Why do people call it the "Theory of Evolution"?

[Split Rock]

Why do i need to present this info when it is you that suggest that DNA gets new info When all you show is deletions duplicastion and lose ect. none which is new info just the same read different. I can say just the same as you in that it isnt and you say it is because we can not prove either or for fact. We do not know all about the DNA as of yet or ever so it is all still speculation on our parts.

You have been given examples of increase in information in DNA, but are denying that the info can increase. It is thus valid to ask you what an increase in information would look like. Unless of course, you are simply going to say no matter what is done to the DNA, it will never increase in information, just because you want it to be that way. Also, we don't know everything about DNA, but we know enough to patent genetically engineered organisms, so you can't use the "well DNA is all a big mystery" answer.

 

[MarkT]

And since orangutans, gorillas, chimps and humans are all in the same family (Hominidae), we all share the same pool, right?

Wrong. Humans don't belong to the ape family.

Now precisely why are families of the same order consigned to different pools? Why can there not be a single pool for an order?

Because anything that came from the pool would have to look alot like the parent.

Cats and dogs, for example, can not come from the same pool even though they're both carnivores.

Take frogs and toads, for example. If a pool is limited to a family, thats 30 different pools for various frog/toad families. Why can't they all share one pool for the whole order Anura?

No. I wouldn't say there are 30 different pools for the toad/frog family. Toads and frogs belong to one kind; amphibians. There's probably one pool for frogs and one for toads.

 

[william jay schroeder]

We don't need to evolve from Eukaryotes. We are eukaryotes. Every cell in your body is a eukaryotic cell.

Of course, at first (for about a billion years) all eukaryotes were single-celled organisms. More complex than bacteria, but still unicellular. What they did was diversify into many different types of eukaryotes called Protista.

Some Protista became multicellular and that is the origin of the three great multicellular kingdoms: plants, fungi and animals. Unicellular green algae are most closely related to plants. They are more like plants than any other eukaryotes. Choanoflagellata are very closely related to animals. You can see choanoflagellate-type cells called choanocytes in Sponges.

so we came from Protista, which formed plants fungi and animals. and monerans were separet from them. So there were monerans, and Eukaryotic cells , which formed protists which then formed the rest of the kingdoms. But you still need to figure out were they came from since they didnt come from bacteria which is said to be the very first living organism. Protist live only in water i believe so they had to of somehow gotten a trait to live out of water obviously by a mutation, but then if it did this i dont think it would live long. I think i might study this a whilke and see what i get from it. It is interesting stuff i must admit, even if i dont think the theory is right.

 

[MarkT]

Being able to eat nylon when you couldn't before is a new character. Being able to resist a plague your neighbours can't is a new character. And they are caused by mutations, just like a deepened jaw.

All of these are examples of evolution in action.

There's no difference that can be seen and that's what a new character is.

 

[notto]

Wrong. Humans don't belong to the ape family.



Because anything that came from the pool would have to look alot like the parent.

Cats and dogs, for example, can not come from the same pool even though they're both carnivores.



No. I wouldn't say there are 30 different pools for the toad/frog family. Toads and frogs belong to one kind; amphibians. There's probably one pool for frogs and one for toads.

Why one pool for frogs and toads as amphibians but two for man and gorilla as apes?

 

[gluadys]

Wrong. Humans don't belong to the ape family.

There is no ape family. The family is Hominidae (or hominid) and includes all the species I listed: orangutan, gorilla, chimps (2 species) and humans.

Because anything that came from the pool would have to look alot like the parent.

Cats and dogs, for example, can not come from the same pool even though they're both carnivores.

If we are limiting the pool to the family you are correct. But that doesn't explain why the pool could not be at the level of order rather than family. All carnivores are similar. That is why they are grouped in the same order. I am sure you would agree that cats are more like dogs than either is like a deer.

As for offspring needing to look a lot like the parent, that is just as much a prescription for making the pool smaller. Do dachshund parents have pups that look like poodles? Do Siamese cat parents have Persian kittens? If appearance is the key, why do you not insist that they have separate pools instead of coming from the same one?

No. I wouldn't say there are 30 different pools for the toad/frog family. Toads and frogs belong to one kind; amphibians. There's probably one pool for frogs and one for toads.

What you would or wouldn't say is irrelevant. You can't just make this stuff up out of your head. You have to apply criteria systematically. That is what taxonomists do. And there are 30 different taxonomic families of frogs and toads.

Amphibians is a class which contains all of those families plus another 16 or so families of salamanders, newts and caecilians.

So if you want to say all amphibians are one kind, you have over 40 families in that kind. Whereas orangutans, gorillas, chimps and humans are all in one family.

So how do you decide (other than by gut feeling which doesn't count) how big a pool you begin with? Why does one kind include a whole class of over 40 families, while another family is split into at least 2 kinds?

 

[MarkT]

William

God is a God of order not disorder so i would very much agree that we all share many of the same charaistics. All these simple organism are still around and havent changed much at all. Bacteria supposidly the first organism hasnt changed and is even in side of us. Its a fact that bacteria cant become nothing more then a bacteria and all the other simple cell organism are the same. We have never seen them change to anything else no matter how hard we have tried in the labs to make them. This i quess doesnt bother you. And the change i am looking for is a mutation to change the reptile to a mammmal. like the kidney to excrete urea instead of uric acid, the diaphram to be created as well as the mammary glands and breasts and nibbles, the imbilicalcord the overies, and such. All these the reptiles do not even have or express in any way, So this would be to me NEW information.

Yep.

Even though they probably evolved over billions of years, protozoans are still protozoans.

They haven't change in appearance and they still belong to the same kind.

It must have been some special species of protozoa that evolved into everything.

 

[MarkT]

There is no ape family. The family is Hominidae (or hominid) and includes all the species I listed: orangutan, gorilla, chimps (2 species) and humans.

Orangutans, gorillas and chimps are apes. I can't argue with you if you insist on including humans into the ape kind. Humans are not a kind of ape. That's what this discussion boils down to. I can't argue with your teachers.

If we are limiting the pool to the family you are correct. But that doesn't explain why the pool could not be at the level of order rather than family. All carnivores are similar. That is why they are grouped in the same order. I am sure you would agree that cats are more like dogs than either is like a deer.

Similarities are for classifying things. I could classify the things on my desk. So what does that prove? Cats do not look like dogs. You can put them into a category but it doesn't mean they come from the same gene pool.

As for offspring needing to look a lot like the parent, that is just as much a prescription for making the pool smaller. Do dachshund parents have pups that look like poodles? Do Siamese cat parents have Persian kittens? If appearance is the key, why do you not insist that they have separate pools instead of coming from the same one?

It's called variation.

What you would or wouldn't say is irrelevant. You can't just make this stuff up out of your head. You have to apply criteria systematically. That is what taxonomists do. And there are 30 different taxonomic families of frogs and toads.

You don't think they're just counting species and subspecies?

Amphibians is a class which contains all of those families plus another 16 or so families of salamanders, newts and caecilians.

If you want to follow what I'm saying, "Amphibian" is a kind.

So if you want to say all amphibians are one kind, you have over 40 families in that kind. Whereas orangutans, gorillas, chimps and humans are all in one family.

I started with a gene pool and it would make sense that frogs belong to one family. I don't know. Maybe it would include toads because they look like frogs. But you can think what you want.

I'm not arguing with your teachers.

Humans are not a kind of ape.

So how do you decide (other than by gut feeling which doesn't count) how big a pool you begin with? Why does one kind include a whole class of over 40 families, while another family is split into at least 2 kinds?

I don't decide on how big the pool is. The pool doesn't have a size. I never said all the amphibians came out of the same pool. They're the same kind but they're not related by descent to a common ancestor.

The apes haven't speciated as much recently, unlike frogs, probably because they have become so specialized. This would indicate they are, like the Dodo bird, near extinction. They are a subspecies of a subspecies of a subspecies. Jungles make alot of variation possible in a short time so perhaps there used to be alot of variation.

 

[†(ÎXØ¥Ê)†]

Wow this thread is getting huge.... It seems as though neither side can come out on top...

An endless battle of your word vs. my word...

 

[Carico]

It cannot be a theory...
In order for it to be classified as a theory, scientists must be able to reproduce their findings.

So technically, evolution is just a hypothesis; is it not?

Of course it is. It's a "what if..." game, and one of the biggest most intricate "what if" games evern invented...except for possibly "Lord Of The Rings."

 

[Physics_guy]

Humans are not a kind of ape.

Why is this so hard for some to accept? Is it ego? Is it pride?

 

[MarkT]

Why is this so hard for some to accept? Is it ego? Is it pride?

No. It's because animals don't give birth to new orders/kinds. They don't even give birth to new families.

Dogs don't give birth to cats even though they are both carivores. Dogs don't give birth to any carivore. They give birth to a dog.

So the gene pool must be limited to family.

If that's true then there can't be branching. You can't start with a family and branch out to another family.

Therefore to get a human, you have to start out with a family of humans.

Humans and apes aren't the same for the same reason dogs and cats aren't the same. Different families.

I don't know why they put humans in with apes.

Maybe it's because there's so little speciation going on. They put frogs into different families even though the differences are small because frogs speciate rapidly compared to humans and apes.

Apes may have reached the end of the line.

And human populations don't have the time or the space to speciate. They take too long to reproduce. They don't reproduce in numbers like frogs and insects do.

Frogs and insects are more successful at speciation.

So just because the classification system doesn't show humans and apes belong to different families because it can't, I'm confident they do.

 

[jwu]

No. It's because animals don't give birth to new orders/kinds. They don't even give birth to new families.

Dogs don't give birth to cats even though they are both carivores. Dogs don't give birth to any carivore. They give birth to a dog.

Actually, if you saw a dog giving birth to a cat, evolution would be disproven in an instant. That's simply not how it works.

A being will always give birth to something of its own species. It can be slightly different, but it's still the same species, as this does not require to be totally identical.

So A gives birth to a slightly different B. B is a member of the same species as A.


Then B gives birth to a slightly different C. C is a member of the same species as B.

Then C gives birth to a slightly different D. D is a member of the same species as C.

...
...
...


Then X gives birth to a slightly different Y. Y is a member of the same species as X.

But meanwhile changes have accumulated - Y is no longer the same species as A.

If you go even further, then XYGHT can eben be a member of a different family (anew family, not another already existing family as in your dog and cat example) than its ancestral AAAAA

This is even compatible to the biblical "and they shall bring forth after their own kind". That's a recursive definition, it just states that a child will always be a member of the same kind as its parents. However, the definitions of these kinds are reset with every new generation.

jwu

 

[MarkT]

So A gives birth to a slightly different B. B is a member of the same species as A.


Then B gives birth to a slightly different C. C is a member of the same species as B.

Then C gives birth to a slightly different D. D is a member of the same species as C.

If B is a member of the same species as A and C is a member of the same species as B, then C is a member of the same species as A.

 

[jwu]

Not necessarily. Let me use colors as an example (see attachment).

We actually know of similar things in nature. They are called "ring species". An individual of population A can breed with an individual of B, B can breed with an individual of population C, but C cannot breed with A.

jwu

 

[Split Rock]

Similarities are for classifying things. I could classify the things on my desk. So what does that prove? Cats do not look like dogs. You can put them into a category but it doesn't mean they come from the same gene pool.

Do you really think that scientists are as arbitrary as you? There are not. If they were, no one would be able to agree on a common classification system.

Humans are not a kind of ape.

Is this a conclusion or a predetermined dogma?

I started with a gene pool and it would make sense that frogs belong to one family. I don't know. Maybe it would include toads because they look like frogs. But you can think what you want.

If you want to follow what I'm saying, "Amphibian" is a kind.

I don't decide on how big the pool is. The pool doesn't have a size. I never said all the amphibians came out of the same pool. They're the same kind but they're not related by descent to a common ancestor.

You are not making any kind of sense. What do you mean by "same kind," if they are not related by a common ancestor?

 

[gluadys]

There's no difference that can be seen and that's what a new character is.

But the difference CAN be seen. In the behaviour (eating nylon which it couldn't do before) and in the DNA sequence where the mutation is visible.

 

[gluadys]

Orangutans, gorillas and chimps are apes. I can't argue with you if you insist on including humans into the ape kind. Humans are not a kind of ape. That's what this discussion boils down to. I can't argue with your teachers.

There is a fairly simple way to determine whether or not humans are apes. You make a list of the generic characteristics of apes. You do not include any character which is specific to one type of ape such as the saggital crest of gorillas. Or even a character common to some apes but not to all. This leaves you with only species common to all apes.

Now which of those characters are lacking in humans? If humans do not have some of the essential characters of apes, they are not apes. But if they have the characteristics of apes, then they are apes.

Similarities are for classifying things. I could classify the things on my desk. So what does that prove? Cats do not look like dogs. You can put them into a category but it doesn't mean they come from the same gene pool.

By whose standard? An ostrich might think cats look a lot like dogs. They both have four feet, hair, diversified teeth including some wicked incisors, claws, a tail, mammary glands in the female, etc. etc. Sure there are some differences. Cats have retractable claws, better night vision and a rough rather than a smooth tongue. Some dogs have floppy ears and some have a pug nose and they show more variation in size. But those are pretty minor differences, surely. Not enough to consider them a separate kind, since kind can include more than one species.

It's called variation.

Just like cats and dogs right?

You don't think they're just counting species and subspecies?

No, they are not. Each of those 30 families contains one or more genera. Each genus contains one or more species (some contain over 100 species) and some of the species have sub-species. There are over 3,000 different species of frogs and toads. (By comparison, the whole class of mammals is made up of about 4,000 species).

If you want to follow what I'm saying, "Amphibian" is a kind.

So adding in the salamanders, newts and caecilians means there are over 4,000 species in this kind. So what is the problem of including all the 4,000 species of mammals in one kind? Why are amphibians a kind and mammals not?

I started with a gene pool and it would make sense that frogs belong to one family. I don't know. Maybe it would include toads because they look like frogs. But you can think what you want.

It is not a matter of what you think or what I think. It is a matter of being able to defend what you think through a review of the evidence.

I'm not arguing with your teachers.

True. You are actually arguing with reality.

Humans are not a kind of ape.

What generic characteristic of apes is lacking in humans?

I don't decide on how big the pool is. The pool doesn't have a size. I never said all the amphibians came out of the same pool.

So what did you mean by this:

Species come out of a pool, like a swimming pool, of a parent kind.

They're the same kind but they're not related by descent to a common ancestor.

How can that be, in light of what you said above? Doesn't "parent kind" imply a common ancestor?

I asked you that question before. I'll repeat it here:

I thought the point of a kind is that an original kind was the common ancestor of the various species in the kind. Wouldn't that make them all related?

Or do you have a different concept of kind than other creationists? I am really puzzled as to how species can come from the same gene pool and not be related.

The apes haven't speciated as much recently, unlike frogs, probably because they have become so specialized. This would indicate they are, like the Dodo bird, near extinction. They are a subspecies of a subspecies of a subspecies. Jungles make alot of variation possible in a short time so perhaps there used to be alot of variation.

No, they are not a subspecies of a subspecies of a subspecies. They are a family, Hominidae, in the order Primates, in the class Mammalia in the kingdom Animalia (aka Metazoa) in the domain Eukaryota. And in that family there are four genera and several species in each. In the genus Homo only one species is not extinct.

 

[MarkT]

We actually know of similar things in nature. They are called "ring species". An individual of population A can breed with an individual of B, B can breed with an individual of population C, but C cannot breed with A.

If it's a species of A, then it has to look like A.

 

[Tomk80]

If it's a species of A, then it has to look like A.

Search for ring species. If you want to argue against observed instances in nature, feel free to do so. However, please do it somewhere where I'm not watching, 'cause it hurts.