations between them is going to lead you nowhere.

 

[Orias]

The reason being you look for intergradations that didn't happen. Like cat to dog, or horse to walrus, or something ridiculous like that. That's equivalent to claiming that reproduction is impossible because I did not give birth to my second cousin. Of course I bloody didn't. We're diverging lines of the same 'tree'. Similarly dogs and cats are diverging lines in the mammalian tree. Looking for integradations between them is going to lead you nowhere.

Exactly!

You cannot say we evolved from a rock, we do share 98% of the gene pool with chimpanzees you know...

 

[painted wolf]

1) If the one common ancestor is correct then the fossil record should consistently show smooth intergradations from one species to the next. It doesn't.

That is like expecting to find every human who ever died. It's silly at best.

2) If creationists are right then we should find exactly what we do find. Variations within a kind.

Considering "kind" is so vague as to be meaningless it's no surprise.
In fact this statement does nothing to prevent humans and chimps from being the same "kind" let alone all mammals or all animals or indeed all living things.

wa:do

 

[McBell]

You cannot say we evolved from a rock,

Yes I can.
See:

We evolved from a rock.
​

we do share 98% of the gene pool with chimpanzees you know...

Wow.
That's a lot of rocks.

 

[Orias]

Yes I can.
See:
[/color]

We evolved from a rock.
​

Wow.
That's a lot of rocks.

Very clever there

 

[Danmac]

Yes I can.
See:
[/color]

We evolved from a rock.
​

Wow.
That's a lot of rocks.

Amen to that.

 

[lunamoth]

You cannot say we evolved from a rock, ...

Actually, Was our oldest ancestor a proton-powered rock?

Unfortunately you now need to pay to see the whole article, , but I read it when it was still free and it makes a very good point. The processes of abiogenesis were probably similar to the same kind dynamics of natural selection as we associate with living organisms and evolution. They are not two distinct processes as many like to make them out to be.

Any system, no matter how simple, that has the elements of 1) self-replication and 2) change/mutation is going to be subject to natural selection, even if this system is abiotic. The key is the balance between reasonable stability, but some change.

~luna

 

[McBell]

Amen to that.

You do understand that merely making a statement does not make said statement true, right?