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

[gluadys]

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

When some members of the parent population become separated by geography, geological barriers, they would produce offspring that would strongly resemble their parents more than the parent population. Over time, they would all begin to look alike, specific traits would become pronounced and we would call them a species of the parent kind.

That's the way I see it anyways.

So the question isn't where we would draw the line, since speciation occurs within a circle (I'm just using the pool concept as an example) but what limiting factors would prevent an unlimited number of viable species from coming out of a particular pool.

How big is the pool to begin with? Must there be separate dog-pools and bear-pools, or can there be a dog-bear pool? Or a mammal-pool? Or a vertebrate pool? What sets the limit of how big a pool you can begin with?

The way I see it, if a species represents less than 100% of the parent population genetically and a subsequent species that comes from it represents less than it's parent, then pretty soon you might not be left with a viable animal. It becomes genetically unviable or spent genetically, perhaps more susceptible to disease etc.

But we are not limited to the variety that is already in the parent species. New variety is added by mutations. In fact, even AiG agrees that mutations are the only way to add new alleles to a gene pool.

So why can't you just have one great big gene pool called "life"?

 

[Tashena]

The forelimb of a lizard, the wing of a bird, and your arm have the same functional types and general shapes of bones, as did our shared reptilian ancestor.

Ok first it was a monkey, then I find out I supposedly came from simple compound sugars, and now I am from a reptilian ancestor. It keeps getting worse. I bet the next thing I'll hear is that my great,great,great,great,great grandfather originated from a jellyfish. I've got the coolest family tree ever!

 

[WaZoO]

The forelimb of a lizard, the wing of a bird, and your arm have the same functional types and general shapes of bones, as did our shared reptilian ancestor.

Ok first it was a monkey, then I find out I supposedly came from simple compound sugars, and now I am from a reptilian ancestor. It keeps getting worse. I bet the next thing I'll hear is that my great,great,great,great,great grandfather originated from a jellyfish. I've got the coolest family tree ever!

Yes, we use our arms just like birds and lizards do, to fly.

I don't think that your great^50000 grand father would be a jelly fish, it would be like your great^50000 fourth cousin twice removed.

 

[Fatality]

Your thinking about the theory of Macroevolution.

 

[WaZoO]

You mean the same theory as the creationists accept only factoring in the correct age of the Earth and paleontological findings?

 

[MarkT]

How big is the pool to begin with? Must there be separate dog-pools and bear-pools, or can there be a dog-bear pool? Or a mammal-pool? Or a vertebrate pool? What sets the limit of how big a pool you can begin with?

The pool refers to the pool of genes that belong to a kind and a species that comes from the pool has to look like it belongs to the kind.

The pool concept means you can't have a species that doesn't look alot like the parent population.

But even though dogs and bears look like they belong to a kind, I don't think they are related as species.

I think there's a dog pool and a bear pool.

So having the same or similar body plan doesn't necessarily mean the animals have a common ancestor.

Same as birds. I don't think having the same body plan means all birds have a common ancestor.

Hawks, for example, belong to the hawk family and ducks belong to the duck family.

There's no mammal pool or invertebrate pool.

What comes out of a pool can not have a completely different body plan.

A bird can not be a species of dinosaur. A dinosaur can not be a species of fish. A fish can not be a species of protozoa.

But we are not limited to the variety that is already in the parent species. New variety is added by mutations. In fact, even AiG agrees that mutations are the only way to add new alleles to a gene pool.

Well, as I said to Tom, there's no evidence mutations modify or add up to new body plans.

 

[DJ_Ghost]

Ok first it was a monkey, then I find out I supposedly came from simple compound sugars, and now I am from a reptilian ancestor. It keeps getting worse. I bet the next thing I'll hear is that my great,great,great,great,great grandfather originated from a jellyfish. I've got the coolest family tree ever![/font]

Are you joking or is your understanding of the claims made by the theory of evolution really that shaky? I’m sorry I have to ask but it gets difficult to tell the jokes from the serious misconceptions some times.

To begin with the ToE does not claim you came from a monkey, it claims that since we are apes (and we are, taxonomically speaking), we share a common ancestor with other ape species. If you go back much, much further than that, these ape like ancestors share common ancestry with other mammals, and if you go back even further than that those mammals share common ancestry with other creatures.
So yes, on a sense you do share a common ancestry with jelly fish as well, what is so shameful about that?

Ghost

 

[A4C]

Sometimes I just shake my head in disbelief as I read all this ridiculous stuff about where we came from. I can hardly believe that grown people actually believe we came from jellyfish. I just wonder sometimes if posters who post this stuff actually have faith that it is true. If so I commend them for their faith as it far surpasses mine who in comparison merely have faith in a supreme creator

 

[Jet Black]

I think there's a dog pool and a bear pool.

why? what is your justification for thinking that there is a dog pool and a bear pool that were never joined? why not an ancestral pool that both the dog pool and bear pool developed from such as the Amphicyonidae which have characteristics shared both bears and dogs (but not other carnivorae)? what is actually the problem with this?

 

[DJ_Ghost]

Sometimes I just shake my head in disbelief as I read all this ridiculous stuff about where we came from. I can hardly believe that grown people actually believe we came from jellyfish.

Just as I find it hard to believe that in the 21st century people will dismiss all the evidence as none existant when what they mean is, they do not find it compelling.

I just wonder sometimes if posters who post this stuff actually have faith that it is true. If so I commend them for their faith as it far surpasses mine who in comparison merely have faith in a supreme creator

Many people who accept evolution have faith in a supreme creator, they just accept that he used evolution as his method of creating because he is smart enough and incite full enough to do so, and honest enough not to have left faked evidence in his creation, and powerful enough not to have let demons plant it in his creation, as some one hypothesises.

Ghost

 

[Tomk80]

The pool refers to the pool of genes that belong to a kind and a species that comes from the pool has to look like it belongs to the kind.

The pool concept means you can't have a species that doesn't look alot like the parent population.

But even though dogs and bears look like they belong to a kind, I don't think they are related as species.

I think there's a dog pool and a bear pool.

Why? We found fossils which have traits of both. Whether you deny it's placement in time is irrelevant, the fact is that an animal existed with both bear and dog traits. So is this a different 'kind', or are bears and dogs related after all. If you still think they are not related, why exactly? If it you think they are related, where do you draw the line now?

So having the same or similar body plan doesn't necessarily mean the animals have a common ancestor.

No. But if body plan morphology, embryology, genetics and biogeography all point to a common ancestor model (which it does), I think it's pretty strange to suggest otherwise.

Same as birds. I don't think having the same body plan means all birds have a common ancestor.

Hawks, for example, belong to the hawk family and ducks belong to the duck family.

Indeed, they do. But why don't they belong to the same 'super family'? They are in the same class of Aves, so where does the ancestry break down. On what objective criteria do you decide that they are not related?

There's no mammal pool or invertebrate pool.

Why not?

What comes out of a pool can not have a completely different body plan.

Well, that depends on how you define 'pool' in this example. Indeed, a shark will not give rise to a mammal. However, they do have a common ancestor.

A bird can not be a species of dinosaur.

Well, it is, just the same way as humans, bears and dogs are a species of mammal.

A dinosaur can not be a species of fish.

Indeed, however both are species of vertebrates.

A fish can not be a species of protozoa.

Indeed not, but both are species of eukaryotes.

Well, as I said to Tom, there's no evidence mutations modify or add up to new body plans.

And after that I provided you with references to feathers produced from scales through mutations. Want to address that. Or are we going to play the running goalpost-game, where every time I produce evidence for the possibility of a trait to develop through mutation you are going to say: "well, but you haven't provided the evidence for that other trait."

 

[notto]

Sometimes I just shake my head in disbelief as I read all this ridiculous stuff about where we came from. I can hardly believe that grown people actually believe we came from jellyfish. I just wonder sometimes if posters who post this stuff actually have faith that it is true. If so I commend them for their faith as it far surpasses mine who in comparison merely have faith in a supreme creator

I find it funny to see a defender of the 'craters are sinkholes' theory make such a statement.

 

[notto]

A bird can not be a species of dinosaur. A dinosaur can not be a species of fish. A fish can not be a species of protozoa.

What 'pool' would a dinosaur with feathers belong to? If you can't answer this question, then your 'pool' concept is meaningless.

 

[Jet Black]

jellyfish have eightfold rotational symmetry and are much younger than our common ancestor with them.

 

[DJ_Ghost]

jellyfish have eightfold rotational symmetry and are much younger than our common ancestor with them.

You learn something new every day around here, I did not know that. I don’t know why but I had assumed they were pretty ancient, I sit corrected.

Ghost

 

[gluadys]

The pool refers to the pool of genes that belong to a kind and a species that comes from the pool has to look like it belongs to the kind.

So far, so good. That agrees with the theory of evolution.

The pool concept means you can't have a species that doesn't look alot like the parent population.

Ditto. Evolution generally agrees that parents and children look a lot alike and belong to the same species.

But even though dogs and bears look like they belong to a kind, I don't think they are related as species.

Is a kind limited to one single species? Or are wolves, coyotes and beagles all species of the dog “kind”?

If kind can be more than one species, why can’t bears and dogs come from the same bear-dog gene pool?

I think there's a dog pool and a bear pool.

Why? What is the foundation of your opinion?

So having the same or similar body plan doesn't necessarily mean the animals have a common ancestor.

Same as birds. I don't think having the same body plan means all birds have a common ancestor.

It doesn’t eliminate the possibility either. So what makes your personal opinion definitive?

Hawks, for example, belong to the hawk family and ducks belong to the duck family.

There's no mammal pool or invertebrate pool.

Again, why not? You need to go beyond having opinions to providing a reason for somebody else to accept them.

What comes out of a pool can not have a completely different body plan.

Agreed. This is also required by the theory of evolution.

A bird can not be a species of dinosaur.

Why not? The body plan of a bird is very similar to that of a dinosaur.

A dinosaur can not be a species of fish.

Since they are both vertebrates, why not?

A fish can not be a species of protozoa.

Since they are both eukaryotes, why not?

Well, as I said to Tom, there's no evidence mutations modify or add up to new body plans.

How do I know you have examined all the evidence? For all I know you are just quoting somebody who is mistaken. Maybe you should check the reliability of your sources.

 

[Tomk80]

Since they are both vertebrates, why not?

Since they are both eukaryotes, why not?

I'm not sure what you mean by this. He is indeed right. A dinosaur is not a species of fish. Both are species of invertebrates, however. Same with protozoa. Protozoa and fishes split off from each other earlier. Both are eukaryotes, but fishes are not classified as protozoa. But maybe I misunderstood what you were trying to say.

 

[Tashena]

I was just throwing something out there with the whole jellyfish deal, but I guess it was taken too seriously by some. It was meant to be a joke but some posters are telling me that I am in some way related to a jellyfish. And here I was just kidding around.

 

[Tomk80]

I was just throwing something out there with the whole jellyfish deal, but I guess it was taken too seriously by some. It was meant to be a joke but some posters are telling me that I am in some way related to a jellyfish. And here I was just kidding around.

And that's the beauty of it. You are related to jellyfish. They are very distant sisters of us (or maybe cousins is a more accurate description).

 

[Split Rock]

Sometimes I just shake my head in disbelief as I read all this ridiculous stuff about where we came from. I can hardly believe that grown people actually believe we came from jellyfish.

I can hardly believe that grown people actually believe in a man made from dirt, a woman made from a rib, a talking snake, a tree of knowledge and a flaming sword.