• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

Evolutionary debate

Evolution

  • Belive in evolution

  • Don't belive in evolution


Results are only viewable after voting.

JediMobius

The Guy with the Face
Jan 12, 2006
1,592
112
41
Beer City, Michigan
✟25,618.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Can't really answer the poll. I believe speciation is limited to different species of the same kind. A butterfly may produce/adapt into entirely different butterflies, but never any other kind of insect, for example. I would expect not even a moth. Or is there an example of such a thing? All those fruit flies ever mutate into are more fruit flies.
 
Upvote 0

plindboe

Senior Member
Feb 29, 2004
1,965
157
48
In my pants
✟25,498.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
It was not his phrase, but he wrote in letters his support for the idea...

Sure, and I've no problem with that, as there's nothing wrong with the phrase. My point was that he didn't come up with it, so calling it his idea is false.


I'd appreciate it if YOU would add that clear info to the EVOLUTION entry, because it is much more smushy on the difference. Just hit the EDIT link and you will become the expert.

Evolutionary history of life

Main article: Evolutionary history of life
See also: Timeline of evolution and Timeline of human evolution
[edit] Origin of life

Further information: Abiogenesis and RNA world hypothesis
The origin of life is a necessary precursor for biological evolution, but understanding that evolution occurred once organisms appeared and investigating how this happens does not depend on understanding exactly how life began.....

That seems ridiculously clear to me. What do you find confusing about that?

Peter :)
 
Upvote 0

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Site Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,281
8,501
Milwaukee
✟411,038.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Sure, and I've no problem with that, as there's nothing wrong with the phrase. My point was that he didn't come up with it, so calling it his idea is false.

lol He didn't come up with the idea of evolution either. So I guess he's not responsible for any idea he had.



That seems ridiculously clear to me. What do you find confusing about that? Peter :)

As you can see, Abriogenesis is found as a sub topic under the heading of Evolutionary history of life. And yes, that's clear and my point.
 
Upvote 0

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Site Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,281
8,501
Milwaukee
✟411,038.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Not Darwin's phrase. Read his books instead of making stuff up.

Doesn't matter if he invented the idea or not. He supported it and wrote about it.
 
Upvote 0

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Site Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,281
8,501
Milwaukee
✟411,038.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Of course it is. Where do you think those new colours come from?

How would randomness know anything about colors?
It could just have easily been new bone structures with every litter if any of it was random.
 
Upvote 0

plindboe

Senior Member
Feb 29, 2004
1,965
157
48
In my pants
✟25,498.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
lol He didn't come up with the idea of evolution either.

True, he didn't come up with the idea of evolution. What he came up with was a theory that explains why evolution occurs.


So I guess he's not responsible for any idea he had.

lol, wut?


As you can see, Abriogenesis is found as a sub topic under the heading of Evolutionary history of life. And yes, that's clear and my point.

The article on the theory of gravity mentions some historical facts as well. Doesn't mean that history is part of the theory of gravity. Why you find it so confusing is beyond me.


Doesn't matter if he invented the idea or not. He supported it and wrote about it.

It matters to me when you make false claims. Perhaps you don't care much about what's true or not, but I do.

Peter :)
 
Upvote 0

Blayz

Well-Known Member
Aug 1, 2007
3,367
231
60
Singapore
✟4,827.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
It's all due to my dog. My dog was a wanted breed not too long ago. All we had was a picture. Now my dog is an AKC accepted breed. All it took was a little selective breeding by a group of breeders.

There was no millions of years, no radiation, just a group of people working with the natural variation inherent in the DNA.

When breeders selectively breed for "personality" traits, guess what happens. The physical aspects of the dog change. Color and shape and size are influenced by temperament. It's not due to random mutations.

Just saw this....

The association between temperament and physical charactersitics are due to linkage disequilibrium. The original genetic assortment due to random mutation and genetic drift. This is elegantly shown in the QTL experiments from the fox taming groups.

And by the way, if you do not immediately understand without the need of looking up all of the words I used in my post, then your opinion on anything even remotely associated with evolution is about as valuable as my opinion on Swahili poetry.
 
Upvote 0

Wiccan_Child

Contributor
Mar 21, 2005
19,419
673
Bristol, UK
✟46,731.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
Can't really answer the poll. I believe speciation is limited to different species of the same kind. A butterfly may produce/adapt into entirely different butterflies, but never any other kind of insect, for example. I would expect not even a moth. Or is there an example of such a thing? All those fruit flies ever mutate into are more fruit flies.
Well, that's exactly what evolution predicts. Descendants of a fruit fly will always be fruit flies, just as descendants of the first mammal species are all mammals. A giraffe is a mammal because it is descended from the original mammal species (and has all the hallmarks of mammals). The descendants of giraffes won't become any pre-existing species, but they will splinter into separate species, which in turn split into several species. Giraffes won't become walruses, because walruses already exist.
 
Upvote 0

Wiccan_Child

Contributor
Mar 21, 2005
19,419
673
Bristol, UK
✟46,731.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
How would randomness know anything about colors?
Genes control the colour of the dog. Genes randomly mutate. Thus, random mutations can change the colour of the offspring.

It could just have easily been new bone structures with every litter if any of it was random.
Indeed if could have. You'll notice that new dog breeds artificially selected by humans have different bone structures. A new litter is unlikely to have massively different bones, but progressive litters, carefully selected for, will show large changes over time. That's evolution.
 
Upvote 0

JediMobius

The Guy with the Face
Jan 12, 2006
1,592
112
41
Beer City, Michigan
✟25,618.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Well, that's exactly what evolution predicts. Descendants of a fruit fly will always be fruit flies, just as descendants of the first mammal species are all mammals. A giraffe is a mammal because it is descended from the original mammal species (and has all the hallmarks of mammals). The descendants of giraffes won't become any pre-existing species, but they will splinter into separate species, which in turn split into several species. Giraffes won't become walruses, because walruses already exist.

So has descending stopped? The butterfly into a moth is just an example. Those fruit flies have only changed into slightly different fruit flies, not any other kind of animal, insect, or fly.
 
Upvote 0

Wiccan_Child

Contributor
Mar 21, 2005
19,419
673
Bristol, UK
✟46,731.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
So has descending stopped? The butterfly into a moth is just an example. Those fruit flies have only changed into slightly different fruit flies, not any other kind of animal, insect, or fly.
Indeed, and they never will. These slight differences are between a few generations; evolution has operated over countless thousands of generations. Each generation is slightly different to its predecessor, to the extent that every daughter is the same species as her mother. But, if you compare distant ancestry, that same daughter is not the same species as her far-distant grandmother. Furthermore, that distant grandmother will have countless thousands of living descendants, which are themselves grouped into separate, distinct species.

Consider this grandmother to a member of the first species of mammal, species M. This grandmother, and all other members of species M, are long dead, obviously. Their descendants exist in each generation as a group of individuals, living and breeding. Somehow, they split into genetically isolated groups - perhaps a river has formed, and they can't cross it.
So any new genetic material in one group will spread to all members of that group, but not to the others across the river. So, over time, the two groups become more and more genetically isolated, and it becomes less and less likely that sperm from one group will be able to fertilise ova from the other.
Eventually, they can't interbreed, and those two groups are two different species - descended from the same species, but now different species.

Anyway. Even though the descendants of fruit flies will always be fruit flies (and, thus, insects, arthropods, animals, etc), those descendants could be completely different from the original fruit fly species, and from each other. Giraffes and whales look completely different from each other, and from their common ancestor, but they're still related.
 
Upvote 0

Split Rock

Conflation of Blathers
Nov 3, 2003
17,607
730
North Dakota
✟22,466.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Hi Mr. Tortoise :wave:
Can't really answer the poll. I believe speciation is limited to different species of the same kind. A butterfly may produce/adapt into entirely different butterflies, but never any other kind of insect, for example. I would expect not even a moth. Or is there an example of such a thing? All those fruit flies ever mutate into are more fruit flies.

So has descending stopped? The butterfly into a moth is just an example. Those fruit flies have only changed into slightly different fruit flies, not any other kind of animal, insect, or fly.

As W.C. indicated, a fruit fly will always be a fruit fly, just as it will always be an insect, etc. As I like to say, you can never escape your ancestry. However, speciation has been observed both in the lab and in nature, and common descent is infered from all the physical evidence.

You mentioned "kind" although I don't know if you mean this in the creationist sense of the term, or you were using it generally. In either case, ask yourself where you would draw the line between two kinds of organisms that could never be related to each other. You mentioned butterflies and moths, though you weren't sure. Is this arbitrary? What would you expect if this were the case? What predictions would you make?
 
Upvote 0

JediMobius

The Guy with the Face
Jan 12, 2006
1,592
112
41
Beer City, Michigan
✟25,618.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Indeed, and they never will. These slight differences are between a few generations; evolution has operated over countless thousands of generations. Each generation is slightly different to its predecessor, to the extent that every daughter is the same species as her mother. But, if you compare distant ancestry, that same daughter is not the same species as her far-distant grandmother. Furthermore, that distant grandmother will have countless thousands of living descendants, which are themselves grouped into separate, distinct species.

Consider this grandmother to a member of the first species of mammal, species M. This grandmother, and all other members of species M, are long dead, obviously. Their descendants exist in each generation as a group of individuals, living and breeding. Somehow, they split into genetically isolated groups - perhaps a river has formed, and they can't cross it.
So any new genetic material in one group will spread to all members of that group, but not to the others across the river. So, over time, the two groups become more and more genetically isolated, and it becomes less and less likely that sperm from one group will be able to fertilise ova from the other.
Eventually, they can't interbreed, and those two groups are two different species - descended from the same species, but now different species.

Anyway. Even though the descendants of fruit flies will always be fruit flies (and, thus, insects, arthropods, animals, etc), those descendants could be completely different from the original fruit fly species, and from each other. Giraffes and whales look completely different from each other, and from their common ancestor, but they're still related.

Yeah, I get the principle of speciation. My contention is that no matter the separation, the varied species of any ancestor will be of the same kind. Claws will not replace hooves or vice versa, wings will not grow where they were not before, fins will not become arms or legs. I think the all-inclusive family tree is assumed, but not established.

You say 'could be completely different' but are they, have they been, or will they ever be? So completely different, one is a fruit fly, one is not. It's the idea, but where's the evidence? Why must all life have come from a single ancestor anyway?
 
Upvote 0

Hespera

Junior Member
Dec 16, 2008
7,237
201
usa
✟8,860.00
Faith
Buddhist
Marital Status
Private
Yeah, I get the principle of speciation. My contention is that no matter the separation, the varied species of any ancestor will be of the same kind. Claws will not replace hooves or vice versa, wings will not grow where they were not before, fins will not become arms or legs. I think the all-inclusive family tree is assumed, but not established.

You say 'could be completely different' but are they, have they been, or will they ever be? So completely different, one is a fruit fly, one is not. It's the idea, but where's the evidence? Why must all life have come from a single ancestor anyway?


i think you'd find thru the study of comparative vertebrate anatomy and the fossil record that, depending on ones take on the vague word "kind" that the ToE is all about how we ARE all the same 'kind".

The differences are differences of degree. hair and feathers are modified scales as any doctor or other student of anatomy can tell you. The bones of your skull match those of a reptile skull; shifted a bit in position, shape and size. But they match, and any student of anatomy knows this.

We are all the same "kind".

As for fins not becoming legs, they did. You can trace the history thru very nicely.

Wings where there was none? Look at a bats wing. See the bone structure? see the muscles? its a hand and arm. Anyone can see it.

Claws to hooves? Every step of the way is traced out in the fossil record, in sequence.


"but where's the evidence? Why must all life have come from a single ancestor anyway"

I dont know that anyone says it "has" to. Just that it appears to.
If you want the evidence for how evolution has proceeded, there are a great many excellent sources. You wont get it in an afternoon. its a bit like learning to play the piano; you have to actually put in some time.
 
Upvote 0

JediMobius

The Guy with the Face
Jan 12, 2006
1,592
112
41
Beer City, Michigan
✟25,618.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Hi Mr. Tortoise :wave:




As W.C. indicated, a fruit fly will always be a fruit fly, just as it will always be an insect, etc. As I like to say, you can never escape your ancestry. However, speciation has been observed both in the lab and in nature, and common descent is infered from all the physical evidence.

You mentioned "kind" although I don't know if you mean this in the creationist sense of the term, or you were using it generally. In either case, ask yourself where you would draw the line between two kinds of organisms that could never be related to each other. You mentioned butterflies and moths, though you weren't sure. Is this arbitrary? What would you expect if this were the case? What predictions would you make?

If a fruit fly will always be a fruit fly, how did it descend from insect prime? Wouldn't the first insect then always only be that kind of insect, though different species?

I expect that moths and butterflies have no common ancestor. Likewise, reptiles and mammals have no common ancestor. Speciation isn't the problem, it's the inferred common descent of all primates, for example. Or all mammals.

All felines would have a single common ancestor, canines their own, frogs their own, etc. with none of the original ancestors being genetically related to each other.

I would predict, then, that hybridized species such as these: Hybrid (biology) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediawould only be possible of the same kind of 'species family'. A dog and cat would never hybridize.

A fertile citrus-berry, canine-feline, or bovine-equine hybrid, for example, would pretty much scrap this whole notion.
 
Upvote 0

Split Rock

Conflation of Blathers
Nov 3, 2003
17,607
730
North Dakota
✟22,466.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Yeah, I get the principle of speciation. My contention is that no matter the separation, the varied species of any ancestor will be of the same kind. Claws will not replace hooves or vice versa, wings will not grow where they were not before, fins will not become arms or legs. I think the all-inclusive family tree is assumed, but not established.
Lets look at the example of the horse. The earliest horses had 4 toes. Intermediates had 3 toes, and more recent ones had 1 toe and 2 long stints. The modern horse has 1 toe with very small stints. This is an example of how such transformations can occur over time.

Lets look at whales. Their flippers have the same structure as your own hand. A penguin's wing has the same structure as your hand as well, yet is used as a flipper. If a hand can turn into a flipper, or a wing, then your argument fails.

You say 'could be completely different' but are they, have they been, or will they ever be? So completely different, one is a fruit fly, one is not. It's the idea, but where's the evidence? Why must all life have come from a single ancestor anyway?
Common descent is inferred by all the evidence. The evidence is based on anatomy, biochemistry, genetics, embryology, biogeography, and the fossil record. Here is a very good website to check out for this evidence: Understanding Evolution
In particular: Lines of evidence: The science of evolution

Also, "Your Inner Fish," by Neil Shubin is an excellent read, and is designed for non-scientists to understand.
 
Upvote 0

Wiccan_Child

Contributor
Mar 21, 2005
19,419
673
Bristol, UK
✟46,731.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
Yeah, I get the principle of speciation.
Sorry if I was repeating what you already knew. You never know how clued up someone else is.

My contention is that no matter the separation, the varied species of any ancestor will be of the same kind. Claws will not replace hooves or vice versa, wings will not grow where they were not before, fins will not become arms or legs. I think the all-inclusive family tree is assumed, but not established.
Depends what you mean by 'kind'. The descendants of giraffes will always be called giraffes, but one group of them might not have the distinctive long neck, or they might have sharp teeth, or what have you.

You say 'could be completely different' but are they, have they been, or will they ever be? So completely different, one is a fruit fly, one is not. It's the idea, but where's the evidence? Why must all life have come from a single ancestor anyway?
Because that is what the theory states, and the evidence supports that theory. If life didn't have a single common ancestor, it should be trivial to demonstrate. But life fits snugly into a twin-nested heirarchy - we can catergorise organisms top-down according to anatomical similarities, and bottom-up according to genetics, and these two taxonomical groups are exactly the same.

The word 'mammal' exists because there exists a large group of separate species that share the same traits. Evolution explains this unnecessary similarity by common ancestry - the reason all mammals have three middle-ear bones, hair, sweat glands, mammary glands, placenta, etc, is because we are all descended from a single species which had these traits. Even whales, which are ridiculously placed in the oceans, share these distinctive mammalian traits. They even have the hallmarks of the broader taxon of the amniotes, traits which aren't shared by fish (which one might naively think they are).

Evolution explains all biodiversity, all the peculiarities of biology, in a few words. There's nothing that we know of that disproves the notion that all life has descended from a single common ancestor, that biodiversity arises from evolution by natural selection.
 
Upvote 0

JediMobius

The Guy with the Face
Jan 12, 2006
1,592
112
41
Beer City, Michigan
✟25,618.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
i think you'd find thru the study of comparative vertebrate anatomy and the fossil record that, depending on ones take on the vague word "kind" that the ToE is all about how we ARE all the same 'kind".

That's quite the oversimplification, I think.

The differences are differences of degree. hair and feathers are modified scales as any doctor or other student of anatomy can tell you. The bones of your skull match those of a reptile skull; shifted a bit in position, shape and size. But they match, and any student of anatomy knows this.

The reasoning here doesn't seem logical to me. A skull serves a basic function. It protects the soft tissue of the brain, eyes, etc. One could similarly say all hats and helmets match, shifted a bit in position, shape, and size. However, I wouldn't posit that all hats and helmets came from a single initial invention. It's just as likely that the necessity of a hat or helmet produced the invention of it in several separate instances. Likewise, several original lifeforms - all made of cells, but with distinct genetic coding - would necessitate skulls.

As for fins not becoming legs, they did. You can trace the history thru very nicely.

Wings where there was none? Look at a bats wing. See the bone structure? see the muscles? its a hand and arm. Anyone can see it.

Claws to hooves? Every step of the way is traced out in the fossil record, in sequence.

Perhaps it's history, or perhaps different creatures with similar features is simply a product of limited variation in environment.

"but where's the evidence? Why must all life have come from a single ancestor anyway"

I dont know that anyone says it "has" to. Just that it appears to.
If you want the evidence for how evolution has proceeded, there are a great many excellent sources. You wont get it in an afternoon. its a bit like learning to play the piano; you have to actually put in some time.

It apparently must, or else where is the alternative idea? A certain way of looking at the evidence has produced a single plausible explanation. Why only the one acceptable road?

Appearances are often deceiving. I understand how the conventional conclusions have been drawn; comprehension is not the problem.
 
Upvote 0

Split Rock

Conflation of Blathers
Nov 3, 2003
17,607
730
North Dakota
✟22,466.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
If a fruit fly will always be a fruit fly, how did it descend from insect prime? Wouldn't the first insect then always only be that kind of insect, though different species?
Again, how are you defining "kind" in this context? They are all insects.. is that the same "kind?" As far as how this happens, Charles Darwin explained this in his book, "On the Origin of Species by Natural Selection." Basically, this occurs by Descent With Modification.

I expect that moths and butterflies have no common ancestor. Likewise, reptiles and mammals have no common ancestor. Speciation isn't the problem, it's the inferred common descent of all primates, for example. Or all mammals.
Oh boy.... reptiles and mamals was a bad example. We have a rich fossil record of the reptile mammal transition. The Mammal-Like reptiles in fact ruled the terrestrial earth before dinosaurs came about. Can you guess why they are called "mammal-like reptiles?"Look up "therapsids" of "cyanodonts."

All felines would have a single common ancestor, canines their own, frogs their own, etc. with none of the original ancestors being genetically related to each other.
OK. So tell me, do hyenas and tigers have a common ancestor? How about jaguarundies and tigers? What about wolverines and ferrets?

You say that there is no genetic relationship between different "kinds" (if I can use that term). Yet, when we use phylogenetics to make a family tree, all the mammals fit together into a nested hierarchy, whether we use classic comparative anatomy, or genetics. The mammals fit into a single tree with other vertebrates, and the vertebrates fit into a tree with other animals, etc. A nested hierarchy can only be produced by genetic relationship.

I would predict, then, that hybridized species such as these: Hybrid (biology) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediawould only be possible of the same kind of 'species family'. A dog and cat would never hybridize.
Why does a hyena look like a cross between a cat and a dog?

A fertile citrus-berry, canine-feline, or bovine-equine hybrid, for example, would pretty much scrap this whole notion.
How about a bear-dog? Bear dog - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Upvote 0