Re: Evidence persuades many to reject the molecules to man version of
Gabriel
wrote:
: On Oct 2, 6:28 pm, Gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: > On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 15:47:15 -0700 (PDT), Kermit
: >
: > <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: >
: > : On Sep 29, 4:11 am, Gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: > : > On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 15:46:03 -0400, Jack Dominey <l...@my.sig>: > wrote:
: >
: > : >
: > : > : In <l10ud4tt2rd4n35vi8ofaki1m8gata7...@4ax.com>, Gabriel: <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: > : >
: > : > :
: > : > : >On Sat, 27 Sep 2008 09:54:33 -0700 (PDT), Kermit: ><unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: > : >
: > : > : >
: > : > : >: On Sep 26, 10:05 pm, Gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: > : > :
: > : > : >: > No, evolution of dogs into different dogs, cats into
: > : > : >: > different cats are all that's present.
: > : > : >:
: > : > : >: You might want to explain what the limits are to this process, and why
: > : > : >: you think so.
: > : > : >:
: > : > : >: The nested hierarchy of the genomes demonstrate pretty clearly that
: > : > : >: current species are descended from common ancestors - probably a
: > : > : >: single common ancestor if we go back far enough.
: > : > : >:
: > : > : >: But I understand that fundamentalists are typically concrete thinkers,
: > : > : >: so here's some fossil transitions between significantly different
: > : > : >: groups of organisms:
: > : > : >: Transitions from primitive fish to sharks, skates, and rays:
: > : > : >:http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1a.html#fish
: > : > : >:
: > : > : >: Primitive fish to bony fish:
: > : > : >:http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1a.html#bony
: > : > : >:
: > : > : >: Fish to amphibians:
: > : > : >:http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1a.html#amph1
: > : > : >:
: > : > : >: Amphibians to reptiles:
: > : > : >:http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1b.html#rept1
: > : > : >:
: > : > : >: Reptiles to mammals:
: > : > : >:http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1b.html#mamm
: > : > : >:
: > : > : >: Reptiles to birds:
: > : > : >:http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
: > : > : >:
: > : > : >: Transitions among primates:
: > : > : >:http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part2a.html#primate
: > : > : >:http://www.utexas.edu/courses/wilson/ant304/projects/projects97/weima...
: > : > : >:
: > : > : >: Transitions among carnivores:
: > : > : >:http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part2a.html#carn
: > : > : >:
: > : > : >: Perissodactyls:
: > : > : >:http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part2b.html#peri
: > : > : >:
: > : > : >: Cetaceans:
: > : > : >:http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part2b.html#ceta
: > : > : >
: > : > : > I didn't ask for what you believe when you look at dead
: > : > : >bones. I asked you for an actual observation of what you believe
: > : > : >taking place, or a test/verification of what you believe can
: > : > : >happen taking place. Until anyone provides such a thing, it
: > : > : >remains a belief and nothing more, and certainly not even
: > : > : >remotely scientific, no matter how many reasons you want to
: > : > : >present. If you have such an observation and/or test/verification
: > : > : >of your version of evolution actually happening, by all means
: > : > : >please present it.
: > : > :
: > : > : What actually happens is that genetic and morpologic change takes
: > : > : place in populations all the time. We observe it taking place at
: > : > : rates that are sometimes surprisingly fast:
: > : > :http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080421-lizard-evoluti...
: > : >
: > : > We already know adaptation takes place. You've only shown
: > : > an example of lizards producing more lizards.
: > :
: > : Yes, as we are just more apes.
: >
: > I thought they said we were fish? Which is it? Are we
: > apes? Or are we fish?
: >
:
: we are: "ape" and "fish," cladistically speaking,
But didn't we evolve from reptiles, too? So which is it?
Are we apes? Fish? Reptiles? Apefish? Repta-apes? Apefishtiles?
What about the original primordial soup? Aren't we that
instead? And the insanity continues.
People are free to believe they are fish just because
they call themselves fish, that fish learned, over generations,
to breathe air, walk upright on two legs, learn to read and write
English, and learn to design and program computers. People who
actually think and question such things rather than taking them
on faith will realize how absurd and science-fiction/fantasy such
a thought is as this fish to man version of evolution really is.
: are different levels
: of hierarchy and so there is no problem with being both. just like we
: are both mammals and vertebrates.
Cerpin Taxt
>
> People are free to believe they are fish just because
> they call themselves fish, that fish learned, over generations,
> to breathe air, walk upright on two legs, learn to read and write
> English, and learn to design and program computers. People who
> actually think and question such things rather than taking them
> on faith will realize how absurd and science-fiction/fantasy such
> a thought is as this fish to man version of evolution really is.
>
Arrgh.
Fish didn't 'learn' to do things like that, in the sense that we learn
to write or anything else.
Why is this difficult for you to grasp? Over time, the suitability of
certain traits within a given environment would cause life to
diversify.
Intelligence as we know it is a relatively recent development, most
likely a result of primative tool users being able to hunt and prepare
food more efficiently; this increased protein intake would allow
brains to become larger and more efficient over the generations.
Steven J.
>
-- [snip]
>
> But didn't we evolve from reptiles, too? So which is it?
> Are we apes? Fish? Reptiles? Apefish? Repta-apes? Apefishtiles?
>
evolutionary standpoint, there are three kinds of taxonomic groups:
monophyletic, paraphyletic, and polyphyletic.
"Polyphyletic" groups are groups defined in terms of traits they
evolved separately and convergently, and did not inherit from a common
ancestor with those traits. "Shellfish" is perhaps the best known
polyphyletic group, although I don't think it's ever been used by
actual taxonomists, unlike "pachyderms," an artifiical group that once
included elephants along with horses, rhinos, and tapirs.
Polyphyletic groups have been regarded, since evolutionary theory was
accepted by taxonomists, as mistakes. Groups are supposed to be
defined in terms of traits inherited from shared ancestors.
A "paraphyletic" group is defined by traits inherited from a common
ancestor, but it excludes some lineages that have evolved other,
distinctive traits. Traditionally, taxonomists recognized a lot of
paraphyletic groups: "fish" were all vertebrates except tetrapods,
"amphibians" were all tetrapods except amniotes, "reptiles" were all
amniotes that were not warm-blooded, "apes" were all hominoids that
were not human, etc. If one accepts paraphyletic groups, one can
evolve out of a group: our ancestors were fish, and later reptiles,
and later still apes, but we ourselves are not necessarily any of
those.
Within taxonomy, there has been a movement called phylogenic taxonomy,
or "cladistics," that opposed paraphyletic groups as much as it did
polyphyletic groups. All proper taxonomical groups, they hold, are
monophyletic. They hold that if you're descended from ancestors that
belonged to a group, you're still a member of that group. As part of
this, cladists redefined "reptiles" so that they no longer included
those amniotes that were ancestors of modern mammals (but so that they
did include modern birds). That robin in your yard is a "reptile"
according to a cladist, but none of your ancestors ever was, not even
the scaly, cold-blooded, egg-laying ones (neither were some close
relatives of your ancestors, like the famous sail-backed synapsid
_Dimetrodon_). Cladists don't recognize a class called "fish," but
they do recognize a clade (monophyetic group) called "Osteichthyes,"
which is derived from roots meaning "bony fish," and includes us
(along with ray-finned fish, lobe-finned fish, amphibians, reptiles,
and, of course, nonhuman mammals).
You're a member of a clade, _Homo sapiens_, within a larger clade
_Homo_, within a still larger clade Hominidae, within a still larger
clade Hominoidea, within a still larger clade Primates, within a yet
larger clade Mammals, within a yet larger clade Amniotes, within the
clade Tetrapoda, within the clade Osteichythes, within the clade
Vertebrates, etc. Each clade is defined in terms of specific traits
inherited from a last common ancestor, and the larger the clade, the
more remote the last common ancestor and the more time has been
available for those traits to be modified in the course of descent.
Think of it as being part of a nuclear family, that is part of a
larger family that consists of all the descendants of your
grandparents, which is part of a yet larger family consisting of all
the descendants of your great-grandparents, etc., because that's
pretty much what it is.
>
> What about the original primordial soup? Aren't we that
> instead? And the insanity continues.
>
If you don't understand the concepts, you're not really in an ideal
position to pronounce on their sanity or on how well they're supported
by evidence.
>
> People are free to believe they are fish just because
> they call themselves fish, that fish learned, over generations,
> to breathe air, walk upright on two legs, learn to read and write
> English, and learn to design and program computers. People who
> actually think and question such things rather than taking them
> on faith will realize how absurd and science-fiction/fantasy such
> a thought is as this fish to man version of evolution really is.
>
As Cerpin Taxt has noted, it's not a matter of "learning" to breathe
air. Fish were able to absorb air through the linings of their mouths
and esophagus (as well as through their gills) for a long time before
they ventured out onto land. Lungs seem to have developed as pockets
on the esophagus, which survived and were elaborated upon because they
assisted with this process. Lobe-finned fish, based on fossil
evidence, developed the beginnings of toes and limb bones before they
ventured onto land, and, of course, once they did venture onto land,
walked on four limbs before they walked on two.
In every generation, individuals differ from one another in various
ways; some of these differences fit them better to a particular way of
making a living in a particular environment than do others. These
individuals are more likely to survive and have offspring (which tend
to inherit their traits) than the less-fitted individuals. New
variations can arise through mutations, and there is no known rigid
limit onto how far differences can accumulate or how far descendants
can diverge from their ancestors. Individuals do not evolve or
"learn" how to have wings, or fins, or poison fangs, or whatnot.
>
-- Steven J.
Jack Dominey
<gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> But didn't we evolve from reptiles, too? So which is it?
>Are we apes? Fish? Reptiles? Apefish? Repta-apes? Apefishtiles?
You realize that you are both a mammal and a vertebrate, right? Don't
they teach even that much in the schools these days?
--
Usenet: http://xkcd.com/386/
Jack Dominey
jack_dominey (at) email (dot) com
Will in New Haven
> On Oct 12, 7:11 pm, Gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > People are free to believe they are fish just because
> > they call themselves fish, that fish learned, over generations,
> > to breathe air, walk upright on two legs, learn to read and write
> > English, and learn to design and program computers. People who
> > actually think and question such things rather than taking them
> > on faith will realize how absurd and science-fiction/fantasy such
> > a thought is as this fish to man version of evolution really is.
>
> Arrgh.
>
> Fish didn't 'learn' to do things like that, in the sense that we learn
> to write or anything else.
>
> Why is this difficult for you to grasp?
Because he is intensely stupid. Or because he does grasp it and is
dishonest.
–
Will in New Haven
"To the last, I grapple with thee; From Hell's heart, I stab at thee;
For hate's sake, I spit my last breath at thee."
-Herman Melville, "Moby Dick"
Will in New Haven
> In <r8f4f4huvj3f3n5remnsbo19racpuvq...@4ax.com>, Gabriel
>
> <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > But didn't we evolve from reptiles, too? So which is it?
> >Are we apes? Fish? Reptiles? Apefish? Repta-apes? Apefishtiles?
>
> You realize that you are both a mammal and a vertebrate, right? Don't
> they teach even that much in the schools these days?
Why would you think that he was a mammal and a vertebrate? I am voting
for fungus but he might be some sort of very clever prokaryote.
Gabriel
<stev...@altavista.com> wrote:
So in other words, you are willing to call yourself a
fish?
: >
: > What about the original primordial soup? Aren't we that
: > instead? And the insanity continues.
: >
: If you don't understand the concepts, you're not really in an ideal
: position to pronounce on their sanity or on how well they're supported
: by evidence.
It's only supported by beliefs, and what you believe the
evidence tells you. You want to believe you're a fish. That's
your right. Meanwhile others have the right to point out how
dishonest it is to claim that's a fact when they don't have a
single observation and/or test/verification of their version of
evolution that says this sort of thing can happen.
: >
: > People are free to believe they are fish just because
: > they call themselves fish, that fish learned, over generations,
: > to breathe air, walk upright on two legs, learn to read and write
: > English, and learn to design and program computers. People who
: > actually think and question such things rather than taking them
: > on faith will realize how absurd and science-fiction/fantasy such
: > a thought is as this fish to man version of evolution really is.
: >
: As Cerpin Taxt has noted, it's not a matter of "learning" to breathe
: air.
The fish to man version of "evolution" is how they
"learned" it. And as I said, you're free to believe fish, over
generations, "learned" to breathe air instead of water, learned
to walk upright on two legs, learned to read and write every
language known to man, and learned to design, build and program
computers. You're also free to believe you're a fish, as you seem
determined to do. Sort of makes you wonder if anyone flushed
their "cousin" down the toilet when they thought they were merely
flushing their kid's pet goldfish down the toilet before they
"knew any better".
Meanwhile their fish to man version of evolution remains
unobservable and untestable/unverifiable.
: Fish were able to absorb air through the linings of their mouths