29 Apr 05
"The TOE" generally describes change among life - macroevolution and microevolution. There are theories of abiogenesis of life which involve evolution of nonliving molecules, but let's not muddy the waters by claiming this is "part of the TOE". It can be part of some versions of the TOE, but let's keep the definitions consistent for this discussion. So I propose, for this thread,
TOE = microevolution and macroevolution, but not abiogenesis.
29 Apr 05
Originally posted by AThousandYoungWhy not simplify it further and say TOE = macroevolution?
"The TOE" generally describes change among life - macroevolution and microevolution. There are theories of abiogenesis of life which involve evolution of nonliving molecules, but let's not muddy the waters by claiming this is "part of the TOE". It can be part of some versions of the TOE, but let's keep the definitions consistent for this discu ...[text shortened]... So I propose, for this thread,
TOE = microevolution and macroevolution, but not abiogenesis.
29 Apr 05
Originally posted by ColettiBecause as far as I know this would be a nonstandard definition. Excluding abiogenesis is consistent with standard definitions of the Theory of Evolution.
Why not simplify it further and say TOE = macroevolution?
If you want to talk about macroevolution, go ahead. Abbreviate it MacE if you like. But excluding microevolution from the definition of TOE would be extremely nonstandard and I don't think it would help the discussion any. The simplicity gained would be far outweighed by the confusion people would have who jump into the conversation in the middle and then duke it out with the rest of us because they don't like the weird way we defined TOE.
29 Apr 05
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI think the major contention IDist or Creationist have with TOE is the concept of Macroevolution. Many, if not most, agree that the processes seen in Microevolution do occur. But I suppose we would not call it "evolution" since it seems to be implicit in the definition of Microevolution that it necessarily causes Macroevolution. It the jump from the processes of small mutation to the speciation of all things that is the main point of disagreement.
Because as far as I know this would be a nonstandard definition. Excluding abiogenesis is consistent with standard definitions of the Theory of Evolution.
If you want to talk about macroevolution, go ahead. Abbreviate it MacE if you like. But excluding microevolution from the definition of TOE would be extremely nonstandard and I don't think it ...[text shortened]... and then duke it out with the rest of us because they don't like the weird way we defined TOE.
30 Apr 05
1 edit
Originally posted by skywalker redI know you really want to score a point on this one. Unfortunately our response is not fitting into your simple flow chart strategy. The more you keep ignoring our answer, the more ridiculous you appear. Consider the following.
First, I reject your premise that The origin of life is not an integral part of the theory of evolution. your attempt to differentiate the origin of life from evolutionary theory is a rhetorical maneuver to circumvent the question of ...[text shortened]... igin of life) casts reasonable doubt on the validity of evolution.
Atomic theory assumes that atoms exist. Should we reject atomic theory because it doesn't say where these atoms came from?
The germ theory of disease assumes that microbes exist. Where did these microbes come from? Toss it out.
The special and general theories of relativity suppose that masses exist, but they don't say where these masses came from. Yet another one for the dumpster.
You see, no one of the theories I mentioned is meant to be the Grand Unifying Theory of the universe. They are meant to give us insight into how an aspect of our universe behaves. Evolution is concerned with how life changed over time, not how life arose. The latter subject is called abiogenesis. If you have a question about it, why don't you read up on it a little?
30 Apr 05
Originally posted by ColettiIn your view, can microevolution ever form a new species?
I think the major contention IDist or Creationist have with TOE is the concept of Macroevolution. Many, if not most, agree that the processes seen in Microevolution do occur. But I suppose we would not call it "evolution" since it seems to be implicit in the definition of Microevolution that it necessarily causes Macroevolution. It the jump from the processes of small mutation to the speciation of all things that is the main point of disagreement.
30 Apr 05
Originally posted by ColettiI agree that the major contention ID proponents have with the TOE is MacE. However, their comments often apply to MicE, or seem to. For example, the whole concept of "information never increasing without intelligent intervention" and related claims which we've discussed in my other thread seems as though it would probably apply to MicE. However it's never defined by people who make this claim so it's hard to tell if it applies to MicE or not.
I think the major contention IDist or Creationist have with TOE is the concept of Macroevolution. Many, if not most, agree that the processes seen in Microevolution do occur. But I suppose we would not call it "evolution" since it seems to be implicit in the definition of Microevolution that it necessarily causes Macroevolution. It the jump from the processes of small mutation to the speciation of all things that is the main point of disagreement.
It the jump from the processes of small mutation to the speciation of all things that is the main point of disagreement.
Steerpike's question seems highly relevant. Speciation is defined a certain way in biology; do you, or does anyone else, mean to say that speciation by the standard biological definition does not occur via any amount of microevolutionary change? I don't think this would be an easily defensible position because I think such speciation has actually been observed. I'm not sure though.
30 Apr 05
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungPersonally, I think some new species may have developed through genetic mutations over time. But even the definition of speciation is a difficult one.
..Steerpike's question seems highly relevant. Speciation is defined a certain way in biology; do you, or does anyone else, mean to say that speciation by the standard biological definition does not occur via any amount of microevol ...[text shortened]... such speciation has actually been observed. I'm not sure though.
For some modern biologist, all that is required is a noticeable morphological differences or change. This is not satisfactory because we know that extreme morphological differences can be produced without the occurrence of speciation - dogs being the most obvious example.
I think a more definitive way to differentiate species would be by genetic incompatibility. In other words - one way to determine if two animals are a different species, is that they are not genetically capable of sexual reproduction.
That is not a perfect definition because some different species can reproduce offspring: horses and donkeys, lions and tigers. But their offspring of these pairs are sterile.
There are looser definitions of speciation, but these seem to have developed to allow evolutionists to declare some questionable examples as cases of observed evolution. Cases the would easily be considered morphological developments.
I think speciation could potential occur in nature - but I think it is nearly impossible to prove on anything larger than a fruit fly.
And that is a long long way from showing that man evolved from simple celled organisms.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 04
- Moves
- 34768
30 Apr 05
Originally posted by skywalker redYou are the idiot.............survival of the fittest is the law of this planet. Just ask that idiot, George W. Bush.
many people believe that darwin, although intelligent and well intentioned, fails in his attempt to thoroughly demonstrate his shaky theory ....
30 Apr 05
Originally posted by skywalker redget a clue. along with perhaps electricity and gravity, natural selection is the most supported theory in science.
of course it a position and also inherently a question, let me explain it to you, I will go slow and speak in terms that hopefully you will comprehend, but I expect that you will have further difficulty... anyway.... my position is that darwin's questionable and problematic theory has so many holes in it that it cannot float on the waters of serious b ...[text shortened]... le is this: what other possible scenarios are there for the creation of the world and mankind.
30 Apr 05
Originally posted by ColettiYou stated this:
Personally, I think some new species may have developed through genetic mutations over time. But even the definition of speciation is a difficult one.
For some modern biologist, all that is required is a noticeable morphological differences or change. This is not satisfactory because we know that extreme morphological differences can be produced witho ...[text shortened]... .
And that is a long long way from showing that man evolved from simple celled organisms.
It the jump from the processes of small mutation to the speciation of all things that is the main point of disagreement.
Now, you're carefully wording your posts so as to imply you aren't the one disagreeing, though your other posts seem to indicate you don't think MacE is a correct model. This makes it hard to address your argument since you seem to be arguing the creationist position but you also seem to have a built in "well I was talking about what other people think, not what I think" escape door built in. I don't know what you actually think about all this and if you don't have this objection yourself (the jump from small mutations to speciation of all things) I am not sure why you're arguing it's case. Are you just playing Devil's Advocate to me?
Now, regarding what you actually said, I think we have a situation similar to what I was complaining about in the "information" thread. A claim is made in which a key word is not clearly defined, and you, the claimant, aren't willing to commit to what you mean by that word. How can you make such strong definite claims without knowing exactly what you mean by the words you're using?
30 Apr 05
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungSorry. I was indeed trying to be careful - maybe trying a bit too hard.
You stated this:
[b]It the jump from the processes of small mutation to the speciation of all things that is the main point of disagreement.
Now, you're carefully wording your posts so as to imply you aren't the one disa ...[text shortened]... without knowing exactly what you mean by the words you're using?[/b]
I don't believe man evolved from single cell life forms.
I believe in the creation as described in the Bible - including in the creation of Adam and Eve.
I do believe that speciation is possible, and that it probably has occurred - just not to the extent that most environmentalist believe.
I do not believe we have observed speciation in the strict sense of speciation I gave earlier.
I'm not certain all creationist agree with me, but I think most do. I have not done extensive study in creation science. But I think their main disagreement is in the idea that all life as we know it evolved from simple life forms (single celled creatures).
30 Apr 05
1 edit
Originally posted by ColettiThanks for clarifying your position Coletti.
Sorry. I was indeed trying to be careful - maybe trying a bit too hard.
I don't believe man evolved from single cell life forms.
I believe in the creation as described in the Bible - including in the creation of Adam and Eve.
I do ...[text shortened]... erved speciation in the strict sense of speciation I gave earlier.
I do not believe we have observed speciation in the strict sense of speciation I gave earlier.
All right. I think this is what you're talking about:
I think a more definitive way to differentiate species would be by genetic incompatibility. In other words - one way to determine if two animals are a different species, is that they are not genetically capable of sexual reproduction...That is not a perfect definition because some different species can reproduce offspring: horses and donkeys, lions and tigers. But their offspring of these pairs are sterile.
I think this is a fine definition. Let's say a species is defined as those organisms which can breed to produce offspring which can then breed with the same organisms that their parents could breed with, and are part of the same "breeding pool" whereby genes get shuffled around and organisms reproduce via sexual reproduction. I'm not sure how rigorous that is, but I think we're on the same page so we don't need to further define it. We can further explore what we mean by this if we later disagree. If two organisms can produce a sterile hybrid offspring like a mule or liger (but only sterile offspring), those two organisms are still different species.
One point I'd like to clarify - If two organisms are physically unable to mate - that is, cannot get sperm and egg together due to morphological or other barriers - but if the egg and sperm can make a viable embryo - these two organisms are still the same species, right? For example, a female chihuaua and a male Great Dane - there's no way the chihuahua could fit the male's penis or carry the giant baby, but genetically the embryo is viable. Only morphological problems keep breeding from occurring. With a test tube and a surrogate mother the dog would be a perfectly healthy and fertile dog.
Now that we've gotten that definition clarified, I'd like to give an example that shows speciation by this definition has been observed.
While studying the genetics of the evening primrose, Oenothera lamarckiana, de Vries (1905) found an unusual variant among his plants. O. lamarckiana has a chromosome number of 2N = 14. The variant had a chromosome number of 2N = 28. He found that he was unable to breed this variant with O. lamarckiana. He named this new species O. gigas.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
Here's another source for the same event:
4) SYMPATRIC SPECIATION IN PLANTS: AUTOPOLYPLOIDY
•Doubling of chromosome number in germline cell à tetraploid gametes
•Interbreeding between tetraploid gametes in species à self-fertile tetraploid progeny
•Barrier to gene flow can be established in single generation
•Can result from mitotic nondisjunction or meiotic nondisjunction
•E.g.: evening primroses Oenothera gigas (2N = 28), parental species O. lamarckiana (2N = 14); commercial tobacco, horticultutal strains of snapdragon
http://www.mun.ca/biology/tmiller/courses/b2900/lec6.htm
I believe this was an observed speciation event by your stricter definition of the word. What do you think? Do you agree?
01 May 05
1 edit
Originally posted by ColettiIf speciation can occur - what are the limits?
Sorry. I was indeed trying to be careful - maybe trying a bit too hard.
I don't believe man evolved from single cell life forms.
I believe in the creation as described in the Bible - including in the creation of Adam and Eve.
I do ...[text shortened]... it evolved from simple life forms (single celled creatures).
I walk down a beach and I see two types of small seagulls - black and red billed. I also see the much larger black backed gull. Could all of these have been once a single species?
And if all gulls could have evolved from a common ancestor - what about other sea birds? Terns are similar - and even a gannet and an albatross look like very big gulls. To me, the relative difference in size appears no more than between great dane and chihuahua - which we agree came from a common ancestor over hundreds of years.
I could go through all the seabirds, right through to the penquin and all are feathere, all lay eggs. At what point do you decide which are evolved and which created?
01 May 05
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI wasn't thinking about plants, but that fits my definition of speciation. It's interesting - speciation in a single generation - I wouldn't have thought that possible even with plants - but we've been messing around with plants long before we knew what genes were and gotten remarkable results.
Thanks for clarifying your position Coletti.
[b]I do not believe we have observed speciation in the strict sense of speciation I gave earlier.[/b]
All right. I think this is what you're talking about:
I think a more ...[text shortened]... stricter definition of the word. What do you think? Do you agree?
Has that occurred in other animal kingdoms?
BTW - I can't remember from biology the different levels of classifications in living things - I just remembered kingdoms, and species, but I know there are several levels in between and after. I tried to find of reference on the web and can't find any old biology textbooks around the house. Do you recall them? It's probably not relevant but I it's bugging me not remembering.