FarArcher Posted May 3, 2016 Posted May 3, 2016 Faenor? Think about what you just said. Scientists can alter species purposefully by changing its genome. That, my friend, is Third-Party Genetic Engineering. Not natural. Not one species has ever jumped to another species. This evolution only addresses minor adaptations within a species. Yes and those scientists learned how by studying and replicating mechanisms employed by bacteria and viruses. These plasmids and viruses convert and change dna on their own in nature. Its nice that you know not one species has ever jumped to another species. Maybe you can share where you gained this knowledge. The thousands upon thousands of scientists from every culture for over 100 years have concluded that speciation does in fact occur. What do you have that invalidates those conclusions. Surely it must be more than what you think or were told. If minor adaptations and minor changes in the genome of a species can and have been observed to change in a short period of time what do you think would happen if these minor adaptations and changes continued to occur for a much longer period 10-100K years? Unicellular organisms? Who gives a . . . whatever? Your example of speciation is a bit broad - we're here on this site not to speak of single cell things, but populations of larger animals, and especially homos. You neglected to mention Sympatric Speciation - which is when speciation is supposed to occur in one geographical location. Which is denied by many scientists who believe that doesn't exist. After all, according to paleoanthropologists have found the bulk of their early hominid finds in two rather localities in Africa. I've explained why I think that's simply because of the unique geology, but being in two separate geographical locations, that would require sympatric speciation - which is mighty iffy. Look, I'm not a biologist, anthropologist, geologist, paleo or otherwise. So I'm not invested in defending my choice of professional discipline. Fruit flies may undergo changes, but they're still fruit flies. Dogs can be bred and the industry loves to name a sub-species, but they're still dogs. They don't breed dogs and get wolves. Still remain the same animal. Often, breeders will try their best to come up with a special breed, and in spite of several incremental changes, suddenly, the next generation almost returns to the same characteristics of the orginal breed. Some work is being done now that utilizes extremely high voltage static charges, and whatever species it's used on - they return to what appears to be the original cellular pattern somehow carried within the genetic material, and in the process of returning to the original, primitive form, are vastly superior and vastly different in characteristics than the first generation that was exposed to the charge. My sole interest was in the genetic reversals due entirely to the very high voltage static charge. I don't have to provide anything to invalidate their theoretical postulations - show me an living animal of multiple cells that they can accelerate jumping species. That's the bottom line - jumping species. They can postulate that sufficient speciation would cause over millennia a jump to another species - but it's all smoke and mirrors. A postulation. A theory that they can't even tickle to demonstrate clear evidence of. A teacup poodle is much different from a Great Dane, but they're still dogs.
Guest Cryptic Megafauna Posted May 3, 2016 Posted May 3, 2016 And it may be that Australopithecus Boisei would be redefined to be in the Genus Homo?
LeafTalker Posted May 4, 2016 Posted May 4, 2016 Deep gratitude to JDL, DWA, WSA, and Far Archer for their seemingly inexhaustible supply of patience and forbearance.
Faenor Posted May 4, 2016 Posted May 4, 2016 how is discussing sympatric speciation relevent to whether or not evolution occours? I also failed to mention allopatric speciation. Can you provide sources to these scientists that deny the possibility of sympatric ebolution. Im guessing you looked speciation on wiki and read where there is some controversy. You should have gone a little farther http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.38.091206.095804?journalCode=ecolsys#/doi/full/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.38.091206.095804 The debate now is mostly on how common this form of speciation occours and whether current models like the stickelback, ragworm, or island palm can be qualified as sympatric speciation. Its great you dont value microbes i guess your right though microbes dont have the same constraints as multicellular organisms. they dont need to acquire resources or an energy source, competition, the need for reproduction, have prey predatory relationships, adapt to novel situations. Whats next plants dont count either? As far as dogs go a better example would be comparing dogs to wolves. 32000 years or so has created two forms with divergent physiology, behavior and dna. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3894170/#!po=17.8571 I can only guess you are talking about electroporation since you dont provide any sources. An electrical source in an ionic solution can cause the cellular membrane of bacteria to loosen and take in plasmids. im not sure you understand what you are even talking about here. In evolution species do not jump from one to the other. it is slow gradual changes over several generations. the wiki article you looked at provides several examples of this occouring, some to an extent right before our eyes. Pick up a textbook, read articles on google scholar, or wiki. Im curious do you think you just know better than these thousands of scientists who have dedicated their lives to the subject? Do you feel your thoughts and feelings on evolution trump all the work thats been done in biology? Do you also not believe in electricity because you cant see the electron moving from one atom to the next? 1
Guest DWA Posted May 4, 2016 Posted May 4, 2016 And it may be that Australopithecus Boisei would be redefined to be in the Genus Homo? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING! can be ruled out. From the looks of it, Homo naledi is an australopithecine...except, they found evidence of a behavior so far considered restricted to the Homo genus. DING! Homo. Way it looks to me. Anyone of scientific bent would have to consider, when this is confirmed: well. Just how wrong have we been on everything else?
Guest DWA Posted May 4, 2016 Posted May 4, 2016 Deep gratitude to JDL, DWA, WSA, and Far Archer for their seemingly inexhaustible supply of patience and forbearance. Aaaaaaaaaaaaah, it's fun. Besides, you're here.
Guest Cryptic Megafauna Posted May 4, 2016 Posted May 4, 2016 (edited) And it may be that Australopithecus Boisei would be redefined to be in the Genus Homo? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING! can be ruled out. From the looks of it, Homo naledi is an australopithecine...except, they found evidence of a behavior so far considered restricted to the Homo genus. DING! Homo. Way it looks to me. Anyone of scientific bent would have to consider, when this is confirmed: well. Just how wrong have we been on everything else? In reality, it has been considered (and still being considered) by the scientists as there are so many missing branches of the theoretical family tree and we are very closely related to the Australopithecines. If you take native stories about interbreeding (occasional and rare) and assume it may be an Australopithecus; since reproduction is still possible, although less than ideal, considering them a different genera would be wrong somehow... It seems that Neanderthal as a separate species may be wrong as well, as we seem to be in the same evolutionary line with successful unions. They may simply be a robust form of Homo Sapiens. Branchiness is not accounted for very well in the current classification system, me thinks. Edited May 4, 2016 by Cryptic Megafauna
Guest DWA Posted May 4, 2016 Posted May 4, 2016 When I was a kid, a line of progression was assumed. it's funny that there wasn't a consensus on how silly that was: 'we found these...so this is all there is.' It's more, and I think the consensus is emerging on this, a braided river. Separating, rejoining, again and again.
FarArcher Posted May 4, 2016 Posted May 4, 2016 how is discussing sympatric speciation relevent to whether or not evolution occours? I also failed to mention allopatric speciation. Can you provide sources to these scientists that deny the possibility of sympatric ebolution. Im guessing you looked speciation on wiki and read where there is some controversy. You should have gone a little farther http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.38.091206.095804?journalCode=ecolsys#/doi/full/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.38.091206.095804 The debate now is mostly on how common this form of speciation occours and whether current models like the stickelback, ragworm, or island palm can be qualified as sympatric speciation. Its great you dont value microbes i guess your right though microbes dont have the same constraints as multicellular organisms. they dont need to acquire resources or an energy source, competition, the need for reproduction, have prey predatory relationships, adapt to novel situations. Whats next plants dont count either? As far as dogs go a better example would be comparing dogs to wolves. 32000 years or so has created two forms with divergent physiology, behavior and dna. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3894170/#!po=17.8571 I can only guess you are talking about electroporation since you dont provide any sources. An electrical source in an ionic solution can cause the cellular membrane of bacteria to loosen and take in plasmids. im not sure you understand what you are even talking about here. In evolution species do not jump from one to the other. it is slow gradual changes over several generations. the wiki article you looked at provides several examples of this occouring, some to an extent right before our eyes. Pick up a textbook, read articles on google scholar, or wiki. Im curious do you think you just know better than these thousands of scientists who have dedicated their lives to the subject? Do you feel your thoughts and feelings on evolution trump all the work thats been done in biology? Do you also not believe in electricity because you cant see the electron moving from one atom to the next? Faenor, you're a good man, and well informed. However, the article you linked - read it again - lots and lots of suppositions. And that's my entire point. I used to have a wolf. Unlike dogs, wolves have fur, whereas dogs have hair and shed. Unlike dogs, the vaccines given to dogs will kill a wolf. They're different. Their core behavior is much different than dogs. You feed a wolf only protein - and only once a day. They transmutate and generate their own additional nutritional needs, whereas dogs really don't, and dogs can eat anything. They're just different. I did not say anything about electroporation. I never mentioned any ionic solution - which is a liquid. You have to read the words I use. Don't intuit, don't assume, don't extrapolate, and don't substitute. The problem is that so much is known to few, that the many assume it doesn't exist. As I said, you're a good guy - bright - polite - so I'll give you another hint: Nobel laureate and microbiologist Werner Arber, when looking at what I'm referring to, said, "I was impressed." That's an understatement. Creating antecedents from progeny. You see, even in speciated species, there's still a master cellular control memory that can be stimulated to undo all variations that have occurred over time, and return the biological entity to its original, primitive form. Fact. I'd guess that on occasion, without the "engineered" manipulation occurs through other natural tickling. Antecedents from progeny. Think about that for a moment.
SWWASAS Posted May 4, 2016 BFF Patron Posted May 4, 2016 Faenor's ability to use science as anti-science continues to fascinate. l As to coelacanth, however: it doesn't particularly challenge anyone's notions of evolution. It's more than possible, in fact it *happened*, that it hasn't changed, in all likelihood because nothing has selected against that form. Sharks have changed little if any in that time, either. The oceans are the most stable place on the planet. We humans have probably done more damage to oceans than climate changes and extinction events. So it is understandable that sharks, coelacanths, and other aquatic animals like alligators or crocodiles have a continuing ecological niche and have changed very little over millions of years. I suspect that without the moderating effects of the oceans, many of the extinction level events would have been far worse.
Guest DWA Posted May 4, 2016 Posted May 4, 2016 (edited) Precisely. Now. We did lose trilobites (unless, you know, we didn't, and just haven't found a living one yet). But that was a looong time ago, yes, geologically. And I do believe there was extinction-level activity in the oceans of the time. Oh wait. Here we are. http://io9.gizmodo.com/5145786/trilobites-the-greatest-survivors-in-earths-history But yes, the stability of sharks coelacanths and crocodilians speaks to no failing in evolutionary theory. In fact, scientists recently pointed to the *lack* of change in an organism over an enormously long geological period as *evidence for* evolution, to wit, we know changes have been minimal there; evolution tells us to expect almost no change in the organisms; ...and voila. http://www.livescience.com/49677-deep-sea-organism-evolution.html Edited May 4, 2016 by DWA
Guest DWA Posted May 5, 2016 Posted May 5, 2016 Not boom so much. The Snopes article only addresses the particular photo making the rounds on the internet, which was/is most decidedly a hoax, and the alleged motivation of the Smithsonian to suppress evolutionary theories? How in the world do you determine the motive, even if you presume the skeletons existed? The broader question deserves, I believe, an "undetermined" label. It's nothing but blind faith to presume something didn't happen because some scientist tells you it didn't. The photos of these skeletons exist in the archives of many local papers. I saw one published just recently in my town. Judging the scale of some of these remains is inexact, I grant you. I guess though I don't find it at all improbable that gigantism existed, or that it might have been too adaptively extravagant to survive if it did. This would be only a ho-hum finding, if truthful, based on the collective experience of man on earth, as has been confirmed for us, over, and over, and over, and over... ...particularly if it ain't really no big stretch for an intelligent person.
SWWASAS Posted May 5, 2016 BFF Patron Posted May 5, 2016 Then again we have skeptics here that claim those skeleton pictures from over a century ago are all fakes. Like someone then could not know a real skeleton from a fake one. People a 100 years ago saw more dead people than anyone does today. A large percentage of our population today in this country, have never seen a dead person. Since trilobites are sea bottom dwellers I would not be at all surprised if they were not still living on the ocean bottom someplace. We know more about the surface of mars than we do the bottom of our oceans.
Guest DWA Posted May 5, 2016 Posted May 5, 2016 Good point; trilobites could be yet another "we haven't found any, so they're obviously extinct..."
Recommended Posts