Has evolution done stopped?

[notto]

The humans in your examples are still humans lucaspa. A bird has always been a bird. And we've been through this before. Darwin said the old species must inevitably die off. There are no maybes.

I remain unconvinced.

As for the DNA. I don't know which genetic code or sequence it is, but I can find out. I can tell you that it is what allows hair to become certain colors, but it doesn't allow hair to become a bird.

Can you provide a source for either of these two claims?

You also seem to be saying that a "bird" is a species?

I remain unconvinced that these are anything but bold assertions without evidence, or that you are not simply misunderstanding the evidence or the statements of Darwin.

Darwin stated that most "old" species will inevitably die off gradually over the course of a long period of time, although sometimes it can happen quickly but this is not the rule. This is straitforward natural selection.

There is no rule in evolution either proposed by Darwin or current theory that is fixed to state that species MUST die off for their decendent species to survive. There would be a long period where both species can coexist, and if the cause of their speciation was geographical isolation, then there is no reason that they cannot exist together.

There have probably been examples where a new species arises from a parent population through isolation and itself becomes extinct while the parent population continues to survive.

Both single species and whole groups of species last for very unequal periods; some groups, as we have seen, have endured from the earliest known dawn of life to the present day; some have disappeared before the close of the palaeozoic period. No fixed law seems to determine the length of time during which any single species or any single genus endures. There is reason to believe that the extinction of a whole group of species is generally a slower process than their production: if their appearance and disappearance be represented, as before, by a vertical line of varying thickness the line is found to taper more gradually at its upper end, which marks the progress of extermination, than at its lower end, which marks the first appearance and the early increase in number of the species. In some cases, however, the extermination of whole groups, as of ammonites, towards the close of the secondary period, has been wonderfully sudden.

Origin of Species
by Charles Darwin
Chapter XI. On the Geological Succession of Organic Beings On extinction

 

[SirKenin]

Can you provide a source for either of these two claims?

I remain unconvinced that these are anything but bold assertions without evidence, or that you are not simply misunderstanding the evidence or the statements of Darwin.

No, I'm not misunderstanding him. I just read the Origin of a Species. Theory of Natural Selection.

From these several considerations I think it inevitably follows, that as new species in the course of time are formed through natural selection, others will become rarer and rarer, and finally extinct. - Charles Darwin. Origin of a Species. C. 4. Natural Selection

And I'm saying that evolution or no evolution, speciation or no speciation, a bird has always been, and will always be, a bird.

 

[Arikay]

Why yes, a thing that is classified as a bird, is always and will always be a bird, because if it evolves too far away from a bird, it wont be called a bird anymore.

However things that werent birds, did evolve to become birds.

 

[SirKenin]

Why yes, a thing that is classified as a bird, is always and will always be a bird, because if it evolves too far away from a bird, it wont be called a bird anymore.

However things that werent birds, did evolve to become birds.

Are you patronizing me???

rofl

 

[Nathan Poe]

Are you patronizing me???

rofl

I think he's mocking you.

in any event, let's look at the Darwin quote you posted:

From these several considerations I think it inevitably follows, that as new species in the course of time are formed through natural selection, others will become rarer and rarer, and finally extinct. - Charles Darwin. Origin of a Species. C. 4. Natural Selection

Bottom line: Natural Selection= New species are created, other species die off. Unless you've seen some dinosaurs lately, I don't see how you could argue against this.

 

[SirKenin]

...I don't see how you could argue against this.

I'm not. I'm using it to support my case

 

[strubenuff]

I hope you're not using Darwin's writings to argue against evolution. Things change over a century and a half. I suggest you read
The Structure of Evolutionary Theory by Stephen Jay Gould.

 

[brie]

"And I'm saying that evolution or no evolution, speciation or no speciation, a bird has always been, and will always be, a bird. "

How does saying a bird will always be a bird have anything to do with speciation? "Birds" constitute a class (Aves). Classes have many orders, orders have many families, families have many genera, and genera have many species. So sure, a population of birds can undergo speciation and still be considered birds.

 

[Philostratus]

I'd like to test an analogy: If one looks at the changes in language over a time (let's take English as the example), one can see a process similar to that of biological evolution.

For each generation, their language is similar to the one before it, yet somehow changed (I'm not a trained linguist, but vowel shifts and so on are presently occuring in each micro-population/culture in every part of the U.S. Btw, regional accents are getting stronger, not weaker). Over a long period of time these similarities seem to nearly vanish. If one looks at Anglo-Saxon (Old English, and I challenge any to do so) they would find it utterly unreadable. Could this language possibly be the root of the language we all speak today?!?!? Well, of course it is.

I could go on and on-- but possibly this could be a counter model to one of transitional fossils to illustrate that the way of our nature produces these kinds of patterns in many areas.

 

[goat37]

"And I'm saying that evolution or no evolution, speciation or no speciation, a bird has always been, and will always be, a bird. "

How does saying a bird will always be a bird have anything to do with speciation? "Birds" constitute a class (Aves). Classes have many orders, orders have many families, families have many genera, and genera have many species. So sure, a population of birds can undergo speciation and still be considered birds.

I would also like to add that there were no birds 250 million years ago, no mammals either. Which means... yep, you quessed it!... Birds came from non-birds, and mammals from non-mammals.

But then I am sure I will get argued back that the earth is only 6,000 years old. I really think the reason that YEC's have such a hard time believing in an old earth is because they cannot comprehend a number that large.

 

[SirKenin]

lol. I for one don't believe in a young earth... But I don't believe that birds evolved from something else either. They can speciate, yes, but they never evolved from a lower lifeform. I have my own theory, one that my Dad shared with me, and that I think makes logical sense. If you could find missing links, ok, fine, but you can't. Even Darwin said that in the absence of same, his theory would be void.

However, all that notwithstanding, there were forces at work, and the earth as a mass is more than likely hundreds of thousands of years old.

 

[notto]

And I'm saying that evolution or no evolution, speciation or no speciation, a bird has always been, and will always be, a bird.

A mammal has always been, and will always be, a mammal.

By that logic, you should have no problem with man evolving along with other apes from a common ancestor. After all, they are still mammals right?

Still waiting to see where Darwin says that species MUST become extinct (this is different than saying that the generaly do become extinct. The MUST seems to indicate some sort of force or cause where the DO simply reports an observation that is obvious from the fossil record and other evidence from biodiversity. It may be that more species have become extinct over time then are currently alive today.

 

[notto]

They can speciate, yes, but they never evolved from a lower lifeform.

So do you consider losing their "fingers", losing their teeth, loosing their boned tail, losing their scales, and gaining enough feathers to allow flight simply "adaptation"?

If there was a non-flying animal with feathers and scales, teeth, and a bony tail alive today, would you consider it a "bird"?

 

[Arikay]

"They can speciate, yes, but they never evolved from a lower lifeform."

You do realize speciation is the final step right? That unless you can show us a mechanism that prevents a certain amount of change, speciation means that lower life forms could become mammals or birds.


"If you could find missing links, ok, fine, but you can't."

Yes you can. There are plenty. Go back a page or so on the forum and you should be able to find a post by Lucaspa that lists many different transitional fossils.

"earth as a mass is more than likely hundreds of thousands of years old."

A couple billion of years old.

lol. I for one don't believe in a young earth... But I don't believe that birds evolved from something else either. They can speciate, yes, but they never evolved from a lower lifeform. I have my own theory, one that my Dad shared with me, and that I think makes logical sense. If you could find missing links, ok, fine, but you can't. Even Darwin said that in the absence of same, his theory would be void.

However, all that notwithstanding, there were forces at work, and the earth as a mass is more than likely hundreds of thousands of years old.

 

[SirKenin]

Still waiting to see where Darwin says that species MUST become extinct (this is different than saying that the generaly do become extinct.

We're not talking "generally do". His exact words were "inevitably". Inevitable means

Impossible to avoid or prevent.

In other words, they must.

 

[SirKenin]

couple billion of years old.

Without evidence, this is merely conjecture. It is only becoming older as the theory of evolution is running out of time and options.

 

[Arikay]

Nope sorry. Speaking of conjecture though.

Maybe a suggestion would be to look at the evidence (as there is some )

Geology and biology are seperate field, although they interlink, geology isnt serving biology in anyway.
Besides life is thought to have come about around 3.8 billion years ago.

Without evidence, this is merely conjecture. It is only becoming older as the theory of evolution is running out of time and options.

 

[Arikay]

Why does this make me think of the "if humans evolved from apes, why are apes still around?" argument.

We're not talking "generally do". His exact words were "inevitably". Inevitable means



In other words, they must.

 

[troodon]

they never evolved from a lower lifeform.

Well I wouldn't call avepod dinosaurs "lower lifeform"s

you could find missing links, ok, fine, but you can't

For reptiles to birds? We can do a pretty good job. (What follows is extremely generalized for simplicity and is not a direct ancestor-descendant description)

Lagosuchus- Semi-bipedal, 5-toed, unknown finger number. Saurischian hip.

Herrerasaurus- Fully bipedal, 4-toed, 4-fingered. Saurischian hip.

Coelophysis- Fully bipedal, 3-toed, 3-fingered. Saurischian hip.

Sinosauropteryx- Fully bipedal, 3-toed, 3-fingered. Hip half way between Saurischian and Avian. Bristley(sp?) fibers along the creatures back (most likely protofeathers).

Sinornithosaurus- Fully bipedal, 3-toed, 3-fingered. Avian hip. Even more feather-like fibers this time all across its arms and body. Some evidence suggests to the presence of more fully developed contour feathers having been present.

Archaeopteryx- Fully bipedal, 3-toed (with semi-reversed hallux), 3 fingered. Avian hip. Down and flight feathers present. Its "wings" are nearly identical to the hands of dromeosaurs.

Confuciusornis- Fully bipedal, 3-toed (fully reversed hallux), inbetween 3 and 2 fingered. More modern looking avian hip. Down and flight feathers present. Extremely shortened tail. Toothless beak.

Generic modern bird- Fully bipedal, 3-toed (I think all have reversed hallux, not sure), fused fingers form a big stump. Modern avian hip. Down and flight feathers. Extremely shortened tail. Toothless beak.

Really the only jump of any measure is from protofeathers to more modern-looking feathers. This is due to the fact that, to my knowledge, there are only two dinosaur bone beds in the entire world that date to the Middle Jurassic (when feathers were probably developed).

 

[euphoric]

We're not talking "generally do". His exact words were "inevitably". Inevitable means



In other words, they must.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you were misunderstanding what you read rather than trying to be dishonest here. You quoted Darwin as follows:

From these several considerations I think it inevitably follows, that as new species in the course of time are formed through natural selection, others will become rarer and rarer, and finally extinct.

- Charles Darwin. Origin of a Species. C. 4. Natural Selection

Even a cursory examination of this quote makes it clear that the word "inevitably" is used to describe the fact that his conclusion follows his premises. In no way does the word, as it is used here, ascribe inevitability to the extinction of ancestral species.

All Darwin is saying here is that when one studies the processes involved, one "inevitably" concludes that, just as new species will appear, other species will become extinct. Only by completely mangling that sentence could you accuse Darwin of stating that extinction of ancestral species is "inevitable."

-brett