Evolution in action

[Mallon]

Is English your first language, juvie?

 

[Tinker Grey]

Apparently, the first lesson of pedagogy is obfuscation.

 

[shernren]

Apparently, the first lesson of pedagogy is obfuscation.

Hey, that's not in the lecture notes!

 

[Mick116]

Thought I'd jump in and say: I have absolutely no idea what is happening in this thread. Started well, what, with the interesting little experiment and all... a quip about bacteria reproducing after their kind... some unusual views on controlled experimentation... then what? Dogs getting it on with cats, with a side order of vagueness and obscurity? What's going on here people?

Here's hoping the thread'll evolve into something meaningful, or else go extinct.

No offense to anyone here btw, just tellin' it like it is... bless ya

 

[juvenissun]

Is English your first language, juvie?

Is this question related to evolution?

 

[Mallon]

Is this question related to evolution?

No, but it is a genuine question.
Is English your native tongue? I've often wondered.

 

[juvenissun]

Thought I'd jump in and say: I have absolutely no idea what is happening in this thread. Started well, what, with the interesting little experiment and all... a quip about bacteria reproducing after their kind... some unusual views on controlled experimentation... then what? Dogs getting it on with cats, with a side order of vagueness and obscurity? What's going on here people?

Here's hoping the thread'll evolve into something meaningful, or else go extinct.

No offense to anyone here btw, just tellin' it like it is... bless ya

It is all about controlled experiment. Mallon thought the result of a controlled experiment shed light to the truth of evolution. I said you can make anything happen in a controlled experiment, except evolution.

 

[Mallon]

Do you know why we do controlled experiments, juvie? I would like to hear your take on the matter.

 

[USincognito]

In a controlled experiment, one could have a dog interbreed with a cat with >90% of chance. How would this result be significant to the theory of evolution, except saying that it won't happen in the natural environment?

Juv, a number of your replies to this response have been, shall we say, enigmatic at best, but let me try and put my laymans spin on what you are asking.

If, in a controlled experiment, a dog could interbreed with a cat (and, for arguments sake, let's say you're referring to a miniature schnauzer and a housecat*) we would first need to determine whether there was something that allowed domesticated species separated by millions of years of evolution for the root species that facilitated that interbreeding. Unless genetic analysis showed "ahah! X (or Y and Z) mutations showed why these evolutionarily disparate species could mate, we would have to scrap evolutionary theory, and start over again. They simply should not have the genetic capability to mate...

Which leads me to a fatal flaw in your scenario. Female housecats don't ovulate until stimulated by a penile barb on the male housecat. No matter how much sperm was introduced into the female housecat, unless the mounting male species had developed a penile barb, she would never ovulate and would thus never breed successfully... and there would have to be some genetic explanation for why the successful male dog had or evolved a penile barb, thus we'd either have the genetic data to correct the phylogeny of Canids or we'd know that a new species of dog had evolved.

Let me conclude with a piece of advice... if you want to make scientific arguments, you should probably know all the scientific minutae of your argument before making it.

* If you're referring to, say, a fox and a jaguar, you're talking more Island of Dr. Moreau than you are of lab experiments and then just engaging in wild speculation... no pun intended.

 

[juvenissun]

Do you know why we do controlled experiments, juvie? I would like to hear your take on the matter.

Do you have a better question? A middle school kid could answer that. Would that be lesson 1 in teaching a science lab? I don't even bother to mention it in the freshman class.

 

[Mallon]

Do you have a better question? A middle school kid could answer that. Would that be lesson 1 in teaching a science lab? I don't even bother to mention it in the freshman class.

You're stalling.

 

[Mick116]

It is all about controlled experiment. Mallon thought the result of a controlled experiment shed light to the truth of evolution. I said you can make anything happen in a controlled experiment, except evolution.

Surely the experiment sheds some light on a mechanism of so-called "micro"evolution (a concept creationists seem quite comfortable with)? We have also observed evolution taking place via "artifical selection" in breeding dogs, for example. Unfortunately, we would not likely see such rapid selection in nature; what has taken 20 years in a controlled environment could take hundreds or thousands of years in nature, and the logistics of undertaking a meaningful scientific study over so many years is obviously untenable.

 

[Mick116]

Unfortunately, we would not likely see such rapid selection in nature; what has taken 20 years in a controlled environment could take hundreds or thousands of years in nature, and the logistics of undertaking a meaningful scientific study over so many years is obviously untenable.

Fortunately we can undertake meaningful scientific study of the fossil remains of organisms that once existed, the current distributions of contemporary organisms, and the interrelationships between taxa based on genetic and morphological features.

 

[juvenissun]

Juv, a number of your replies to this response have been, shall we say, enigmatic at best, but let me try and put my laymans spin on what you are asking.

If, in a controlled experiment, a dog could interbreed with a cat (and, for arguments sake, let's say you're referring to a miniature schnauzer and a housecat*) we would first need to determine whether there was something that allowed domesticated species separated by millions of years of evolution for the root species that facilitated that interbreeding. Unless genetic analysis showed "ahah! X (or Y and Z) mutations showed why these evolutionarily disparate species could mate, we would have to scrap evolutionary theory, and start over again. They simply should not have the genetic capability to mate...

Which leads me to a fatal flaw in your scenario. Female housecats don't ovulate until stimulated by a penile barb on the male housecat. No matter how much sperm was introduced into the female housecat, unless the mounting male species had developed a penile barb, she would never ovulate and would thus never breed successfully... and there would have to be some genetic explanation for why the successful male dog had or evolved a penile barb, thus we'd either have the genetic data to correct the phylogeny of Canids or we'd know that a new species of dog had evolved.

Let me conclude with a piece of advice... if you want to make scientific arguments, you should probably know all the scientific minutae of your argument before making it.

* If you're referring to, say, a fox and a jaguar, you're talking more Island of Dr. Moreau than you are of lab experiments and then just engaging in wild speculation... no pun intended.

I was trying to say: "interbreed between human and chimp", which indeed happened a few times in history. For the sake of saving some human dignity, I arbitrarily substituted it by convenient choices of dog and cat. This illustration should be a non-issue regards to the theme of the OP.

The main point is that a well controlled experiment may not bear any practical meaning. That was my point in my first post on this thread. Any confusion took place after that was not caused by me.

 

[Mallon]

The main point is that a well controlled experiment may not bear any practical meaning.

Why not? What is the point of doing controlled experiments at all if they have no practical meaning? Please be specific as it relates to the one in question. You've been very ambiguous thus far.

 

[USincognito]

I was trying to say: "interbreed between human and chimp", which indeed happened a few times in history.

While I've heard/read that the Soviets tried some interbreeding, no successful attempt was ever demonstrated. Those attempts failed for the same reason genetically that cat/dog interbreeding would have (if the anatomical issue with the queen cats didn't exist) - we're significantly different genetically that if, somehow, a egg was fertilized, it would spontaneously abort at some point. Humans have 46 chromosomes while chimpanzees have 48.

Ironically it's the difference that show's we share a common ancestor with them.

 

[juvenissun]

Why not? What is the point of doing controlled experiments at all if they have no practical meaning? Please be specific as it relates to the one in question. You've been very ambiguous thus far.

Go back to post #6, and your answer to it.

 

[juvenissun]

While I've heard/read that the Soviets tried some interbreeding, no successful attempt was ever demonstrated. Those attempts failed for the same reason genetically that cat/dog interbreeding would have (if the anatomical issue with the queen cats didn't exist) - we're significantly different genetically that if, somehow, a egg was fertilized, it would spontaneously abort at some point. Humans have 46 chromosomes while chimpanzees have 48.

Ironically it's the difference that show's we share a common ancestor with them.

Well, National Geographic (or the History channel ?) reported that some speculations said the Big Foot is one of the result.

 

[Mallon]

Go back to post #6, and your answer to it.

I checked your post #6. Here's what you said:

First, it is very rare, even under controlled experiment.

Second, what are the conditions under control? Would these conditions be possibly met (all at once) in natural environment?

The only assertion that you make is that beneficial mutations are rare. Not only did we already know this, but this also does not answer my question about why you think controlled experiments are of no value in trying to understand the world. Methinks you have no idea what you're talking about, juvie.

How about the other neocreationists? What do they think of this story and its implications?

 

[juvenissun]

I checked your post #6. Here's what you said:



The only assertion that you make is that beneficial mutations are rare. Not only did we already know this, but this also does not answer my question about why you think controlled experiments are of no value in trying to understand the world. Methinks you have no idea what you're talking about, juvie.

How about the other neocreationists? What do they think of this story and its implications?

You put A LOT of words into my mouth. I refuse to reply.