show the math
All-seeing-I
/ -------- species D
/
species A >--------- species A
\
\--------- species G
Can the evolutionist show How (A) can also become (D) and (G)?
When the only thing actually observed is A---D-----G
A
A
John Stockwell
reproductive isolation followed by mutation and natural selection.
bpuharic
actually all are observed. and it's easy for a to become d and g since
the same process is involved across the board:
natural selection
John Harshman
I have no idea what you think was actually observed. If we take this
literally, it would appear that we have seen A transform to D and then
to G. But I suspect that isn't what you intended.
And showing how something can happen doesn't depend on knowing how it
did happen.
So just what question did you mean to ask? Are you perhaps trying to ask
how we can know that species really are related by common descent? Until
you explain, it's hard to reply.
Sapient Fridge
<560b652b-2733-4ff2...@j4g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> writes
>
>
>
> / -------- species D
> /
> species A >--------- species A
> \
> \--------- species G
>
>Can the evolutionist show How (A) can also become (D) and (G)?
Gradual mutation and natural selection over time, in split populations
located in different environments. Each with different selective
pressures ( or just simply genetic drift).
>When the only thing actually observed is A---D-----G
> A
>A
I'm not sure what the spurious "A"'s are meant to mean in the diagram
above, but what we actually observe is:
/ -------- species B
/
species A >--------- species C
\
\--------- species D
It's very unlikely that a long extinct ancestral species would be able
to interbreed with any modern descendants - even for species that
superficially look similar to their ancestral forms e.g. one of the
sharks or coelacanth species. Genetic drift ensures that *some* change
will take place, even if the environment is stable.
--
sapient_...@spamsights.org ICQ #17887309 * Save the net *
Grok: http://spam.abuse.net http://www.cauce.org * nuke a spammer *
Find: http://www.samspade.org http://www.netdemon.net * today *
Kill: http://mail-abuse.com http://au.sorbs.net http://spamhaus.org
All-seeing-I
So you are saying that a dog will no longer be related to the wolf and
will become something totally unlike the wolf via mutation, NS and
time.
What is predicted for the dog to become?
All-seeing-I
OK. Let me put it this way. AFAICT an evergreen can and has given rise
to other kinds of evergreens, but, it has not been shown to give rise
to something that is clearly no longer an evergreen.
Why is that.
Boikat
> / -------- species D
> /
> species A >--------- species A
> \
> \--------- species G
>
> Can the evolutionist show How (A) can also become (D) and (G)?
Reproductive isolation of population "D" and "G" from each other and
population "A". How they beome isolated is another matter, since
there are several factors or events which can lead to reproductive
isolation.
>
> When the only thing actually observed is A---D-----G
> A
> A
Are you trying to illiustrate something there? If so, what, exactly.
Boikat
bpuharic
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
>
>OK. Let me put it this way. AFAICT an evergreen can and has given rise
>to other kinds of evergreens, but, it has not been shown to give rise
>to something that is clearly no longer an evergreen.
>
>Why is that.
sure it has. it's in the fossil record
All-seeing-I
> On Nov 25, 5:45 pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
> > / -------- species D
> > /
> > species A >--------- species A
> > \
> > \--------- species G
>
> > Can the evolutionist show How (A) can also become (D) and (G)?
>
> Reproductive isolation of population "D" and "G" from each other and
> population "A". How they beome isolated is another matter, since
> there are several factors or events which can lead to reproductive
> isolation.
OK then. Why are they no longer related? What changed just because of
reproductive isolation? Is not a wolf still the ancestor of the dog
despite any reproductive isolation that may take place?
At what point can it be predicted that the dog will give rise to
something that is clearly no longer a dog or a wolf?
>
>
>
> > When the only thing actually observed is A---D-----G
> > A
> > A
>
> Are you trying to illiustrate something there? If so, what, exactly.
Wow. You really are a retard.
You FINALLY respond in a reasonable intelligent way and then buy the
ranch a few sentences latter?
What on earth do you smoke. Please. Pass it on over
>
> Boikat
Desertphile
Idiot.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Boikat
> On Nov 25, 6:41 pm, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 25, 5:45 pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
> > > / -------- species D
> > > /
> > > species A >--------- species A
> > > \
> > > \--------- species G
>
> > > Can the evolutionist show How (A) can also become (D) and (G)?
>
> > Reproductive isolation of population "D" and "G" from each other and
> > population "A". How they beome isolated is another matter, since
> > there are several factors or events which can lead to reproductive
> > isolation.
>
> OK then. Why are they no longer related?
What do you mean by "no longer related? Does "A", "D" and "G"
represent different species of rodents, or do they represent a species
of mammal, a species of cephalopod, and a species of insect?
> What changed just because of
> reproductive isolation?
Gene flow within the general population. I take it you've never heard
of "Population genetics"?
> Is not a wolf still the ancestor of the dog
> despite any reproductive isolation that may take place?
Yes. However, when ancestral domestic dogs started hanging with
humans, they became increasingly reproductively isolated from the
wolves. There was less and less genetic exchange between the two
populations. Add to that the selective breeding of dogs for specific
characteristics which arose through what could be considered a
"founding population", the isolation increased.
>
> At what point can it be predicted that the dog will give rise to
> something that is clearly no longer a dog or a wolf?
By example, look up the Russian program to domesticate silver foxes
for furs.
Here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domesticated_silver_fox
It only took fifty years to generate domesticated foxes that would not
likely be called "silver foxes" by anyone that did not know the origin
domestic fox. But that was under a program that basically accelerated
the divergence from the parent population of wild silver foxes into a
domestic breed, into "hyper-drive".
But that's under domestication. In the wild, there are too many
variables to toss out a figure, such as the degree of isolation, and
probably dozens of environmental factors.
>
> > > When the only thing actually observed is A---D-----G
> > > A
> > > A
>
> > Are you trying to illiustrate something there? If so, what, exactly.
>
> Wow. You really are a retard.
Then you should be able to explain what you are trying to illustrate.
I'm not a mind reader, after all.
>
> You FINALLY respond in a reasonable intelligent way and then buy the
> ranch a few sentences latter?
Because it's unclear what you are trying to illustrate.
>
> What on earth do you smoke. Please. Pass it on over
Sorry, not into that kind of shit.
Boikat
Dana Tweedy
> On Nov 25, 5:52 pm, John Stockwell <john.19071...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 25, 4:45 pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>> / -------- species D
>>> /
>>> species A >--------- species A
>>> \
>>> \--------- species G
>>
>>> Can the evolutionist show How (A) can also become (D) and (G)?
>>
>>> When the only thing actually observed is A---D-----G
Actually, what's observed is: (X is extinction)
C----------------
/
B-----------/---------X
/ \
A-----------------X \D--------
\ F--X
\ /
E------------------------/-----------
>>> A
>>> A
>>
>> reproductive isolation followed by mutation and natural selection.
>
> So you are saying that a dog will no longer be related to the wolf and
> will become something totally unlike the wolf via mutation, NS and
> time.
No, he's not saying that. This has been explained to you many times now.
All descendant populations will be related to their ancestral population.
None will become totally unlike thier parent populations. Dogs, if they
don't go extinct, will evolve away from their common ancestor, but won't
ever lose a genetic connection to the wolf.
>
> What is predicted for the dog to become?
There is no "the dog". There are a great number of discrete populations of
dogs, and what will become of them depends entirely on human action. If
humans go extinct, most likely dogs will go extinct as well. If humans
don't go extinct, then they will keep breeding dogs for specific purposes.
What forms dogs will take is related to what purposes humans breed them for.
DJT
Dana Tweedy
Remember, "evergreen" is a kindergarten taxon. There are several types of
trees that are evergreens, some are more closely related than others.
>but, it has not been shown to give rise
> to something that is clearly no longer an evergreen.
and one would not expect to see that under the known rules of evolution and
genetics.
>
> Why is that.
Because: 1. evolution and genetics wouldn't allow such a change in the short
time available, and 2. "evergreen" is not a well defined group. There are
conifers that lose their leaves, like deciduous trees, and there are
angiosperms that are evergreen.
DJT
Boikat
All species are slaved to their genetic ancestry, however, as *time*
passes, under natural selection, and diversification and divergance
will usually increase, simply due to te fact that the enviornment is
in a state of relatively constant change, punctuated by events, such
as ice ages
One day, in the distant future, after much diversification and
divergance, a descendant of an evergreen (like a cedar tree, since
"evergreen" is too broad a term) may *resemble* an oak tree, but will
not be an oak tree.
Boikat
All-seeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -
You are a moron, ok. Never doubt that fact.
The damn thing is STILL a fox.
You kooks insist on showing evolution happens by saying a fruit fly is
proof of evolution; but, in the end, and when it is all said and done,
you still have just another variation of a fruit fly.
Same goes for the fox.
At what point will the fox no longer be a fox?
At what point will a bush be a tree?
None of you evo freaks can show that because IT DOES NOT HAPPEN
AN EVERGREEN MAY GIVE RISE TO VARIATIONS OF ANOTHER KIND OF EVERGREEN
BUT, ---THERE IS NOT ONE SHRED OF EVIDENCE SHOWING SOMETHING LIKE AN
EVERGREEN GIVING RISE TO AN APPLE TREE OR SOMETHING LIKE A HIBISCUS.
And what does the bible say, moron? It says life was to fill the earth
"each after his own kind". Which is EXACTLY what we see taking place.
The original evergreen has populated the earth with many variations
of.. what? --- MORE EVERGREENS, NOT APPLE TREES
It amazes me that some of you even know how to BREATHE.
Dana Tweedy
> On Nov 25, 6:41 pm, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> On Nov 25, 5:45 pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>> / -------- species D
>>> /
>>> species A >--------- species A
>>> \
>>> \--------- species G
>>
>>> Can the evolutionist show How (A) can also become (D) and (G)?
>>
>> Reproductive isolation of population "D" and "G" from each other and
>> population "A". How they beome isolated is another matter, since
>> there are several factors or events which can lead to reproductive
>> isolation.
>
> OK then. Why are they no longer related?
They ARE related, by common descent. Do you become unrelated to your
cousin, just because you have different parents?
>What changed just because of
> reproductive isolation?
Ability to interbreed with species A. Since species B and on can't do
that, they evolve away from the species mean A.
>Is not a wolf still the ancestor of the dog
> despite any reproductive isolation that may take place?
"A wolf" is not the ancestor a "the dog". A population of wolves is the
common ancestor of both modern wolves, and modern dogs. Any wolf living
today is a close cousin of domestic dogs, not it's ancestor.
Dogs became unable to breed with other wolves,(due to human interference)
and by selective breeding of what population they were able to breed with
the hundreds of variation of dogs was produced.
>
> At what point can it be predicted that the dog will give rise to
> something that is clearly no longer a dog or a wolf?
That's enitrely arbitrary. As in earlier examples, a dachshund is
something that is clearly not a timber wolf. That doesn't mean it doesn't
carry nearly identical genes as a timber wolf does, and it's not to say that
a doxie doesn't have the same ancestors as a wolf. Dachshunds have a very
similar bone structure, dentition, and behavior as wolves, but also have
some very significant differenences from wolf populations.
If you want, you can call a dachshund a very small, short legged, and lop
eared wolf. By the same token, you can say a dacushund is "no longer" a
wolf, but has become something else, ie a domestic pet. Exactly the same
way, you can say a human is just a hairless ape, or say a human is a very
different ape from a chimp.
DJt
All-seeing-I
wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 15:45:24 -0800 (PST), All-seeing-I
>
> <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
> > / -------- species D
> > /
> > species A >--------- species A
> > \
> > \--------- species G
>
> > Can the evolutionist show How (A) can also become (D) and (G)?
>
> > When the only thing actually observed is A---D-----G
>
> Idiot.
Well, It is you that seems to be unable to answer.
All-seeing-I
OK. What has an evergreen given rise to that is clearly no longer an
evergreen
chibiabos
<fc97c9cb-2a33-4729...@m38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
Your mother?
(Maybe the question mark isn't needed.)
-chib
--
Member of S.M.A.S.H.
Sarcastic Middle-aged Atheists with a Sense of Humor
Steven L.
Well, here's a thought:
Suppose we tried to breed varieties of dogs that were even smaller than
chihuahuas. And after many generations, we succeeded in breeding an
adult dog that was as small as a large rat.
It would be incapable of breeding with an adult wolf (or even with a
medium-size adult dog), and would therefore be a new species, yes?
--
Steven L.
Email: sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
All-Seeing-I
You do not realize that you just invalidated the fish to man idea when
you calim: "All descendant populations will be related to their
ancestral population."
Maybe fish and men share common elements but they do not share common
ancestry.
Which invalidates evolution.
Boikat
<snip>
>
> You are a moron, ok. Never doubt that fact.
I smacked your little butt, didn't I?
>
> The damn thing is STILL a fox.
I didn't say it was anything else, did I, however, if you bothered to
look at the article, it had a photo on the right. Did they look like
a a typical wild silver fox to you? Well, did they, punk? Did yu
also read in the article how their bahaviour has changed compared to
the wild silver fox? Did you read that, you snot nosed ignorant
little punk?
>
> You kooks insist on showing evolution happens by saying a fruit fly is
> proof of evolution; but, in the end, and when it is all said and done,
> you still have just another variation of a fruit fly.
And everyone has repeatedly explained to you that a daughter species
is going to resemble the parent species too, you pig ignorant little
snot nosed punk.
>
> Same goes for the fox.
No shit? What were you expecting, a horse?
>
> At what point will the fox no longer be a fox?
When it's turned int a fur coat.
>
> At what point will a bush be a tree?
My, that's a meaningless question.
>
> None of you evo freaks can show that because IT DOES NOT HAPPEN
You're a snot noed punk, and I just, figuatively, kicked you ass down
the hall, and you know it.
>
> AN EVERGREEN MAY GIVE RISE TO VARIATIONS OF ANOTHER KIND OF EVERGREEN
> BUT, ---THERE IS NOT ONE SHRED OF EVIDENCE SHOWING SOMETHING LIKE AN
> EVERGREEN GIVING RISE TO AN APPLE TREE OR SOMETHING LIKE A HIBISCUS.
Your stupidity is well known and understood. You do not have to
"yell".
>
> And what does the bible say, moron?
Irrelevent to biological evolution, fucktard.
> It says life was to fill the earth
> "each after his own kind".
Define "kind".
> Which is EXACTLY what we see taking place.
If you cannot define "kind", the claim is meaningless, asshole.
> The original evergreen has populated the earth with many variations
> of.. what? --- MORE EVERGREENS, NOT APPLE TREES
Meaningless, until you define "kind", loser.
>
> It amazes me that some of you even know how to BREATHE.
Projection.
Boikat
Boikat
Yes. They do, fucktard.
>
> Which invalidates evolution.
Only in the minds of retards, like you.
Boikat
Dana Tweedy
"Evergreen", as has been pointed out many times, is not a clear cut group,
but a characteristic of many different types of trees. Most "evergreen"
trees are conifers, which tend to keep their leaves year round. There are
some conifers, however that don't. One such is the Larch. (cue: "how to
recognize trees from a long way off" sketch)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larch
This is an example of a tree that evolved from an "evergreen" which is not
one itself.
DJT
Caranx latus
> On Nov 25, 7:26 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
<snip>
>> There is no "the dog". There are a great number of discrete populations of
>> dogs, and what will become of them depends entirely on human action. If
>> humans go extinct, most likely dogs will go extinct as well. If humans
>> don't go extinct, then they will keep breeding dogs for specific purposes.
>> What forms dogs will take is related to what purposes humans breed them for.
>>
>> DJT
>
> You do not realize that you just invalidated the fish to man idea when
> you calim: "All descendant populations will be related to their
> ancestral population."
>
> Maybe fish and men share common elements but they do not share common
> ancestry.
Despite your unsupported protestations to the contrary, yes they do.
Fish appeared on this planet well before any other type of vertebrate.
Not only are humans related to fish, but all amphibians, reptiles, birds
and mammals are.
> Which invalidates evolution.
Dana Tweedy
Why haven't you addressed those who have answered your spew?
DJT
Dana Tweedy
snip
>
> You are a moron, ok. Never doubt that fact.
>
> The damn thing is STILL a fox.
But it's become much more like a dog than other foxes.
>
> You kooks insist on showing evolution happens by saying a fruit fly is
> proof of evolution; but, in the end, and when it is all said and done,
> you still have just another variation of a fruit fly.
Which is exactly what evolution produces. No one ever says a descendant of
a fruit fly becomes something else.
>
> Same goes for the fox.
>
> At what point will the fox no longer be a fox?
When it's a "dog fox".
>
> At what point will a bush be a tree?
When it gets above a certain height. There are several genera of trees
that have bushes in the same genera. White oak, is a tree, but Scrub Oak
is usually a bush.
>
> None of you evo freaks can show that because IT DOES NOT HAPPEN
What does happen is that species diverge into new species. That does
happen, even if you won't admit it.
>
> AN EVERGREEN MAY GIVE RISE TO VARIATIONS OF ANOTHER KIND OF EVERGREEN
> BUT, ---THERE IS NOT ONE SHRED OF EVIDENCE SHOWING SOMETHING LIKE AN
> EVERGREEN GIVING RISE TO AN APPLE TREE OR SOMETHING LIKE A HIBISCUS.
Why should it? Again, you don't seem to understand that all descendant
populations will have some genetic relationship to their ancestral
populations. To find the common ancestor of pine trees and apple trees,
you have to go farther back, before the organism was either an "evergreen"
or a apple tree.
>
> And what does the bible say, moron? It says life was to fill the earth
> "each after his own kind". Which is EXACTLY what we see taking place.
> The original evergreen has populated the earth with many variations
> of.. what? --- MORE EVERGREENS, NOT APPLE TREES
Yet the common ancestor produced both. There were no "original
evergreens". Evergreen trees evolved from earlier plants.
>
> It amazes me that some of you even know how to BREATHE.
Why should your own ignorance and inablity to learn mean that others cannot
be intelligent?
DJT
John Harshman
synonym for "conifer"? If so, then all angiosperms -- apple trees, for
exmaple -- are descended from conifers. If you really mean "evergreen",
I covered that in another post.
John Harshman
Why? Both humans and living fish are related to the ancestral vertebrates.
> Maybe fish and men share common elements but they do not share common
> ancestry.
But of course they do. Whatever makes you think they don't?
> Which invalidates evolution.
It wouldn't even invalidate evolution if your claim was true. Though it
would invalidate certain features of evolution, for example common
descent of all vertebrates. Fortunately, your claim is false anyway.
John Harshman
The key is "AFAICT". You have no clue. Now in fact there are many genera
of plants in which some are evergreen and some are not. Oaks (Quercus),
for example. Or is it your claim that each species of oak was separately
created? If so, there are other problems for you, for example the
ability of most oak species to produce fertile hybrids.
John Harshman
> On Nov 25, 6:41 pm, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> On Nov 25, 5:45 pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>> / -------- species D
>>> /
>>> species A >--------- species A
>>> \
>>> \--------- species G
>>> Can the evolutionist show How (A) can also become (D) and (G)?
>> Reproductive isolation of population "D" and "G" from each other and
>> population "A". How they beome isolated is another matter, since
>> there are several factors or events which can lead to reproductive
>> isolation.
>
> OK then. Why are they no longer related?
They are related. What do you think "related" means?
> What changed just because of
> reproductive isolation? Is not a wolf still the ancestor of the dog
> despite any reproductive isolation that may take place?
Well, at least a population that resembled living wolves, and is
ancestral to living wolves, was also ancestral to dogs. Might as well
call that ancestor a wolf. So the answer is yes.
> At what point can it be predicted that the dog will give rise to
> something that is clearly no longer a dog or a wolf?
How would you make such a decision? It seems arbitrary to me. If a
population descended from a wolf becomes different enough from other
such populations, we might eventually want to give it a new name, like
"dog". And if a populations descended from dogs becomes different
enough, we might want to call that something else too. But there is no
objective point at which that would happen. Names are assigned by people.
>>> When the only thing actually observed is A---D-----G
>>> A
>>> A
>> Are you trying to illiustrate something there? If so, what, exactly.
>
> Wow. You really are a retard.
No, really. Nobody knows what your picture was intended to show. WHat
are tha two A's in the corners? What is the straight line?
Dana Tweedy
No, I did no such thing. Humans are related to fish, and if you ask a
cladist, they will tell you that all tetrapods, including mammals like us,
are highly derived fish. What's fustrating about having a discussion with
you, is that you totally ignore points that have been presented to you over
and over.
>
> Maybe fish and men share common elements but they do not share common
> ancestry.
Fish and humans do share a common ancestor, which is demonstrated by the
genetic evidence, and the fossil evidence.
>
> Which invalidates evolution.
Actually, the evidence supports evolution. Humans are one branch of the
evolutionary tree that descended from early lobe finned fishes. Please see
Neil Shubin's "Your Inner Fish" for a more indepth discussion.
DJT
bpuharic
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>On Nov 25, 6:53 pm, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 16:35:25 -0800 (PST), All-seeing-I
>>
>> <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>> >OK. Let me put it this way. AFAICT an evergreen can and has given rise
>> >to other kinds of evergreens, but, it has not been shown to give rise
>> >to something that is clearly no longer an evergreen.
>>
>> >Why is that.
>>
>> sure it has. it's in the fossil record
>
>OK. What has an evergreen given rise to that is clearly no longer an
>evergreen
plants, animals, and bacteria have a common ancestor. therefore your
synedoche shows that evergreens 'give rise' to animals...etc
bpuharic
<allse...@usa.com> wrote:
>
>You do not realize that you just invalidated the fish to man idea when
>you calim: "All descendant populations will be related to their
>ancestral population."
>
>Maybe fish and men share common elements but they do not share common
>ancestry.
>
>Which invalidates evolution.
>
and you know this how?
meaningless
Boikat
> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 18:00:45 -0800 (PST), All-Seeing-I
>
>
> >You do not realize that you just invalidated the fish to man idea when
> >you calim: "All descendant populations will be related to their
> >ancestral population."
>
> >Maybe fish and men share common elements but they do not share common
> >ancestry.
>
> >Which invalidates evolution.
>
> and you know this how?
Because it's not drawn in any ancient comic books.
>
> meaningless
He is an idiot.
Boikat
AusShane
>
> - Show quoted text -
Perhaps you would like to explain the common descents of the whale and
the hippopotamus? The genetic and fossil records prove they came from
a common ancestor - yet I cant see them ever breeding together again,
nor sharing the same environment - hmm where did the legs go ?
Mike Painter
>>
>>> / -------- species D
>>> /
>>> species A >--------- species A
>>> \
>>> \--------- species G
>>
>>> Can the evolutionist show How (A) can also become (D) and (G)?
>>
>>> A
>>> A
>>
>
> So you are saying that a dog will no longer be related to the wolf and
> will become something totally unlike the wolf via mutation, NS and
> time.
>
An All seeing I, but smarter.
hersheyh
> / -------- species D
> /
> species A >--------- species A
> \
> \--------- species G
>
> Can the evolutionist show How (A) can also become (D) and (G)?
>
> When the only thing actually observed is A---D-----G
> A
> A
If I am correct about what you are trying to present here, I think you
are saying that evolutionists, in the first figure, are saying that
species A is an ancestral species that has survived at least
morphologically unchanged (or at least similar enough to remain the
same species) as a species to the present time, but that, at some
point in the past, species A gave forth to not one but two other
species, D and G, which also are alive today.
And you are asking how they can say this from a fossil record which
only shows that A, and only A, is found in lower through upper
strata. But that D and G fossils both appear at some middle strata as
well as upper strata, but never in the lower strata that have only A.
First, you have to realize that this would represent a fairly recent
example of speciation because none of the species have gone extinct,
and that D and G would have many features in common with A. And, if
all three are living species, it would be possible to get sequence
information as well as fossil information.
So what are the alternatives from an evolutionary perspective. There
are several, but all would place A as the ancestral species precisely
because it is closely related morphologically to the other two (I am
presuming there are no fossils between that show intermediacy and is
the only fossil found in the lower (older) layers.
1) D G A 2) D G A 3) D A G 4) D A G
\ / / \ \ /
\ / / \ | /
\/ / \ \/
\/ / \ | /
\ / \/
\/ |
A A
A A
The answer is that *if* all you had was the fossil record, you might
not be able to distinguish between the four possibilities. Of
course, if D and G were more similar to each other (as, say, bonobos
and common chimps are relative to the hominid side's remaining
species), then 1) would be more likely than the other three. And, of
course, if all three were living, it would be possible to resolve the
question by looking at sequence information.
Is that what you wanted?
bobsyo...@yahoo.com
"John Stockwell" <john.1...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0b26bdd9-dc14-4e41...@w19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 25, 4:45 pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>> / -------- species D
>> /
>> species A >--------- species A
>> \
>> \--------- species G
>>
>> Can the evolutionist show How (A) can also become (D) and (G)?
>>
>> When the only thing actually observed is A---D-----G
>> A
>> A
>
>
No.
Scientists and evolutionists try to explain, and decipher, reality.
That has nothing to do with your babbled crap.
Ye Old One
>
>
>
> / -------- species D
> /
> species A >--------- species A
> \
> \--------- species G
>
>Can the evolutionist show How (A) can also become (D) and (G)?
>
>
>When the only thing actually observed is A---D-----G
> A
>A
Maths are not involved you moron.
mathematics
n plural noun [usually treated as singular] the branch of
science concerned with number, quantity, and space, either as abstract
concepts (pure mathematics) or as applied to physics, engineering, and
other subjects (applied mathematics).
DERIVATIVES
mathematician noun
--
Bob.
You have not been charged for this lesson - learn from it rather than
continuing to make a fool of yourself.
Ye Old One
<ap...@email.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Nov 25, 5:52 pm, John Stockwell <john.19071...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 25, 4:45 pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>> > / -------- species D
>> > /
>> > species A >--------- species A
>> > \
>> > \--------- species G
>>
>> > Can the evolutionist show How (A) can also become (D) and (G)?
>>
>> > When the only thing actually observed is A---D-----G
>> > A
>> > A
>>
>> reproductive isolation followed by mutation and natural selection.
>
>So you are saying that a dog will no longer be related to the wolf and
>will become something totally unlike the wolf via mutation, NS and
>time.
>
>What is predicted for the dog to become?
You cannot predict that.
Ye Old One
Yes they do - that is the whole point moron.
>
>Which invalidates evolution.
--
Bob.
If brains were dynamite, you wouldn't have enough to blow your nose.
Ye Old One
>On Nov 25, 6:03 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> All-seeing-I wrote:
>>
>> > / -------- species D
>> > /
>> > species A >--------- species A
>> > \
>> > \--------- species G
>>
>> > Can the evolutionist show How (A) can also become (D) and (G)?
>>
>> > When the only thing actually observed is A---D-----G
>> > A
>> > A
>>
>> I have no idea what you think was actually observed. If we take this
>> literally, it would appear that we have seen A transform to D and then
>> to G. But I suspect that isn't what you intended.
>>
>> And showing how something can happen doesn't depend on knowing how it
>> did happen.
>>
>> So just what question did you mean to ask? Are you perhaps trying to ask
>> how we can know that species really are related by common descent? Until
>> you explain, it's hard to reply.
>
>OK. Let me put it this way. AFAICT an evergreen can and has given rise
>to other kinds of evergreens, but, it has not been shown to give rise
>to something that is clearly no longer an evergreen.
>
>Why is that.
Because everything that is classified as an evergreen (not a
scientific term) has not had time to evolve into something else since
that classification was drawn up.
However, work backwards and you will find that a particular plant's
ancestors may not have been evergreen.
Ye Old One
Wow! Thanks for that Dana, It is really nice to learn something new so
early in the morning - gets the day off to a good start.
--
Bob.
Theists think all gods but theirs are false. Atheists simply don't
make an exception for the last one.
Ye Old One
<ap...@email.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Nov 25, 6:41 pm, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> On Nov 25, 5:45 pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>> > / -------- species D
>> > /
>> > species A >--------- species A
>> > \
>> > \--------- species G
>>
>> > Can the evolutionist show How (A) can also become (D) and (G)?
>>
>> Reproductive isolation of population "D" and "G" from each other and
>> population "A". How they beome isolated is another matter, since
>> there are several factors or events which can lead to reproductive
>> isolation.
>
>OK then. Why are they no longer related? What changed just because of
>reproductive isolation? Is not a wolf still the ancestor of the dog
>despite any reproductive isolation that may take place?
A population of A became D, another became G while A still keeps on.
However, Even though A continues as a separate species all three, A D
& G are now populations that have A as a common ancestor.
>
>At what point can it be predicted that the dog will give rise to
>something that is clearly no longer a dog or a wolf?
It cannot be predicted.
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>> > When the only thing actually observed is A---D-----G
>> > A
>> > A
>>
>> Are you trying to illiustrate something there? If so, what, exactly.
>
>Wow. You really are a retard.
Cries Mudbrain at his reflection in the mirror.
>
>You FINALLY respond in a reasonable intelligent way and then buy the
>ranch a few sentences latter?
>
>What on earth do you smoke. Please. Pass it on over
Just because YOU use drugs doesn't mean others do so.
>>
>> Boikat
--
Bob.
Bozone (n.): The substance surrounding stupid people that stops bright
ideas from penetrating. Your bozone layer, unfortunately, shows little
sign of breaking down in the near future.
Devils Advocaat
> / -------- species D
> /
> species A >--------- species A
> \
> \--------- species G
>
> Can the evolutionist show How (A) can also become (D) and (G)?
>
> A
> A
To paraphrase what some creationists have said before, if G evolved
from D how come D is still around?
Stuart
> On Nov 25, 5:52 pm, John Stockwell <john.19071...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > > / -------- species D
> > > /
> > > species A >--------- species A
> > > \
> > > \--------- species G
>
> > > Can the evolutionist show How (A) can also become (D) and (G)?
>
> > > When the only thing actually observed is A---D-----G
> > > A
> > > A
>
>
> So you are saying that a dog will no longer be related to the wolf and
> will become something totally unlike the wolf via mutation, NS and
> time.
>
Douche bag strikes again.
Google "Ring Species"
Your diagram does not indicate that D,G are not related to A. Why
should
D,G be "totally unlike" A?
You make no sense at all.
Stuart
Bruce Stephens
[...]
> You do not realize that you just invalidated the fish to man idea when
> you calim: "All descendant populations will be related to their
> ancestral population."
>
> Maybe fish and men share common elements but they do not share common
> ancestry.
Yes they do. All life shares common ancestry---ask Behe to explain it
to you.
Ye Old One
<ap...@email.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Nov 25, 7:22 pm, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> On Nov 25, 6:55 pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Nov 25, 6:41 pm, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > On Nov 25, 5:45 pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > / -------- species D
>> > > > /
>> > > > species A >--------- species A
>> > > > \
>> > > > \--------- species G
>>
>> > > > Can the evolutionist show How (A) can also become (D) and (G)?
>>
>> > > Reproductive isolation of population "D" and "G" from each other and
>> > > population "A". How they beome isolated is another matter, since
>> > > there are several factors or events which can lead to reproductive
>> > > isolation.
>>
>> > OK then. Why are they no longer related?
>>
>> What do you mean by "no longer related? Does "A", "D" and "G"
>> represent different species of rodents, or do they represent a species
>> of mammal, a species of cephalopod, and a species of insect?
>>
>> > What changed just because of
>> > reproductive isolation?
>>
>> Gene flow within the general population. I take it you've never heard
>> of "Population genetics"?
>>
>> > Is not a wolf still the ancestor of the dog
>> > despite any reproductive isolation that may take place?
>>
>> Yes. However, when ancestral domestic dogs started hanging with
>> humans, they became increasingly reproductively isolated from the
>> wolves. There was less and less genetic exchange between the two
>> populations. Add to that the selective breeding of dogs for specific
>> characteristics which arose through what could be considered a
>> "founding population", the isolation increased.
>>
>>
>>
>> > At what point can it be predicted that the dog will give rise to
>> > something that is clearly no longer a dog or a wolf?
>>
>> By example, look up the Russian program to domesticate silver foxes
>> for furs.
>>
>> Here:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domesticated_silver_fox
>>
>> It only took fifty years to generate domesticated foxes that would not
>> likely be called "silver foxes" by anyone that did not know the origin
>> domestic fox. But that was under a program that basically accelerated
>> the divergence from the parent population of wild silver foxes into a
>> domestic breed, into "hyper-drive".
>>
>> But that's under domestication. In the wild, there are too many
>> variables to toss out a figure, such as the degree of isolation, and
>> probably dozens of environmental factors.
>>
>>
>>
>> > > > When the only thing actually observed is A---D-----G
>> > > > A
>> > > > A
>>
>> > > Are you trying to illiustrate something there? If so, what, exactly.
>>
>> > Wow. You really are a retard.
>>
>> Then you should be able to explain what you are trying to illustrate.
>> I'm not a mind reader, after all.
>>
>>
>>
>> > You FINALLY respond in a reasonable intelligent way and then buy the
>> > ranch a few sentences latter?
>>
>> Because it's unclear what you are trying to illustrate.
>>
>>
>>
>> > What on earth do you smoke. Please. Pass it on over
>>
>> Sorry, not into that kind of shit.
>>
>> Boikat- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>I am a moron, ok. Never doubt that fact.
Text corrected.
>
>The damn thing is STILL a fox.
>
>You kooks insist on showing evolution happens by saying a fruit fly is
>proof of evolution; but, in the end, and when it is all said and done,
>you still have just another variation of a fruit fly.
Oh dear, have you forgotten the education I gave you on the fruit fly
a couple of weeks ago?
>
>Same goes for the fox.
>
>At what point will the fox no longer be a fox?
Don't know. Cannot be predicted.
However, it has not always been a fox.
>
>At what point will a bush be a tree?
When natural selection pressures make it necessary.
>
>None of you evo freaks can show that because IT DOES NOT HAPPEN
But it has.
>
>AN EVERGREEN MAY GIVE RISE TO VARIATIONS OF ANOTHER KIND OF EVERGREEN
>BUT, ---THERE IS NOT ONE SHRED OF EVIDENCE SHOWING SOMETHING LIKE AN
>EVERGREEN GIVING RISE TO AN APPLE TREE OR SOMETHING LIKE A HIBISCUS.
Shouting it out doesn't make it true
>
>And what does the bible say, moron?
Who cares what a collection of bronze age fairy stories says?
> It says life was to fill the earth
>"each after his own kind".
Which of the canids was the first of its "kind"?
> Which is EXACTLY what we see taking place.
>The original evergreen has populated the earth with many variations
>of.. what? --- MORE EVERGREENS, NOT APPLE TREES
So you are wrong. Live with it.
>
>It amazes me that some of you even know how to BREATHE.
Cries Mudbrain at his reflection in the mirror.
Nashton
> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 16:32:02 -0800 (PST), All-seeing-I
> <ap...@email.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
>> On Nov 25, 5:52 pm, John Stockwell <john.19071...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Nov 25, 4:45 pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> / -------- species D
>>>> /
>>>> species A >--------- species A
>>>> \
>>>> \--------- species G
>>>> Can the evolutionist show How (A) can also become (D) and (G)?
>>>> When the only thing actually observed is A---D-----G
>>>> A
>>>> A
>>> reproductive isolation followed by mutation and natural selection.
>> So you are saying that a dog will no longer be related to the wolf and
>> will become something totally unlike the wolf via mutation, NS and
>> time.
>>
>> What is predicted for the dog to become?
>
> You cannot predict that.
>
>
And you know that, how exactly? You can hardly breathe without outside
help, let alone think.
Nashton
>
> Suppose we tried to breed varieties of dogs that were even smaller than
> chihuahuas. And after many generations, we succeeded in breeding an
> adult dog that was as small as a large rat.
>
> It would be incapable of breeding with an adult wolf (or even with a
> medium-size adult dog), and would therefore be a new species, yes?
No. It would be a dog that would need a stool.
>
>
Boikat
Why? Will it be a shit eating dog?
Jokes aside (For Nashty-poo ans ASS-I(diot)'s benefit, "stool" is a
synonym for "turd" or "shit"(in the common tongue.).)
Size would be a physical barrier to reproduction, that = new species.
Even if you were to artificially inseminate the female of the "micro
dog", the resulting embryos would rapidly cause major problems due to
the size, and unless interviened, the female micro dog would probably
rupture and die instead of birthing the pups. No rational mind would
still call them the same species.
But then again, the term "rational mind" is involved, so you probably
will not understand the point.
Boikat
Desertphile
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
> On Nov 25, 7:19 pm, Desertphile <desertph...@invalid-address.net>
> wrote:
> > On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 15:45:24 -0800 (PST), All-seeing-I
> >
> > <ap...@email.com> wrote:
> >
> > > / -------- species D
> > > /
> > > species A >--------- species A
> > > \
> > > \--------- species G
> >
> > > Can the evolutionist show How (A) can also become (D) and (G)?
> >
> > > When the only thing actually observed is A---D-----G
> >
> > Idiot.
> Well, It is you that seems to be unable to answer.
Read the FAQ about speciation, Idiot.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Desertphile
wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 15:45:24 -0800 (PST), All-seeing-I
> <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> > / -------- species D
> > /
> > species A >--------- species A
> > \
> > \--------- species G
> >
> >Can the evolutionist show How (A) can also become (D) and (G)?
> >
> >
> >When the only thing actually observed is A---D-----G
> > A
> >A
> actually all are observed. and it's easy for a to become d and g since
> the same process is involved across the board: natural selection
Yes, via two different versions of speciation. But shit-for-brains
can't be bothered to learn simple science concepts.
Steven L.
For some reason, my newsreader deleted All-Seeing-I's reply to me.
All-Seeing-I, if you're reading this:
What do YOU suppose defines a species anyway? If you look at two life
forms, how do YOU decide if they're the same species or different
species? Just the fact that they look alike or different?
There are species that can mimic the appearance of other species quite
accurately, for predation or camouflage. So appearance isn't everything.
The ability to interbreed is what's key.
That was my point from the "micro dog" scenario.
--
Steven L.
Email: sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
Ye Old One
Dogs are in effect a ring species, based on size rather than locality,
that cannot close the ring.
--
Bob.
hersheyh
I should mention that these three organisms must be placed together
*because* they show, as far as the fossil record allows, the greatest
morphological similarity to each other. Otherwise there would have to
be other known fossils present in this collection of organisms.
Degree of morphological similarity is, of course, the very reasoning
that goes into generating the nested hierarchy of classification used
in what is called Linneaean taxonomy. IOW, A, G, D would not be a
modern fish, a modern wolf, and man. Rather it would be more like the
modern wolf, Armbruster's wolf, and the dire wolf, although the last
two are extinct (rather recently).
>
Let me correct the figures.
1) / - species D
/
/------ species G
/
species A >-------- ---species A
2) / - species D
/
/ /---- species G
/ /
species A >-------- ---species A
3) / - species G
/
/ /---- species D
/ /
species A >-------- ---species A
4) / -------- species D
/
species A >--------- species A
\
\--------- species G
> The answer is that *if* all you had was the fossil record, you might
> not be able to distinguish between the four possibilities. Of
> course, if D and G were more similar to each other (as, say, bonobos
> and common chimps are relative to the hominid side's remaining
> species), then 1) would be more likely than the other three.
And a similar argument could be made, depending on the actual evidence
for some of the other possibilities. The last, 4), however, would be
a case where it is not possible to determine the order of branching
(as was the case for human, gorilla, and the two chimp species until
we had enough sequence evidence).
But I presume you want the answer to be:
5) (magic poof)-----G
(magic poof) A--------------A
(magic poof)-----D
That is, each species was magically poofed into existence, but at
different times so as to have their fossils reside in different
layers.
And, of course, if you want magic, you can always invent a magical
solution to any observation.
Ye Old One
group when s/he wrote:
>Ye Old One wrote:
>> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 16:32:02 -0800 (PST), All-seeing-I
>> <ap...@email.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>>
>>> On Nov 25, 5:52 pm, John Stockwell <john.19071...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Nov 25, 4:45 pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> / -------- species D
>>>>> /
>>>>> species A >--------- species A
>>>>> \
>>>>> \--------- species G
>>>>> Can the evolutionist show How (A) can also become (D) and (G)?
>>>>> When the only thing actually observed is A---D-----G
>>>>> A
>>>>> A
>>>> reproductive isolation followed by mutation and natural selection.
>>> So you are saying that a dog will no longer be related to the wolf and
>>> will become something totally unlike the wolf via mutation, NS and
>>> time.
>>>
>>> What is predicted for the dog to become?
>>
>> You cannot predict that.
>>
>>
>
>And you know that, how exactly?
Because I understand the science. I know you could never even hope to
grasp it, but that does not mean you have to keep exposing your
ignorance on this group.
> You can hardly breathe without outside
>help, let alone think.
--
Bob.
Have you ever wondered what your life would be like if you had had
enough oxygen at birth?
raven1
>You do not realize that you just invalidated the fish to man idea when
>you calim: "All descendant populations will be related to their
>ancestral population."
>
>Maybe fish and men share common elements but they do not share common
>ancestry.
Yes, we do.
>Which invalidates evolution.
Would it kill you to learn even the rudiments of science or logic?
Davej
> [...]
> You do not realize that you just invalidated the fish to man idea when
> ancestral population."
Your basic reading comprehension seems to be rather poor. I guess
since you already "know" all the answers it doesn't matter that your
mind has turned into tapioca pudding.
John Stockwell
> On Nov 25, 5:52 pm, John Stockwell <john.19071...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 25, 4:45 pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
> > > / -------- species D
> > > /
> > > species A >--------- species A
> > > \
> > > \--------- species G
>
> > > Can the evolutionist show How (A) can also become (D) and (G)?
>
> > > When the only thing actually observed is A---D-----G
> > > A
> > > A
>
> > reproductive isolation followed by mutation and natural selection.
>
> So you are saying that a dog will no longer be related to the wolf and
> will become something totally unlike the wolf via mutation, NS and
> time.
No. i am not saying that. Dogs are descendants of the wolf. The
descendants
of dogs will be related to the wolf..
>
> What is predicted for the dog to become?
"The dog"? Sorry, but from the given breeds of dogs, we won't have
"the dog" anymore,
but rather a collection of species of dog,
John Stockwell
> On Nov 25, 7:26 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > > On Nov 25, 5:52 pm, John Stockwell <john.19071...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> On Nov 25, 4:45 pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
> > >>> / -------- species D
> > >>> /
> > >>> species A >--------- species A
> > >>> \
> > >>> \--------- species G
>
> > >>> Can the evolutionist show How (A) can also become (D) and (G)?
>
> > >>> When the only thing actually observed is A---D-----G
>
> > C----------------
> > /
> > B-----------/---------X
> > / \
> > A-----------------X \D--------
> > \ F--X
> > \ /
> > E------------------------/-----------
>
> > >>> A
>
> > >> reproductive isolation followed by mutation and natural selection.
>
> > > So you are saying that a dog will no longer be related to the wolf and
> > > will become something totally unlike the wolf via mutation, NS and
> > > time.
>
> > don't go extinct, will evolve away from their common ancestor, but won't
> > ever lose a genetic connection to the wolf.
>
>
> > dogs, and what will become of them depends entirely on human action. If
> > humans go extinct, most likely dogs will go extinct as well. If humans
> > don't go extinct, then they will keep breeding dogs for specific purposes.
> > What forms dogs will take is related to what purposes humans breed them for.
>
> > DJT
>
> ancestral population."
>
> Maybe fish and men share common elements but they do not share common
> ancestry.
>
Fish and men share common ancestry. All quadrupeds share the same
common ancestry. So, men, crocodiles, dinosaurs, whathave you share
common
ancestry with fish.
-John
raven1
<john.1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Fish and men share common ancestry. All quadrupeds share the same
>common ancestry. So, men, crocodiles, dinosaurs,
Don't forget llamas.
> what have you share
>common ancestry with fish.