Do you agree with these statements?

[Shemjaza]

Although Charles Darwin and others posited that multiple species could evolve from a single common ancestor, the mechanism by which this occurred was not understood, creating the species problem. Ernst Mayr approached the problem with a new definition for species. In his book Systematics and the Origin of Species (1942) he wrote that a species is not just a group of morphologically similar individuals, but a group that can breed only among themselves, excluding all others. WIKIPEDIA.

The aim of all thinking palaeontologists is to fulfil the requirements of this worldwide, common sense definition. Will we stop the fairytales. Mayr's definition, obviously, could be taken almost implicit word for implicit word from the Bible. And from Nature about us. We spent hours learning about the species problem in palaeontology. Now where did I put Geoff. Playford's old notes? 'Phone him up if he's yet alive. Tell him it's a wobbygong calling.

Ever seen lions and tigers?

Can't you accept that they are variations on a single form... but are no longer fully inter fertile?

Time, separation, genetic drift and varied pressures create the distinction between species. This continues over time and deep time evidence like fossils only confirm evidence found in genetics and extant breeding populations.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Although Charles Darwin and others posited that multiple species could evolve from a single common ancestor, the mechanism by which this occurred was not understood, creating the species problem. Ernst Mayr approached the problem with a new definition for species. In his book Systematics and the Origin of Species (1942) he wrote that a species is not just a group of morphologically similar individuals, but a group that can breed only among themselves, excluding all others. WIKIPEDIA.

The aim of all thinking palaeontologists is to fulfil the requirements of this worldwide, common sense definition. Will we stop the fairytales. Mayr's definition, obviously, could be taken almost implicit word for implicit word from the Bible. And from Nature about us. We spent hours learning about the species problem in palaeontology. Now where did I put Geoff. Playford's old notes? 'Phone him up if he's yet alive. Tell him it's a wobbygong calling.

Except that there are no "kinds". If the creation story was true we should be able to find some. Darwin's theory predicts the "species problem". Creationism says that the opposite should be true.

 

[Brightmoon]

Ducks, snakes, bats, ducks, water dragons, e.t.c. Are not tetrapods!

. I don’t know if this was cleared up . But tetrapods and quadruped don’t have the same scientific meaning. . A tetrapod is any land vertebrate that has 4 limbs or whose ancestors had 4 limbs . A quadruped is a vertebrate that WALKS on 4 limbs like Equids ( horses) and felids( cats) . So ducks, snakes, bats, and whales are tetrapods but not quadrupeds and a water dragon is both

 

[Brightmoon]

I'm saying that DNA changes are easy. To get a recognisably different "kind" (as in genus or family) requires quite substantial DNA changes.

Such evolution has been inferred, but never demonstrated. Indeed, it cannot be demonstrated on human timescales (except, perhaps, using computer simulation).

you’ve just demonstrated that you think that Allopolyploid speciation doesn’t happen . Raphanobrassicas ( which is the old name) are exactly what you wanted. The parent species are radish and a cabbage . They are not closely related yet it produced healthy fertile offspring with double the number of chromosomes . The raphanobrassicas are only fertile with other raphanobrassicas not with either parent species. . This kind of speciation (of two completely different species hybridizing and forming a new species ) is common in plants and occasionally does happen in animals. It even been demonstrated in the fossil record with a species of Cerion snails over a few thousand years

 

[inquiring mind]

you’ve just demonstrated that you think that Allopolyploid speciation doesn’t happen . Raphanobrassicas ( which is the old name) are exactly what you wanted. The parent species are radish and a cabbage . They are not closely related yet it produced healthy fertile offspring with double the number of chromosomes . The raphanobrassicas are only fertile with other raphanobrassicas not with either parent species. . This kind of speciation (of two completely different species hybridizing and forming a new species ) is common in plants and occasionally does happen in animals. It even been demonstrated in the fossil record with a species of Cerion snails over a few thousand years

Even so, and I don’t mean to sound smart-alecky, but we’re supposed to take this as evidence that in a similar manner ‘humans’ came about from two unknown ‘ape-like’ creatures???

 

[Subduction Zone]

Even so, and I don’t mean to sound smart-alecky, but we’re supposed to take this as evidence that in a similar manner ‘humans’ came about from two unknown ‘ape-like’ creatures???

No, human evolution was different from that. That was merely an example of one sort of speciation. By the way, there is clear evidence for the fact that humans share a common ancestor with other apes. And since humans are apes of course our common ancestor with chimpanzees was an ape. One cannot evolve out of one's ancestry.

 

[inquiring mind]

No, human evolution was different from that. That was merely an example of one sort of speciation.

For what purpose would it have been intended, other than a human/ape comparison?

By the way, there is clear evidence for the fact that humans share a common ancestor with other apes.

See what I mean. Clear evidence??? Maybe humans just share common building blocks with apes.

 

[Brightmoon]

Even so, and I don’t mean to sound smart-alecky, but we’re supposed to take this as evidence that in a similar manner ‘humans’ came about from two unknown ‘ape-like’ creatures???

since you don’t understand evolution, I guess you don’t know that most of the same processes happen in animal evolution. After all the lineages of plants and animals split apart during the Precambrian while both were unicellular. Seeing an evolutionary process in a close relative certainly doesn’t rule out the process in another lineage .


As far as your misconception of 2 creatures, there are about 26 protohuman species that were either direct ancestors of modern humans or are closely related cousins . These were not in the chimp/bonobo lineage. Species ! Millions of organisms not 2.

 

[inquiring mind]

Millions of organisms not 2.

It would have to eventually boil down to two creatures, wouldn't it? Just like the radish and cabbage?

 

[Brightmoon]

For what purpose would it have been intended, other than a human/ape comparison?


See what I mean. Clear evidence??? Maybe humans just share common building blocks with apes.

. That idea of common building blocks being just a design quirk was blown out of the water during the 1990s when biologists switched eye genes between major lineages and got them to work : Insects, mammals( including humans)and squid . If these were different genes in all lineages that actually would be evidence of separate creation . But the fact our eye formation gene is the same as a fly’s points to common descent. Both humans and flies inherited that gene from a common ancestor . The experiments were also done on other baseline body plan genes : Nervous system formation genes , gut formation genes, limb formation genes etc . The master control eye gene can be traced back to a bacterial light sensing pigment gene. This was 30 years ago . Creationists had ample time to refute it (notice I said refute not lie about)

 

[Subduction Zone]

For what purpose would it have been intended, other than a human/ape comparison?

Because creationists have to deny all sorts of evolution.

See what I mean. Clear evidence??? Maybe humans just share common building blocks with apes.

You probably do not understand the concept of evidence. This is a common problem among creationists. There is no scientific evidence of "common building blocks". Scientific evidence is well defined and in my sig. I got that definition from Wikipedia, but there are many other sources that use essentially the same definition. In the sciences one must put one's money where one's mouth is. One must be willing to be shown wrong, if one is wrong. Creationists cannot quite get themselves to do that. Scientists understand that they are human and came up with a definition of evidence that tries to eliminate personal prejudice and beliefs. To even have evidence one must first have a testable hypothesis. That is where one shows that one really believes in their idea, but still has the higher goal of finding out what is right. Read my sig and then we can discuss why there is clear evidence for evolution and only evolution.

 

[Brightmoon]

It would have to eventually boil down to two creatures, wouldn't it? Just like the radish and cabbage?

radishes and cabbages are in different genera . The offspring is actually a different species which is only fertile with itself not either parent species

the person who oversaw the experiment was trying to get a food plant that had the leaves of a cabbage and the root of a radish . Unfortunately raphanobrassica has the root of a cabbage and the leaves of a radish . But it’s a perfect example of how hybrids can go on to form a third fully fertile healthy species . This process is very common in plants

 

[inquiring mind]

. That idea of common building blocks being just a design quirk was blown out of the water during the 1990s when biologists switched eye genes between major lineages and got them to work : Insects, mammals( including humans)and squid . If these were different genes in all lineages that actually would be evidence of separate creation . But the fact our eye formation gene is the same as a fly’s points to common descent. Both humans and flies inherited that gene from a common ancestor . The experiments were also done on other baseline body plan genes : Nervous system formation genes , gut formation genes, limb formation genes etc . The master control eye gene can be traced back to a bacterial light sensing pigment gene. This was 30 years ago . Creationists had ample time to refute it (notice I said refute not lie about)

If you were making eyes, nervous systems, etc., how many completely different formation genes would you want to make?

 

[inquiring mind]

radishes and cabbages are in different genera . The offspring is actually a different species which is only fertile with itself not either parent species View attachment 280801

the person who oversaw the experiment was trying to get a food plant that had the leaves of a cabbage and the root of a radish . Unfortunately raphanobrassica has the root of a cabbage and the leaves of a radish . But it’s a perfect example of how hybrids can go on to form a third fully fertile healthy species . This process is very common in plants

I understood your point.

 

[Brightmoon]

Why would you share those eye genes with a squid? Or a fly ? Why would you have the same genes for nervous system formation when that nerve cord forms in a different area of the body in a fly . Unlike ours , a fly’s nervous system runs along its ventral ( where our gut would be) side

 

[Subduction Zone]

If you were making eyes, nervous systems, etc., how many completely different formation genes would you want to make?

A perfect designer could and would restart from zero. The genome of species have a history of all sorts of false starts and failed changes in them.

Again, I would suggest learning what is and what is not evidence. It applies to all of the sciences and not just evolution.

 

[inquiring mind]

Why would you share those eye genes with a squid? Or a fly ? Why would you have the same genes for nervous system formation when that nerve cord forms in a different area of the body in a fly . Unlike ours , a fly’s nervous system runs along its ventral side

Of course, my answer is 'I don't know.'

 

[inquiring mind]

A perfect designer could and would restart from zero. The genome of species have a history of all sorts of false starts and failed changes in them.

Again, I would suggest learning what is and what is not evidence. It applies to all of the sciences and not just evolution.

I've learned enough to know that conclusions drawn from evidence are not always fact.

 

[Brightmoon]

If you were making eyes, nervous systems, etc., how many completely different formation genes would you want to make?

Of course, my answer is 'I don't know.'

. But you do know the answer . WE SHARE A COMMON ANCESTRY!

 

[Brightmoon]

Look at your arm , a bat’s wing, a cat’s front leg, a pterosaur’s wing , a whale flipper and a bird’s wing . They all have a common pattern. One bone attached to 2 bones attached to many bones. And that’s duplicated somewhat in the hind limbs. This is under control of the same genes . Even snakes have these limb formation genes but they’ve been shut off.

Here’s a very good video that explains briefly how limbs form in a bilaterian ( everything with a head, anus and a left and right side(roughly everything from worms to humans)
(As an aside bilaterians includes starfish they look like that as juveniles )