Examples of Evolution. (A partial list)
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-09-2011, 10:51 AM
RE: Examples of Evolution. (A partial list)
(26-09-2011 02:25 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Fossils have been observed. They show clearly the transition from ancestral species to modern species. What part of this does not show macorevolution and/or speciation?

It does show speciation but not macroevolution. What was the starting point of the process? Did it begin with a single celled organism or with several kinds of organisms that were created by God and had enough genetic information built into them so that each kind could develop into a large number of varieties? The answer to the second question determines whether we are observing macroevolution or microevolution. The variations we can observe, such as the development of different breeds of dog from a common ancestor, involve the selection of genes that already existed in the common ancestor rather that the creatopm of entirely new genes. That is more consistent with the Bible's account of origins that with Darwin's.

The information in ancient libraries came from real minds of real people. The far more complex information in cells came from the far more intelligent mind of God.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-09-2011, 12:05 PM
RE: Examples of Evolution. (A partial list)
Speciation is macroevolution. And abiogenesis (the beginning of life) is not equal to evolution. Evolutionary theory suggests a common ancestor for all organisms but does not define what it is or how it originated. How do you define macroevolution if not by speciation? And the processes that lead to microevolutionary change lead to macroevolutionary change. Denial of the latter is erroneous given acceptance of the former.

And creation of new genes is not necessary to increase the disparity of phenotypes and genotypes that exist in nature. New combinations of genes can result in new phenotypes and genotypes without addition of any new genes.

Track gene sequences (like HOX genes) across different phyla and the same genes code for the same information. HOX genes in a fly that code for development of the head, code for the development of the head in a human. The suggestion would therefore be that at one point in time these two organisms shared a common ancestor. Tracking mutations within the gene sequence itself can also estimate the time of divergence. This predicted time of divergence for Metazoan life is around 700 million years ago...right about the time we first see metazoan life in the fossil record with the Ediacaran fauna...strange coincidence. And some of these organisms appear to be ancestral to modern phyla that emerged in the Cambrian...curious. We have fossil evidence that extends back to at least 3.4 billion years and isotopic evidence for life all the way back to 3.8 billion years.

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-01-2012, 10:20 PM
RE: Examples of Evolution. (A partial list)
The sighted examples of speciation appear to be only true if a weaker definition of the term species is used. If we take the Darwinian definition then do any of these examples outlined by Monk still hold true?

http://www.national-anthems.net/forum/ar...ada/244362
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-01-2012, 11:10 PM
RE: Examples of Evolution. (A partial list)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-01-2012, 01:24 PM
RE: Examples of Evolution. (A partial list)
I hate to break this to you, but there are more than 2 definitions of a species. There is the Biological Species Concept that Mayer derived, the Phylogenetic Species Concept that is fairly recent and the Morphological Species Concept.

The BSC outlines species based on their ability to successfully breed viable offspring. This is useful in modern times but often leads to the oversplitting of species because two populations may be reproductively isolated and still capable of breeding with one another and producing viable offspring (a recent example of cross-breeding of sharks in Australia is a good example of 2 species that by the BSC are one).

The PSC is fairly new and requires a good understanding of the evolutionary history of the organisms in question. This can be done genetically or through the fossil record (or a combination of both). The problem here is that we have a good understanding of the exact evolutionary lineage of only a few groups and even they only have really good records for a few million years. This concept essentially outlines that 2 sets of organisms are different species when they begin to evolve independently of one another and have been separated long enough to become geographically or reproductively isolated.

The morphological species concept is used mainly in the fossil record and was the basis for Linnaeus' classification system. This essentially means that all individuals within a species have a set of morphological features that are quantifiable and that all individuals of the same species fall within the same range of values. There is some variability, but the majority of individuals share the same measurements. Organisms are classified as different species when these traits change and therefore cause a measurable difference between them. This could be the reshaping of a particular body-part or the addition/removal of a certain feature.

So, I am not sure exactly what you are arguing here Briggsy. Is it that we have different definitions for a species depending on the field one works in? If so, you have to realize that the BSC is useless in the fossil record and the PSC requires an understanding of the evolutionary history of a group that is still too incomplete for most organisms in order to be useful and that the MSC is demonstrably verifiable. I have a thread that should be listed below called "False ideas about evolution" and on this page I have posted a picture that also demonstrates the fallacy of a system of classification as imposed on nature by humans (post #87). Imagine each letter is a population (a population is all the individuals of the same species that live together in the same area at the same time) and that each letter that follows the preceding letter are the descendants of that previous letter (this is how it works in the real world too). Each letter that follows the preceding letter is almost exactly the same as the one before and shares far more similarities than differences, as a result, each would remain classified as the same species. Given enough time though (enough successive generations of breeding or in this case typing) the original ancestor begins to be noticeably different from one of the descendant populations, but where is it different enough to be classified as a new species? or subspecies? or genus? That breaks is not defined and even taxonomists will tell you that the break is often arbitrary when the 2 species appear very similar and lived at the same time, but given enough constraints on age and the fact that there is still a measurable difference, there is enough evidence to classify and justify them being 2 different species.

Now, look at that picture again and this time we will picture it at the same resolution that we see in the fossil record. Imagine that 95% of the letters were missing. In some places there were large gaps (these will be early on) and in some places we may only be missing 1 out of every 10 (but some will still be very close together and will appear to be the same color). This is the fossil record. There are enough similarities for us to know they are similar, but enough differences in morphology and age for us to know they are 2 different species from 2 different populations.

Arguing definitions in this sense is a pointless and futile attempt to ignore the evidence because by all 3 definitions, they would be different species.

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-01-2012, 02:49 PM
RE: Examples of Evolution. (A partial list)
(25-09-2011 02:36 PM)theophilus Wrote:  
(25-09-2011 04:44 AM)FSM_scot Wrote:  According to creationists evolution hasn't been observed. I wonder if they would completely ignore this list that contradicts that flimsy argument.

We agree that evolution has been observed. We don't agree on what kind of evolution.

The Bible teaches that God created different kinds of life. We have learned by observation that the descendants of these original kinds can develop into very diverse varieties. These varieties are formed by selection of some of the genetic characteristics that were in their ancestors.

Before you criticize creationists I think you should find out what we actually believe. Here are some good places to start:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles...-wholphins

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles...thin-kinds

http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v1i4f.htm


Not to be a dick or anything, but none of what you posted matters. All that matters is that creationists don't accept evolution and they are wrong. We know they are wrong because we know evolution, both micro and macro, is happening. Are there missing links in the science? Sure. But 99% of new evidence does nothing but reinforce evolution. I've never heard of a person that once believed in evolution and had evidence change his mind. Even KC has managed to become Christian without completely disregarding the scientific method.

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.”

-Mark Twain
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes germanyt's post
17-01-2012, 05:34 PM
RE: Examples of Evolution. (A partial list)
(16-01-2012 01:24 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  I hate to break this to you, but there are more than 2 definitions of a species. There is the Biological Species Concept that Mayer derived, the Phylogenetic Species Concept that is fairly recent and the Morphological Species Concept.

The BSC outlines species based on their ability to successfully breed viable offspring. This is useful in modern times but often leads to the oversplitting of species because two populations may be reproductively isolated and still capable of breeding with one another and producing viable offspring (a recent example of cross-breeding of sharks in Australia is a good example of 2 species that by the BSC are one).

The PSC is fairly new and requires a good understanding of the evolutionary history of the organisms in question. This can be done genetically or through the fossil record (or a combination of both). The problem here is that we have a good understanding of the exact evolutionary lineage of only a few groups and even they only have really good records for a few million years. This concept essentially outlines that 2 sets of organisms are different species when they begin to evolve independently of one another and have been separated long enough to become geographically or reproductively isolated.

The morphological species concept is used mainly in the fossil record and was the basis for Linnaeus' classification system. This essentially means that all individuals within a species have a set of morphological features that are quantifiable and that all individuals of the same species fall within the same range of values. There is some variability, but the majority of individuals share the same measurements. Organisms are classified as different species when these traits change and therefore cause a measurable difference between them. This could be the reshaping of a particular body-part or the addition/removal of a certain feature.

So, I am not sure exactly what you are arguing here Briggsy. Is it that we have different definitions for a species depending on the field one works in? If so, you have to realize that the BSC is useless in the fossil record and the PSC requires an understanding of the evolutionary history of a group that is still too incomplete for most organisms in order to be useful and that the MSC is demonstrably verifiable. I have a thread that should be listed below called "False ideas about evolution" and on this page I have posted a picture that also demonstrates the fallacy of a system of classification as imposed on nature by humans (post #87). Imagine each letter is a population (a population is all the individuals of the same species that live together in the same area at the same time) and that each letter that follows the preceding letter are the descendants of that previous letter (this is how it works in the real world too). Each letter that follows the preceding letter is almost exactly the same as the one before and shares far more similarities than differences, as a result, each would remain classified as the same species. Given enough time though (enough successive generations of breeding or in this case typing) the original ancestor begins to be noticeably different from one of the descendant populations, but where is it different enough to be classified as a new species? or subspecies? or genus? That breaks is not defined and even taxonomists will tell you that the break is often arbitrary when the 2 species appear very similar and lived at the same time, but given enough constraints on age and the fact that there is still a measurable difference, there is enough evidence to classify and justify them being 2 different species.

Now, look at that picture again and this time we will picture it at the same resolution that we see in the fossil record. Imagine that 95% of the letters were missing. In some places there were large gaps (these will be early on) and in some places we may only be missing 1 out of every 10 (but some will still be very close together and will appear to be the same color). This is the fossil record. There are enough similarities for us to know they are similar, but enough differences in morphology and age for us to know they are 2 different species from 2 different populations.

Arguing definitions in this sense is a pointless and futile attempt to ignore the evidence because by all 3 definitions, they would be different species.

Thanks Beardeddude for the reply.

The tone of a lot of these debates from both the creationists and the evolutionists is quite vehement - I understand how this comes about when one's ideas are being attacked. Just for the record I am very much the evolutionist. I just wanted some input on this particular area so you see I wasn't arguing anything really. Your answer was great and I thank you for taking the time to write it. It clears up that question I had and I guess if I thought about it long enough I would have come to a similar conclusion.

Thanks again!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Briggsy's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: