Do you believe in evolution?

[Coyote]

No. That is microevolution, not macro evolution and the "speciation" with regard to early hominids is in reality no more than a shuck and jive perpetrated by palentologists in an attempt to lend some credibility to the idea of macroevolution. Placing an A. or a H. in front of the different animals doesn't make them, in reality, different species.

In order to accept macroevolution, you must accept that reptiles eventually became mammals. That one species evolved into an entirely different species. You can inbreed a group all you like, but you will not end up with a different species.

What makes them a different species is when they become genetically different enough that they can't reproduce together anymore. That would be speciation. The homind fossils show a mix of human and ape characteristics - some went off into other species, some became deadends, one became human. There seems to be pretty clear fossil evidence of this. I don't understand what inbreeding has to do with this unless you are talking about genetic drift. And if that is what you mean - there is also pretty substantial evidence supporting that also.

In evolutionary terms - macroevolution refers to any evolutionary change at or above the level of species. It means at least the splitting of a species into two (speciation). Any changes that occur at higher levels, such as the evolution of new families, phyla or genera, are also therefore macroevolution, but the term is not restricted to those higher levels. It often also means long-term trends or biases in evolution of higher taxonomic levels.

If you accept this definition, macroevolution has occured. Some examples are with a variety of species of insects, such as the common fruitfly where new species are sterile if mated, as well as with bacteria. These of course are easy to study because they have short life spans, and can produce many generations in a short period of time thus excelerating change.

If you are talking about the development of reptiles into mammels then that is not likely to be observable because it is a long gradual process but the fossil record is pretty good on that - for example (I think I gave this earlier) the development of fish into amphibians.

That is random. You are arguing that order can come out of chaos.

No, it's not random - it's influenced by environment - that would not be random.

 

[Coyote]

If you are arguing that inbreeding and microevolution are compatable arguments...OK. But as of today, there isn't any credible evidence that we are related to H. erectus, much less chimps.

There is plenty of evidence we are related to chimps. Through DNA (depending on how you measure it) humans are 98.4 to 99.75% identical to Chimps.

 

[9sublime]

There is plenty of evidence we are related to chimps. Through DNA (depending on how you measure it) humans are 98.4 to 99.75% identical to Chimps.

I only used chimp because it sounds better when Paleriders trying to make a child with it.

 

[palerider]

What makes them a different species is when they become genetically different enough that they can't reproduce together anymore. That would be speciation. The homind fossils show a mix of human and ape characteristics - some went off into other species, some became deadends, one became human. There seems to be pretty clear fossil evidence of this. I don't understand what inbreeding has to do with this unless you are talking about genetic drift. And if that is what you mean - there is also pretty substantial evidence supporting that also.

But we have no idea whether or not they early hominids) could mate among themselves and even the most rabid macroevolutionist palentologist will grudgingly admit as much. Your entire statement is a leap of faith with nothing that resembles real evidence to support it.

No, it's not random - it's influenced by environment - that would not be random.

And what could be more random than depending upon the climate? Have you looked at the earth's temperature cycles over the past 500 million years or so?

 

[palerider]

There is plenty of evidence we are related to chimps. Through DNA (depending on how you measure it) humans are 98.4 to 99.75% identical to Chimps.

That is no more than proof that we are made of the same stuff. Not proof that we are related.

 

[Coyote]

I only used chimp because it sounds better when Paleriders trying to make a child with it.

 

[Coyote]

That is no more than proof that we are made of the same stuff. Not proof that we are related.

Yes, it is. The greater the degree of similarity, the closer the relation...and when it's extremely close offspring can be produced. Offspring can not be produced from very dissimilar species.

 

[Coyote]

But we have no idea whether or not they early hominids) could mate among themselves and even the most rabid macroevolutionist palentologist will grudgingly admit as much. Your entire statement is a leap of faith with nothing that resembles real evidence to support it.

An ability to interbreed does not mean that two animals are in the same species. Consider donkeys and horses.

And what could be more random than depending upon the climate? Have you looked at the earth's temperature cycles over the past 500 million years or so?

Climate is actually not random...the more we have learned about it...the more we are able to predict it.

In addition - climate itself removes randomness from natural selection. It influences natural selection. Consider the definition of random.

ran•dom
1. proceeding, made, or occurring without definite aim, reason, or pattern: the random selection of numbers.
2. Statistics.of or characterizing a process of selection in which each item of a set has an equal probability of being chosen.

 

[invest07]

There is a pesky little organism called Drysophila. They do bad things to tree fruit crops.
Drysophila hatch and reach sexual maturity in a few days. They are also very susceptible to mutations, and mutations can be easily induced.
These guys have been studied seriously for well over 100 years and thousands of generations.
So far, every Drysophila studied in the lab, and the number of studied individuals is in the billions, is still a fruit fly - never turned into anything else. And all of the mutations have resulted in damaged individuals, who are less functional than than non-mutated individuals.
A human generation is 20-30 years so if Drysophila has been studied for 5,000generations, the human equivalent is 50,000-75,000 years.
Shouldn't some indication of speciation be visible by now in Drysophila? And before speciation, shouldn't some improvement due to mutation in the species be demonstrated?
The answer is "Yes, there should be some indication, if evolutionary theory is to be believed."
I have a suggestion for you, if you are serious about demonstrating that evolution is actually possible. We have a bug here in Fla called the "love bug". They hatch, grow to sexual maturity and die within a 24 hour cycle. They are called love bugs because when you splat these on your windshield, there is always a male and female hooked up. So if these guys were studied, you could see 365 generations in only one year. 3650 generations in ten years. 36,500 generation is 100 years. And my prediction is that, after 3,650 geberations, there would still be no speciation and not a single beneficial mutation. There hasn't been any in Drysophila.
I understand what I am saying is not politically correct and goes against the scientific norm.
Question everything, particularly science. If the science is based on reality, it will stand your scrutiny. It is based on specualtion, assumptions and conjecture, it will soon resemble swiss cheese.

 

[invest07]

Drysophila, speciation and beneficial mutations.

There is a pesky little organism called Drysophila. They do bad things to tree fruit crops.
Drysophila hatch and reach sexual maturity in a few days. They are also very susceptible to mutations, and mutations can be easily induced.
These guys have been studied seriously for well over 100 years and thousands of generations.
So far, every Drysophila studied in the lab, and the number of studied individuals is in the billions, is still a fruit fly - never turned into anything else. And all of the mutations have resulted in damaged individuals, who are less functional than than non-mutated individuals.
A human generation is 30 years so if Drysophila has been studied for 5,000 generations, the human equivalent is 150,000 years.
Shouldn't some indication of speciation be visible by now in Drysophila? And before speciation, shouldn't some improvement due to mutation in the species be demonstrated?
The answer is "Yes, there should be some indication, if evolutionary theory is to be believed."
I have a suggestion for you, if you are serious about demonstrating that evolution is actually possible. We have a bug here in Fla called the "love bug". They hatch, grow to sexual maturity and die within a 24 hour cycle. They are called love bugs because when you splat these on your windshield, there is always a male and female hooked up. So if these guys were studied, you could see 365 generations in only one year. 3650 generations in ten years. 36,500 generations in 100 years. And my prediction is that, after 36,500 geberations, there would still be no speciation and not a single beneficial mutation. There hasn't been any in Drysophila.
I understand what I am saying is not politically correct and goes against the scientific norm.
Question everything, particularly science. If the science is based on reality, it will stand your scrutiny. It is based on speculation, assumptions and conjecture, it will soon resemble swiss cheese.

 

[invest07]

Climate is not actually random.
It is not random to us, in the 21st century but it would almost certainly have seemed random to a primitive human. The tools to understand weather and climate are relatively new, less than 50 years old.
Throughout most of human history, climate and weather were a highly unpredictable "X" factor.

 

[invest07]

There is a pesky little organism called Drysophila. They do bad things to tree fruit crops.
Drysophila hatch and reach sexual maturity in a few days. They are also very susceptible to mutations, and mutations can be easily induced.
These guys have been studied seriously for well over 100 years and thousands of generations.
So far, every Drysophila studied in the lab, and the number of studied individuals is in the billions, is still a fruit fly - never turned into anything else. And all of the mutations have resulted in damaged individuals, who are less functional than than non-mutated individuals.
A human generation is 20-30 years so if Drysophila has been studied for 5,000generations, the human equivalent is 50,000-75,000 years.
Shouldn't some indication of speciation be visible by now in Drysophila? And before speciation, shouldn't some improvement due to mutation in the species be demonstrated?
The answer is "Yes, there should be some indication, if evolutionary theory is to be believed."
I have a suggestion for you, if you are serious about demonstrating that evolution is actually possible. We have a bug here in Fla called the "love bug". They hatch, grow to sexual maturity and die within a 24 hour cycle. They are called love bugs because when you splat these on your windshield, there is always a male and female hooked up. So if these guys were studied, you could see 365 generations in only one year. 3650 generations in ten years. 36,500 generation is 100 years. And my prediction is that, after 3,650 geberations, there would still be no speciation and not a single beneficial mutation. There hasn't been any in Drysophila.
I understand what I am saying is not politically correct and goes against the scientific norm.
Question everything, particularly science. If the science is based on reality, it will stand your scrutiny. It is based on specualtion, assumptions and conjecture, it will soon resemble swiss cheese.

 

[ArmChair General]

There is a pesky little organism called Drysophila. They do bad things to tree fruit crops.
Drysophila hatch and reach sexual maturity in a few days. They are also very susceptible to mutations, and mutations can be easily induced.
These guys have been studied seriously for well over 100 years and thousands of generations.
So far, every Drysophila studied in the lab, and the number of studied individuals is in the billions, is still a fruit fly - never turned into anything else. And all of the mutations have resulted in damaged individuals, who are less functional than than non-mutated individuals.
A human generation is 20-30 years so if Drysophila has been studied for 5,000generations, the human equivalent is 50,000-75,000 years.
Shouldn't some indication of speciation be visible by now in Drysophila? And before speciation, shouldn't some improvement due to mutation in the species be demonstrated?
The answer is "Yes, there should be some indication, if evolutionary theory is to be believed."
I have a suggestion for you, if you are serious about demonstrating that evolution is actually possible. We have a bug here in Fla called the "love bug". They hatch, grow to sexual maturity and die within a 24 hour cycle. They are called love bugs because when you splat these on your windshield, there is always a male and female hooked up. So if these guys were studied, you could see 365 generations in only one year. 3650 generations in ten years. 36,500 generation is 100 years. And my prediction is that, after 3,650 geberations, there would still be no speciation and not a single beneficial mutation. There hasn't been any in Drysophila.
I understand what I am saying is not politically correct and goes against the scientific norm.
Question everything, particularly science. If the science is based on reality, it will stand your scrutiny. It is based on specualtion, assumptions and conjecture, it will soon resemble swiss cheese.

thats some nice sophistry there. You and PaleRider will get along well.

 

[Coyote]

There is a pesky little organism called Drysophila. They do bad things to tree fruit crops.
Drysophila hatch and reach sexual maturity in a few days. They are also very susceptible to mutations, and mutations can be easily induced.
These guys have been studied seriously for well over 100 years and thousands of generations.
So far, every Drysophila studied in the lab, and the number of studied individuals is in the billions, is still a fruit fly - never turned into anything else. And all of the mutations have resulted in damaged individuals, who are less functional than than non-mutated individuals.
A human generation is 20-30 years so if Drysophila has been studied for 5,000generations, the human equivalent is 50,000-75,000 years.
Shouldn't some indication of speciation be visible by now in Drysophila? And before speciation, shouldn't some improvement due to mutation in the species be demonstrated?
The answer is "Yes, there should be some indication, if evolutionary theory is to be believed."

Speciation in fruitflies has occured and the mutations have not been all damaged individuals - they've been just different enough to no longer be able to mate with the parent stock. New species.

Evolution works almost exclusively by gradual changes. It has taken hundreds of millions of years of evolutionary divergence to produce the existing phyla, and probably hundreds of thousands of years at least for classes to develop. For a new phylum, order, or class to arise suddenly would be creationism, not evolution. 50,000 years is not hundreds of thousands or millions of years. Big difference here when you are talking about classes and phyla instead of species.

I have a suggestion for you, if you are serious about demonstrating that evolution is actually possible. We have a bug here in Fla called the "love bug". They hatch, grow to sexual maturity and die within a 24 hour cycle. They are called love bugs because when you splat these on your windshield, there is always a male and female hooked up. So if these guys were studied, you could see 365 generations in only one year. 3650 generations in ten years. 36,500 generation is 100 years. And my prediction is that, after 3,650 geberations, there would still be no speciation and not a single beneficial mutation. There hasn't been any in Drysophila.

You're predictions may be off since they haven't been studied. Fruit flies are not the only insect or species studied that has shown signs of speciation.

Rapid speciation of the Faeroe Island house mouse, which occurred in less than 250 years after man brought the creature to the island.

Formation of five new species of cichlid fishes which formed since they were isolated less than 4000 years ago from the parent stock, Lake Nagubago.

Other species include houseflies, flour beetles, and many other simpler organisms and bacteria.

I understand what I am saying is not politically correct and goes against the scientific norm.

Question everything, particularly science. If the science is based on reality, it will stand your scrutiny. It is based on specualtion, assumptions and conjecture, it will soon resemble swiss cheese.

I question many things but evolution - over all, including macroevolution, seems well enough supported for me not to question it's basis. Like I've said before, we have much to still learn and the details may be in question but not the fact that evolution does occur.

What other scientific explanation would you put forth?

 

[invest07]

coyote
1. What is your source for your comments about drysophila?
2. Also, when considering time frame, remember that humans have a relatively short history on this planet. 150K years is 10% or more of the total time humans have been here. In 10% of the total time, some increment of evolution should be visible.
3. "we have much to still learn and the details may be in question but not the fact that evolution does occur." Strictly speaking, there are no scientific facts. Because everything is subject to revision, science recognizes a high probability of correctness but never says "this is a fact, never to be changed". There are no scientific facts. There are differing probabilites of being correct.