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

[MarkT]

The variety in dogs, for example, is the kind of variety you expect to see in a family. Cats, dogs, birds and monkeys; you can see the variation of species.

But that's not what we see here.

The differences that exist between apes and humans does not suggest speciation.

Speciation would allow for the loss of ability but a character has to preexist to become pronounced or be lost.

For example, when some birds lost their ability to fly, their wings became smaller and their bodies became larger. But their kind had wings.

You can imagine that an ape ancestor had a tail; a tail which helped them maintain their balance when climbing trees and jumping from branch to branch.

The apes lost much of the ability to climb and jump when they lost the tail. Probably a larger body goes with the loss of the character. So losing the tail and a bigger body equals a ground dweller; a gorilla.

But having less ability to climb trees doesn't imply a greater ability to walk, talk, think, etc.

As things speciate they lose things, abilities. Almost always the ability is a locomotor ability.

In some cases an ability is gained. Like penguins gained the swimming ability that goes with scaly feathers and flippers for wings.

Speciation allows for stuff like that.

But even with a loss or a gain depending on your perspective, the things still look like they belong to the kind ie. penguins still look like birds as we would expect and apes still look like monkeys.

But humans have no monkey kind characters.

Speciation doesn't allow for this kind of change. Speciation allows for the loss of charcaters like wings and tails. It would allow for the loss of a tail, a larger body and no tail (a tail needed for balance) therefore a ground dweller; a gorilla.

But it wouldn't allow for the differences we see.

This is no longer speciation we're talking about. We're talking about sudden and unexplainable mutations changing every character we have.

Are we to believe all our characters mutated and that our characters are all mutations of the monkey kind characters we had?

That would be something never seen before or seen since.

Are we to believe humans didn't retain any monkey kind characters; that they all mutated?

Are we to believe all our monkey kind characters mutated to an extent that we only resemble apes in form?

And then the mutation process stopped and nothing happened since.

We didn't lose any abilities. We gained abilities simply by losing a tail?

I don't think so. I think the apes lost an ability to climb trees. That's all.

Anything more than that is sheer fantasy.

 

[W Jay Schroeder]

How about the mice of Madiera, my favorite example. Portuguese mice stranded on the islands by Medieval sailors have since spawned up to six daughter species with a chromosomal variance of both count and type, such as would not permit them to interbreed with their European cousins anymore.
http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/articles/04_00/island_mice.shtml

Speciation has been directly observed, both in the lab, and in naturally-controlled conditions in the field, numerous times. And all the elements of population mechanics have not only been tested and repeated, but many of them have been implimented in practical application in agriculture, livestock, virology, and bioengineering, each billion-dollar industries. I would say that counts as repeating the predicted conclusion, wouldn't you?

How many times do you want to use speciation when it only shows evolution on a small scale. I believe the thread was or meant to be about the theory of evolution from a comman ancestor. Which can not be tested and is there for a hypothesis. Speciation does show evolution but it doesnt help with the theory at all. Your bacteria doesnt do it either or any other observed facts. You must observe the present and try to but fossils in order to fit your theory. The best evidence would be geology and proving the Flood wrong. of course that isnt evolution is it.

 

[MarkT]

h2

MarkT, you can continue to spout on and stonewall about Humans having mo "monkey kind" characteristics, by which you probably mean "ape" I assume. However you're quite wrong.

Stop me when I get to a distinguishing charateristic of primates that makes "them" so different to "us".

I'm not saying apes and humans differ in form. I'm saying they differ in kind.

Like I said before, there is 98% genetic similarity. So of course all the parts are going to be there. I wouldn't expect to find any missing characters.

But humans don't have ape/monkey-kind characters. Ape characters are not human characters.

Just as all cars have the same form. For example, all cars have two headlights that have a high beam and a low beam. You could say they have the same form. Doors on the side, a hood, bumpers, etc.

But there are different kinds of cars.

To use Arons' analogy, a Cadillac is going to have the same parts/form as a Volvo has. But a Cadillac's parts belong to a Cadillac and a Volvo's parts belong to a Volvo.

And a Cadillacs' headlights look different. It's doors look different, etc. This difference shows us they don't come from the same manufacturer.

There's a difference in kind, not form. Form doesn't tell us how things are related.

To see the relatedness of things, you have to follow the kind, just as the Bible tells us each creature was made after it's kind.

 

[gluadys]

h2



I'm not saying apes and humans differ in form. I'm saying they differ in kind.

If form and genetic similarity are not guides to what kind it is, what does indicate what kind it is?

 

[MarkT]

If form and genetic similarity are not guides to what kind it is, what does indicate what kind it is?

Outward appearance and behavior I guess.

 

[gluadys]

Outward appearance and behavior I guess.

Outward appearance IS form. And similarities of outward appearance and behaviour are both tied to genetic similarities.

So you have not answered the question.

 

[MarkT]

By definition a kind is the parent population. If we go back to the creation, the parent population represents 100% of the gene pool. The species that came out of the gene pool would represent less than 100%, not more. Perhaps 90%. And a species that came from a species would represent 80% and so on.

So animals don't adapt to their enviroment. They fill a niche. Of necessity they fill a niche.

They live wherever they can the best way they can. They fall into a niche, not by choice. They don't have any choice.

Gorillas can't climb so they live on the ground. Fortunately they can.

Penguins live the way they do because they can swim and because they can't fly.

If they can't fly, they walk or swim. Whatever. If they can't climb, they walk on all fours.

They use whatever ability they have. If they can't walk, they crawl.

An animal that is forced by nature, by the circumstances of it's ability or lack of ability to climb trees, to live on the ground, is not necessarily going to develop the ability to walk on two feet. This circumstance is not going to lead to thinking ability or speech.

 

[MarkT]

Outward appearance IS form. And similarities of outward appearance and behaviour are both tied to genetic similarities.

So you have not answered the question.

Of course I did.

I said outward appearance. Everything has a form. That goes without saying.

Your question assumed something I didn't say. I didn't say things don't have a form.

 

[gluadys]

Of course I did.

I said outward appearance. Everything has a form. That goes without saying.

Your question assumed something I didn't say. I didn't say things don't have a form.

Here is what you said (minus the analogy to cars)

I'm not saying apes and humans differ in form. I'm saying they differ in kind.

Like I said before, there is 98% genetic similarity. So of course all the parts are going to be there. I wouldn't expect to find any missing characters.

But humans don't have ape/monkey-kind characters. Ape characters are not human characters.

snip cars

There's a difference in kind, not form. Form doesn't tell us how things are related.

To see the relatedness of things, you have to follow the kind, just as the Bible tells us each creature was made after it's kind.

You are saying the kind shows us how things are related. The form does not.

I am asking, how do you decide when species belong to the same kind? You have spoken often of how species have to look alike to belong to the same kind. So you seem to be saying that the form, the outward appearance, is what tells us that species are of the same kind, i.e. related.

But then you say that form does not tell us how things are related.

If things that are the same kind are related, and form tells us what things belong to the same kind, then form also tells us what things are related.

If form does not indicate relationship, how do we tell which species belong to the same kind? Don't the descendants of a parent group resemble the parent group? i.e. don't they have similar forms?

 

[MarkT]

You are saying the kind shows us how things are related. The form does not.

I am asking, how do you decide when species belong to the same kind? You have spoken often of how species have to look alike to belong to the same kind. So you seem to be saying that the form, the outward appearance, is what tells us that species are of the same kind, i.e. related.

But then you say that form does not tell us how things are related.

If things that are the same kind are related, and form tells us what things belong to the same kind, then form also tells us what things are related.

If form does not indicate relationship, how do we tell which species belong to the same kind? Don't the descendants of a parent group resemble the parent group? i.e. don't they have similar forms?

I didn't think it was that difficult to understand. Did you understand the car analogy?

I told you by the outward appearance. Do you know what an outward appearance is?

Yes. They would look like the parent group in appearance. They wouldn't necessarily have the same form. Some characters could be missing. A tail, for example.

Form refers to the genetic makeup. You could have similar genes but appear outwardly different. That's proven by comparing humans and chimps. We don't look like monkeys even though we're 98% similar genetically.

Saying we have a similar form is saying we have the same characters but they could be configured differently or expressed differently. It would depend on the kind.

This is my thinking on the subject. Do you understand that?

 

[Stairway]

Here is what you said (minus the analogy to cars)



You are saying the kind shows us how things are related. The form does not.

I am asking, how do you decide when species belong to the same kind? You have spoken often of how species have to look alike to belong to the same kind. So you seem to be saying that the form, the outward appearance, is what tells us that species are of the same kind, i.e. related.

But then you say that form does not tell us how things are related.

If things that are the same kind are related, and form tells us what things belong to the same kind, then form also tells us what things are related.

If form does not indicate relationship, how do we tell which species belong to the same kind? Don't the descendants of a parent group resemble the parent group? i.e. don't they have similar forms?

Species are determined based on the ability to reproduce. Take black people and white people, we are both the same species, because black people and white people can reproduce together.

The same thing with dogs, we have bred different breeds of dogs over the years, but they can still reproduce with each other. Some animals, like horses and donkeys can reproduce together, however mules are by nature sterile. Horses and lions can not reproduce together.

 

[Dirtydeak]

Species are determined based on the ability to reproduce. Take black people and white people, we are both the same species, because black people and white people can reproduce together.

The same thing with dogs, we have bred different breeds of dogs over the years, but they can still reproduce with each other. Some animals, like horses and donkeys can reproduce together, however mules are by nature sterile. Horses and lions can not reproduce together.

Wouldn't this mean apes could get impregnated by men?

 

[USincognito]

Wouldn't this mean apes could get impregnated by men?

How so? He just explained that different species cannot reproduce successfully, and humans, chimpanzees, gorillas and orangoutans are different species.

A question to Mark T:

You cite above that "dog" kind can interbreed. Where do you draw the line as to what constitutes "dog" kind?

Are wolves dog kind?
Are foxes dog kind?
Are coyotes dog kind?
Are jackals dog kind?
Are you suggesting any of these animals should be able to breed with dogs?

And here's a thought about speciation of dogs. A Great Dane could not breed with a Chihuahua. The two breeds are now reproductively isolated from each other. They can still breed genetically, just not physically. Over time their seperate gene pools will result in them being unable to breed genetically either. In essence, they will still be dogs, but will have transcended the breed barrier and become seperate species.

 

[Gracchus]

And here's a thought about speciation of dogs. A Great Dane could not breed with a Chihuahua. The two breeds are now reproductively isolated from each other. They can still breed genetically, just not physically. Over time their seperate gene pools will result in them being unable to breed genetically either. In essence, they will still be dogs, but will have transcended the breed barrier and become seperate species.

I would be very interested in pictures or other documentation of a Great Dane/Chihuahua cross. Has it been done? Would such progeny be very alike or would they show wide variation of size and form? What percentage would survive to birth? Would an attempt to make such a cross be cruel? Would an attempt be unjustified for reasons of pure curiousity?

 

[Stairway]

I would be very interested in pictures or other documentation of a Great Dane/Chihuahua cross. Has it been done? Would such progeny be very alike or would they show wide variation of size and form? What percentage would survive to birth? Would an attempt to make such a cross be cruel? Would an attempt be unjustified for reasons of pure curiousity?

I think it would be cruel, if somehow humans could breed with elephants, don't you think a woman giving birth to a 75 lb elephant/human cub, would constitute cruelty. Regular labour is borderline cruelty.

 

[W Jay Schroeder]

I didn't think it was that difficult to understand. Did you understand the car analogy?

I told you by the outward appearance. Do you know what an outward appearance is?

Yes. They would look like the parent group in appearance. They wouldn't necessarily have the same form. Some characters could be missing. A tail, for example.

Form refers to the genetic makeup. You could have similar genes but appear outwardly different. That's proven by comparing humans and chimps. We don't look like monkeys even though we're 98% similar genetically.

Saying we have a similar form is saying we have the same characters but they could be configured differently or expressed differently. It would depend on the kind.

This is my thinking on the subject. Do you understand that?

Mark, I think they do not want to think to much about it, do you. You explained it fine to me. this small genetic difference isnt so small is it, as you have shown. You can not look at a monkey gorilla or chimp and think it a human. Like i have stated all animals share charictoristic but never move out of there classes, because they will have one that is never or never was and never will belong to the other class. And Humans are in there own class because of this. yes we have mammal traits but we go beyond it with characteristics that others will never have. I just wanted to encourage you to continue to study up on evolution and the theory which is what is wrong, and keep posting, just try your best and your get better. Asking questions and researching the answers, I find, is a good way to go about proving the theory wrong.

 

[MarkT]

Mark, I think they do not want to think to much about it, do you. You explained it fine to me. this small genetic difference isnt so small is it, as you have shown. You can not look at a monkey gorilla or chimp and think it a human. Like i have stated all animals share charictoristic but never move out of there classes, because they will have one that is never or never was and never will belong to the other class. And Humans are in there own class because of this. yes we have mammal traits but we go beyond it with characteristics that others will never have. I just wanted to encourage you to continue to study up on evolution and the theory which is what is wrong, and keep posting, just try your best and your get better. Asking questions and researching the answers, I find, is a good way to go about proving the theory wrong.

Thanks W Jay. I'm glad I'm not alone.

I agree. The questions inspire us in a way to find the answers.

I wish I had the answers they're asking for at my finger tips but it takes time to dissemble the information that's out there and put things back together.

I don't think it's the small genetic difference that makes us human though.

This may be the key to understanding what I mean.

The outward appearance is the image of the kind of animal it is. There's a spiritual implication in this statement.

The outward appearance is the image of the inside; the breath of life or the spirit of the creature.

The inside, what we can't see, is the life.

The outside, what we can see, is how we know what kind of life it is.

That's the way I understand it.

So I think the image of the animal is what they should be looking at to see how things are related.

The form is the general structure. The same general structures exist but they differ in shape and expression.

What is expressed, what is seen, depends on the kind, the "manufacturer" in my analogy, which is the life of creature.

So the life of the creature manufactures what is seen.

Anyways If you start with created families created according to their kind and you apply the concept of a gene pool to each family, it looks a whole lot like what we actually see.

It's kinda like starting at the beginning and looking forward while they are starting at the end and looking backwards.

Their view is telelogical in a sense. Sorta like Aristotle's "the cause of fire is the heat of it".

 

[raphael_aa]

Mark, I think they do not want to think to much about it, do you. You explained it fine to me. this small genetic difference isnt so small is it, as you have shown. You can not look at a monkey gorilla or chimp and think it a human. Like i have stated all animals share charictoristic but never move out of there classes, because they will have one that is never or never was and never will belong to the other class. And Humans are in there own class because of this. yes we have mammal traits but we go beyond it with characteristics that others will never have. I just wanted to encourage you to continue to study up on evolution and the theory which is what is wrong, and keep posting, just try your best and your get better. Asking questions and researching the answers, I find, is a good way to go about proving the theory wrong.

Do you see what you're advocating here? You have decided the theory is wrong BEFORE you have 'studied up', 'asked questions' and 'researched the answers'. You then look for ways to show that it is wrong. To me, this seems intellectually dishonest. William, in other posts you have said the Bible is not a science book and yet here you are allowing one particular interpretation to guide your thinking in science. It makes no sense to me.

Let's remember that the geologists and biologists who first looked at the evidence and conclued we lived on an ancient earth where life's diversity could be explained by evolution were christians. But they let the evidence speak. THAT is intellectual honesty and courage: to be be so committed to the truth that one does not let one's pre-concieved notions affect what the facts appear to tell us loud and clear.

 

[MarkT]

You cite above that "dog" kind can interbreed. Where do you draw the line as to what constitutes "dog" kind?

I did?

You have to use your imagination. The "dog kind" theoretically includes every species that looks like a dog. So I would include wolves, foxes, coyotes and jackals.

I didn't say they could interbreed.

If they're species, then by definition they wouldn't be able to breed with one another.

Are wolves dog kind?
Are foxes dog kind?
Are coyotes dog kind?
Are jackals dog kind?
Are you suggesting any of these animals should be able to breed with dogs?

They would be "dog kind" and separate species.

Well domestic dogs have been inbred for a long time. I would guess wolves, foxes, etc. would not be able to breed with domestic dogs.

And here's a thought about speciation of dogs. A Great Dane could not breed with a Chihuahua. The two breeds are now reproductively isolated from each other. They can still breed genetically, just not physically. Over time their seperate gene pools will result in them being unable to breed genetically either. In essence, they will still be dogs, but will have transcended the breed barrier and become seperate species.

Ok. I would call them species right now but breeds will do if you define species as being unable to breed genetically. We can speculate they will become species.

Also a pure bred animal would probably be close to extinction genetically speaking.

You probably wouldn't be able to get them to speciate any further.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Well domestic dogs have been inbred for a long time. I would guess wolves, foxes, etc. would not be able to breed with domestic dogs.


wolf-dog hybrids are common: http://www.wolfpark.org/wolfdogs/
likewise coyote-dog, in fact, i have a chow-chow coyote cross:
http://www.egs.uu.se/evbiol/Persons/JenniferL/Adamsetal2003.pdf

she looks like a smallish shephard until you see the purple tongue. and black snout.

no evidence online that foxes and dogs mate.
http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/sep2000/969488017.Zo.r.html