Because if we hadn't, all species would converge on the same bodyplan.
Isn't it obvious to you that as terrestrial, bipedal omnivores, we undergo different selection pressures than, say, benthic, marine filter-feeders?
Upvote
0
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.
Because if we hadn't, all species would converge on the same bodyplan.Back to OP. How do you know "we have undergone different selection pressures"?
And why would that be?Because if we hadn't, all species would converge on the same bodyplan.
Isn't it obvious to you that as terrestrial, bipedal omnivores, we undergo different selection pressures than, say, benthic, marine filter-feeders?
Because if selection pressures were similar, we would all evolve to fill the same niche. We see this type of convergent evolution throughout the animal kingdom.And why would that be?
Because it has been shown empirically over and over again. Competition for resources leads to divergent phenotypes. This is the significance of Darwin's finch study.But how do you know that we are different because of different selection pressures?
But how do you know that?? It's a big supposition, I think.Because if selection pressures were similar, we would all evolve to fill the same niche.
But to what extent are divergent phenotypes different?Because it has been shown empirically over and over again. Competition for resources leads to divergent phenotypes. This is the significance of Darwin's finch study.
I think you're mistaken that this whole concept of natural selection can be tested empirically so as to explain all the different species, families, orders, etc..Do you have a better explanation that can be tested empirically? What problem do you have with natural selection if most other creationists accept it, too?
If you have a better explanation that can be tested, feel free to provide one. In the meantime, methinks you are disagreeing for the sole purpose of being argumentative.I didn't say that I don't accept natural selection. Not at all. But it doesn't explain at all why all the differences exist.
Sorry, I am willing to learn, but if I can't make heads or tails out of your fancy story, it must be above my capabilities.....
Now, you said you came to conclusions. How did you?
Keep thinking.If you have a better explanation that can be tested, feel free to provide one. In the meantime, methinks you are disagreeing for the sole purpose of being argumentative.
Warg! I'm going to have to go through the entirety of post #183 again, slower this time. Let's start with the first two paragraphs:
Take a look, however, at life. Suppose I try to create a classification system in which I start by lumping cats and lizards together in a category, and everything else in a different category. How might I justify that? Absolutely no way. (Other than the trivial justification "I said so!") For in what morphological characteristics are cats and lizards more similar to each other than anything else? Are they both tetrapedal? But so are dogs and goannas and dinosaurs and rabbits and people. Do both have jaws? But so do all fish and all mammals. Do they have segmented bodies? (Yes, they do. Your fancy textbook should have something about that under embryonic development.)* So do all the other, uh, animals that have segmented bodies (can't remember the technical name offhand), all the way from whales to worms.
As a matter of fact, the smallest set of all living organisms that would contain both cats and lizards is the set Reptilia inclusive - namely the union of Reptilia, Aves, and Mammalia. Let's call this big set Felidasauri. (Heh heh.) [EDIT: The proper name for this taxonomic clade is Diapsida; nevertheless, I preserve the original "name" to show where it came from.]
Is this, or is this not, true? Is there any way to group cats and lizards together, under which you do not have to include the rest of all reptiles, birds and mammals because they look similar? Note that I am NOT saying that similarity, by itself, must show evolutionary development. Even a creationist like you should be able to acknowledge and agree that, say, dogs are far more similar to cats than lizards, without accepting that evolution has any part to do with it. (The logic of evolution comes not in the similarities but in the distribution of similarities.)
So is the smallest taxonomical set that can fit the cats and lizards together Reptilia inclusive - that is, does it have to include all reptiles, birds, and mammals? Or can you think of a smaller taxonomical set (based purely on taxonomical features) that incorporates them both?
But when you use the word "previous" here, you certainly have to do with "advancement". Well you "know" then. Good for you. And why do you want to accuse me of conflation and what not? Why so defensive?
You mean you don't know what "must have come from" means? This is becoming quite silly.
No, I don't. But do you feel more biologically advanced then your ancestors the chimps, or even "more simple" life forms as Darwin put it?
My belief in God is not subject to "science". So the answer is no.
And it doesn't say anything about whether "primordial soup" is a good recipe for the origin of life.
What does "natural selection" mean then?
Well it is not really measurable in my opinion.
But that "natural selection" was apparently not able to delete the particular variant from the population.
No, it is the desired trend of progress observed by looking back. (if the word "origin" has any meaning at all). It is first and foremost about "the origin of species", possibly even from the origin of life to the origin of families and orders etc..
But you contradict yourself when you say: "Biologists don't evaluate any species as being better than others.", because that's what the notion of natural selection is all about! Didn't you say "better adapted"??
No, I don't.
That's the point we are trying to make.
Evolution does not imply value judgments of the quality of different species.
As a human being I have capabilities (notably intellectual) which a chimp does not have. By the same token, chimps have capabilities which I do not have. As do many other species.
Well, that's just micro evolution.It means that in any set of natural circumstances, some members of a species will be more successful at surviving and reproducing than others. Since nature is a complex phenomenon, this can refer to a great many different particular items. One hunter may be quicker or stealthier or stronger than another and so be better able to nourish itself and its family. One potential prey may be quicker, quieter, better camouflaged, more alert, etc. and so better able to escape being dinner. One organism may be better able to fend off infection, tolerate light, cold, drought, (or in marine environments, pressure, saltiness) etc. One male may have more success attracting a mate. For myriads of different reasons, in different situations, not every organism in a species is equally successful in producing progeny, especially progeny which themselves survive into and through their own reproductive cycle.
Those who are the most successful reproducers pass on their genes to a larger proportion of the next generation than their peers, and it is their genes which eventually dominate in the species.
To what extend? That is not measurable.The repetition of this pattern, generation after generation, changes the characteristics of the species.
Have they measured to what extend n.s. contributes to changing (adding and deleting includes) genes?Scientists can and have measured natural selection.
So, if the genetic info still exists, then we don't have much change do we?So what? Evolution is the change in the frequency in which a given trait appears. Whether the trait is eliminated or not is irrelevant. Even when it is, to all intents and purposes, eliminated as a phenotype, the genetic information usually still exists. And natural selection has no effect on genetic information which is not expressed. So, while an unfavorable trait may become quite rare, it is seldom completely eliminated.
Well, take Darwin's assumption that life went from simple to more complex forms: he observed that trend of progress. Since then mulitudes of scientist have sought to confirm this: desired to show the trend of progress: evolution. Therefore Darwin gave his book this title: Origin of species.Sorry, if I am being dense here, but I don't get what you are driving at. You claim this "desired trend of progress" is not observed in any case, but if anyone is desiring to see such a trend, they must be looking for it. What is it you assume they are looking for and not finding?
Do you believe that species originated out of previous existing different species or not?No, adaptation is quite a different thing than one species being better than another. A species may become more efficient, via evolution, at using the natural resources available to it. But since there are thousands upon thousands of different ecological niches in as many geographical regions, being "better adapted" is always a relative term. "Better adapted" to which set of environmental pressures? in which ecological niche? compared to what similar species?
I was just reading today about tiny wasps whose larvae feed parasitically on the larvae of other wasps that make their home inside the body of a certain kind of caterpiller which feeds on a certain plant that lives parasitically on another plant. Now that is a pretty specialized adaptation.
Does it make this species of wasp better than another species of wasp adapted to a different life-style? Does it make wasps in general better than moths in general? Or insects better than mollusks?
In reference to one specific set of ecological opportunities and constraints, one may judge species A better adapted than species B. But that is as far as it goes.
Natural selection does bring about better adaptation in this sense.
For what it's worth, you're the one who equated evolution with 'advancement' in your post here (to which I replied in kind with a rhetorical question):Please note that "biological advancement" came from Mallon and that's why I responded that way. If you want to make a point, take it up with him.
And you saying "Current species have come from previous species in their same genus, family, etc." involves exactly what you're contesting "advancement".
If you could just tell me what that "quote function" is, then please spill the beans.
Yes, you're just a little different from the chimps (your ancestors?), I presume. (unless you are a chimp, which I have no way of knowing of course)
Who was talking about "value judgment"??? But when you use the word "previous" here, you certainly have to do with "advancement".
Well you "know" then. Good for you. And why do you want to accuse me of conflation and what not? Why so defensive?
I still don't understand what the real issue is. Why would I care about wanting to include lizards and cats in one class?
Well, that's just micro evolution.
To what extend? That is not measurable.
Have they measured to what extend n.s. contributes to changing (adding and deleting includes) genes?
So, if the genetic info still exists, then we don't have much change do we?
Well, take Darwin's assumption that life went from simple to more complex forms: he observed that trend of progress.
Do you believe that species originated out of previous existing different species or not?
I still don't understand what the real issue is. Why would I care about wanting to include lizards and cats in one class?
I guess we have to accept that on your authority? Not! I really have to wonder why several of you evolutionists are taking this to such absurdities. "Value judgment"???You were. You cited the definition and tried to conflate biological evolution with the colloquial definition. "Previous" is not synonymous with "advancement" by the way. One is a chronological evaluation while the other is a value judgement.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?