If evolution exists.....

[Extirpated Wildlife]

You seem to be looking for something that evolution neither predicts or requires. It is a strawman.

Do you understand what we mean when we say that individuals don't evolve, populations do?

I am not looking for a strawman argument. Without going into a long explanation, I sometime throw what I am thinking to help others get a grasp at where I am.

As far as your question: Yes, I get that.

 

[PaladinValer]

Notto's post wasn't a straw man. He is trying to show that your example is flawed because it doesn't represent a true reflection of genetics and evolutionary theory.

Going back to the basics is the best way to start.

 

[Extirpated Wildlife]

I wasn't saying his was flawed. He was saying I was looking for a straw man argument.

I would certainly enjoy more information if you have.

 

[shernren]

I can see that you're struggling with some incorrect ideas about evolution, which we are trying to replace with correct ideas about evolution as the scientists recognize it. I hope this does not come across as patronizing or insulting (I want to find out where you are to help you at that level) but what sort of a background in biology do you have?

From what I can understand, you seem to be looking at evolution as if it's a road from A (goo) to B (you). In this idea of evolution, life is like a little car that starts off at point A and drives to point B going into all sorts of diversions along the way. Is that your understanding of evolution? Or am I wrong about what you understand?

 

[notto]

I wasn't saying his was flawed. He was saying I was looking for a straw man argument.

I would certainly enjoy more information if you have.

Do you understand how the example of ring species shows how speciation can and does happen? Did it make sense to show how from one population of a bird species, we can end with two?

 

[Extirpated Wildlife]

what sort of a background in biology do you have?

At this point, It's been a long time since I've thought about biology.

From what I can understand, you seem to be looking at evolution as if it's a road from A (goo) to B (you). In this idea of evolution, life is like a little car that starts off at point A and drives to point B going into all sorts of diversions along the way. Is that your understanding of evolution?[/QUOTE]

Yes. That is the sense, I have of evolution. Goo 2 You, or whatever the "goo" is that started the "animal kingdom".

 

[Extirpated Wildlife]

Do you understand how the example of ring species shows how speciation can and does happen? Did it make sense to show how from one population of a bird species, we can end with two?

I understand evolution and believe it happens as it pertains to birds. But where did birds come from?

Are you saying God created birds out of "nowhere" and "poof", in a sense, there were the bird species but then used evolution to make the different bird species? If not, then no, I don't understand the ring.

 

[Willtor]

I understand evolution and believe it happens as it pertains to birds. But where did birds come from?

Are you saying God created birds out of "nowhere" and "poof", in a sense, there were the bird species but then used evolution to make the different bird species? If not, then no, I don't understand the ring.

We call certain species birds. These are species which share certain physical features and characteristics. As it so happens, they also tend to display a lot of genetic similarity (this really isn't so much of a surprise, the more you think about it). But these are birds, merely because we have called them birds. What came before? Other creatures, that some people might classify as birds, and other people might not. Before that? Other creatures, that a few people might classify as birds, and most would simply call, "bird-like in many respects." Before that? etc.

Also, it might help to get rid of the notion that evolution works like a car (from point A to point B). Evolutionists typically argue that the most popular picture of evolution (the monkey who gradually turns into an upright human) is the worst representation of evolution.

 

[artybloke]

At this point, It's been a long time since I've thought about biology.

From what I can understand, you seem to be looking at evolution as if it's a road from A (goo) to B (you). In this idea of evolution, life is like a little car that starts off at point A and drives to point B going into all sorts of diversions along the way. Is that your understanding of evolution?

Yes. That is the sense, I have of evolution. Goo 2 You, or whatever the "goo" is that started the "animal kingdom".[/QUOTE]

In which case, you do have the wrong idea about evolution. Think of a tree or bush, not a road or a ladder upwards. A tree starts off with one branch, but branches off into all kinds of other branches, limbs, twigs etc. You see what I mean? Once an animal is on one branch, it can't arbitrarily jump onto another branch (this is the notion of "nested hierarchies") but a new branch can arise off it without killing the parent branch - hence, primates branch off into apes and monkeys, apes into apes and hominids. That's probably an over-simplification from a non-scientist, by the way.

 

[mark kennedy]

I am not looking for a strawman argument. Without going into a long explanation, I sometime throw what I am thinking to help others get a grasp at where I am.

As far as your question: Yes, I get that.

Do you realize that individuals are really a very large population of individule cells that must evolve for the population to evolve? That's the question he is not asking but should be, which is why this misdirection is a strawman arguement. Evolution has to happen on a molecular level, the cells must evolve a lot before the expressed characterisics change. Now, back to our regularly scheduled discussion.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[notto]

I understand evolution and believe it happens as it pertains to birds. But where did birds come from?

Define 'bird'.

Can a bird have teeth?
Is everything with feathers a bird?

If you accept that populations can speciate, then you accept a large part of evolution.

We started with 1 species and now we have two. That you call them both 'birds' is simply a label.

Now, what if instead of birds, the same thing happened with a population of reptiles and as one of the species continued to adapt, a mutation caused it to gain feathers. Then we would have two species of reptile like creatures, one with feathers (which we have found in the fossil record) and one without.

Does that make sense?

 

[notto]

Do you realize that individuals are really a very large population of individule cells that must evolve for the population to evolve? That's the question he is not asking but should be, which is why this misdirection is a strawman arguement. Evolution has to happen on a molecular level, the cells must evolve a lot before the expressed characterisics change. Now, back to our regularly scheduled discussion.

Grace and peace,
Mark

What cells evolve heritable characteristics Mark? Please be specific.

Giving him another strawman won't make it easier for him to understand.

Cells that make up the expressed characteristic don't evolve any more than individuals do.

Maybe I'm missing what you are saying but diverse traits in a population are not due to individuals or individual cells changing and then passing on that change as a heritable trait. This is what we need to make sure that Wildlife understands if we want to have a discussion on evolution.

 

[Extirpated Wildlife]

Define 'bird'.

Can a bird have teeth?
Is everything with feathers a bird?

If you accept that populations can speciate, then you accept a large part of evolution.

We started with 1 species and now we have two. That you call them both 'birds' is simply a label.

Now, what if instead of birds, the same thing happened with a population of reptiles and as one of the species continued to adapt, a mutation caused it to gain feathers. Then we would have two species of reptile like creatures, one with feathers (which we have found in the fossil record) and one without.

Does that make sense?

Sure this all makes sense. I don't question these things.

I don't care what any creationist wants to call it, to have all the variety of birds takes evolution, whether instantaneously or over time. What Noah brought in the ark had to evolve to what we have, if you believe the story as told.

 

[Extirpated Wildlife]

Where in the "ring" of evolution or just in evolution do all animals come from? What was the first type of animal?

Are there multiple beginnings of animal species?

 

[notto]

Where in the "ring" of evolution or just in evolution do all animals come from?

From a previous popoulation that split into new species.

What was the first type of animal?

Based on the evidence of common ancestry, something very small and very simple

Are there multiple beginnings of animal species?

Based on the evidence of common ancestry, probably not.

 

[Extirpated Wildlife]

That must be assuming that common ancestry is true.

 

[notto]

Not assuming, concluding based on independent lines of evidence. It is a conclusion that is accepted because the evidnece is there. No assuptions about it.

 

[Extirpated Wildlife]

Not assuming, concluding based on independent lines of evidence. It is a conclusion that is accepted because the evidnece is there. No assuptions about it.

you don't have evidence that a rock became a man. You have fossils. You can't equate this specie has nervous system and this specie over here has nervous system that this means they must have come from the same lineage. That isn't proof. That is speculation with no foundation.

 

[notto]

double post.

 

[notto]

you don't have evidence that a rock became a man.

Strawman Alert!!!

You have fossils.

Otherwise known as 'evidence'

You can't equate this specie has nervous system and this specie over here has nervous system that this means they must have come from the same lineage.

And nobody uses that as part of their conclusion. Another strawman.

That isn't proof.

Good thing nobody is saying that is the argument other than you then.

That is speculation with no foundation.

No, the conclusion of common ancestry is based on independent lines of evidence. There is a foundation. Claiming there is not is simply denying well founded science.

If you would like to discuss the evidence instead of either dismissing it out of hand or making up adhoc strawmen that you want to shoot down, let us know. We would be glad to discuss the evidence with you if you are willing to actually listen to it instead of denying what exists and making up your own bad arguments and trying to paint them as those of scientists.