Evolution happens

[Shemjaza]

Sounds like you can't answer my question and have resorted to guessing.

It's not a guess, it's just how time and inheritance works.

If I have descendants in 10000 years time living in a habitat on Mars... they will have still had a great-great-great ancestor living in Australia in the 20th and 21st centuries.

If a human can evolve from a fish, why can't a non-dog evolve from a dog?

A human is still a vertebrate like its fish ancestor. In fact we are still in the taxon or class "Sarcopterygii", named for lobe finned fish.

If we had enough variation and enough time for dogs to have varied considerably from what we currently call a canine we'd have to create new sub categories... but "canine" would still be in its chain of clades.

 

[Buzzard3]

Post deleted

 

[Mr Laurier]

Sounds like you can't answer my question and have resorted to guessing.

If a human can evolve from a fish, why can't a non-dog evolve from a dog?

Ah yes, The capital IF presupposition.
Now you just need to to show that a human CAN evolve from a fish

 

[Mr Laurier]

A "creationists (sic) view of evolution"?

If a human can evolve from a fish, why can't a non-dog evolve from a dog?

Capital IF presupposition.
Show that a human CAN evolve from a fish. Start there

 

[AV1611VET]

Show that a human CAN evolve from a fish. Start there

We're More Like Primitive Fishes Than Once Believed, New Research Shows

 

[ruthiesea]

A "creationists (sic) view of evolution"?

If a human can evolve from a fish, why can't a non-dog evolve from a dog?

It can over time. There have to be sufficient genetic changes for science to create a new family category. However, the family Canidae will still be in it’s family tree as well as Canidae genes.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

There seems to be different definitions of "the Theory of Evolution". Some would say that "all living things on Earth share common ancestors" is a not the ToE, but a conclusion of ToE.

There's a single theory of evolution, but you're right that common ancestry is an implication of it, not strictly part of the theory.

The theory is compatible with life on Earth deriving from more than one original ancestor - life could have arisen independently more than once. But if that were the case, we'd expect some fundamental differences between the different branches arising from each original ancestor.

In practice, we don't see that - all life on Earth shares fundamental features in common, so the implication is that even if life did arise independently more than once, only the branches from one original ancestor remain.

 

[AV1611VET]

But if that were the case, we'd expect some fundamental differences between the different branches arising from each original ancestor.

Like being different kinds? meaning they can't mix and match with one another?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Evolution through imperfections ... sounds like an oxymoron.

Only to those who don't understand the mechanism of evolution.

If every creature was a perfect copy of its ancestor there would be no evolution. Sexual reproduction could produce some variation in that situation, but would never evolve...

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Like being different kinds? meaning they can't mix and match with one another?

No. Different 'kinds', whether that means species, genera, or families, are clearly the result of diversification from a common ancestor. I'm talking about the fundamental construction of living things; molecular structure, mechanisms, genetic material, etc.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

So, the human brain is the result of genetic imperfections. That's hilarious!

And genetic imperfections are somehow responsible for producing eyes that somehow produced nerves that somehow connected to a brain, which is also the result of genetic imperfections. Wow, that's some theory!

Yup - none of that could have happened if genetic copying was perfect.

The variations in genetic code from generation to generation mean variations between individuals in each generation - most make little difference, some are disadvantageous, some advantageous. Individuals with advantageous variations will, overall, contribute more offspring to subsequent generations, so those advantageous genetic variations are more likely to be passed on and spread in the population.

 

[AV1611VET]

No. Different 'kinds', whether that means species, genera, or families, are clearly the result of diversification from a common ancestor. I'm talking about the fundamental construction of living things; molecular structure, mechanisms, genetic material, etc.

Help me understand this.

You would expect the DNA of each and every kind (genus) -- plant and animal -- to be different by factors so large they can't be linked with anything other than a creator?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

When I remember that I evolved from some kind of ape, I feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

As long as you're not warm and fuzzy on the outside...

Biologically speaking, like all humans, you are an ape.

 

[AV1611VET]

Biologically speaking, like all humans, you are an ape.

Including Jesus?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Help me understand this.

You would expect the DNA of each and every kind (genus) -- plant and animal -- to be different by factors so large they can't be linked with anything other than a creator?

I'm not entirely sure what you mean, but no, that's not what I'm saying.

If there was more than one original ancestor, i.e. life arose more than once (if it can arise once, why not more than once?) then the chances of it using identical building blocks in identical ways, e.g. the same DNA or RNA bases, the same transcription mechanisms, etc., seem remote.

So if any extant branches of life were derived from a different initial origin than other branches, we'd expect to see fundamental differences in the biology of those creatures. We don't see that.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Including Jesus?

If Jesus was human, yes.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I don't understand why a creature can't theoretically evolve out of its ancestry

Because ancestry means who/what you are descended from; that never changes. A twig on a tree can't move to a different branch.

With evolution, a lot of small changes can add up over millions of years to very large differences, but the ancestral lineage never changes, it just gets extended with new descendants.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Anything is possible in theory. In practice, another thing entirely.

No; the only things possible in theory are things compatible with the theory. Changing your ancestors isn't possible.

 

[AV1611VET]

So if any extant branches of life were derived from a different initial origin than other branches, we'd expect to see fundamental differences in the biology of those creatures. We don't see that.

Isn't that a circular argument?

Let's back up to the Creation Week.

Every genus (okay, I'll use technobabble) ... every genus appears on the earth within a three-day period.

Some of these genera have DNA that are closer to others than others have.

Like ape DNA and human DNA.

And because of these similarities, evolutionists dispute "instant creation"?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Some of these genera have DNA that are closer to others than others have.

Why?

What purpose does it serve?