jay pettitt on 11/3/2006 at 08:30
Quote Posted by Convict
The website author was asking for something specific. Anyway, our evolution debate isn't booked in for another few months.
Tocky gave a specific answer. Any robust, testable, reviewable evidence to the contrary. Though after 150 years of malignant campaigns of hostility and dissinformation you'll forgive the entire world if we're a little slow to embrace whatever bee you've got buzzing around in your bonnet.
Convict on 11/3/2006 at 08:43
"Any", by definition, is not specific. But OK, I'll play your way. You said that "any" (credible) evidence against Darwinian evolution would disprove it. Gould (Harvard Professor and co-author of punctuated equilibrium evolutionary theory) stated that the two main problems with Darwinian evolution are:
Quote:
1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless.
2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and "fully formed."
jay pettitt on 11/3/2006 at 08:58
...and?
d0om on 11/3/2006 at 09:03
well both of those appear to be rather flawed arguments:
1) - not a very large % of animals are fossilised; you are looking at a snapshot of some creatures alive at the time. Of course you won't see their entire progression over millions of years.
You CAN See evolution over very short timescales in something like a flu virus. They evolve every year which is why you keep getting the flu.
2) - Uhm... no, it changes gradually. What makes you think it appears instantly? What normally happens is a subset of a population move to a new area and are cut of from breeding with their old group. That means they then start to diverge genetically and gradually change.
Convict on 11/3/2006 at 09:12
Quote Posted by d0om
well both of those appear to be rather flawed arguments:
1) - not a very large % of animals are fossilised; you are looking at a snapshot of some creatures alive at the time. Of course you won't see their entire progression over millions of years.
Well we see lots of fossils of some species and yet we still don't see this gradual change to any new kind of fossil species (that I am aware of).
Quote:
You CAN See evolution over very short timescales in something like a flu virus. They evolve every year which is why you keep getting the flu.
Are you suggesting that we extrapolate small changes in the same virus to changes from apes to humans (for example).
Here's a better counter-example - for thousands of years we have been breeding dogs and trying to create every possible combination and removing natural selection (which tends to remove the extremes we create). Yet we still haven't made any new species of dogs.
Quote:
2) - Uhm... no, it changes gradually. What makes you think it appears instantly? What normally happens is a subset of a population move to a new area and are cut of from breeding with their old group. That means they then start to diverge genetically and gradually change.
What is the evidence for this (or is it like the purple men on Mars)? Or are you suggesting punctuated equilibrium theory in a debate on Darwinian evolution?
jay pettitt on 11/3/2006 at 09:17
In fairness to Mr Gould it's a little unfair to take two things out of context and present them on the Internets as an argument against Darwinian Evolution. Gould's argument was that evolution might occour faster than was generally believed and looked to the fossil record to try and support his theory. Gould never suggested those were problems with Evolution Theory, rather he was concerned that neo-darwinism was missing some important pieces of the puzzle. It's an entirely different argument.
How's your bee doing?
Also, yes we do have gradual change in the fossil record. Dragon Fly and Mozzie remains in amber show subtle change over huge periods of time very nicely.
Quote:
Here's a better counter-example... we still haven't made any new species of dogs.
Define 'better.'
Short answer is we don't know whether new identifiably distinct species groups pop up quickly or over huge time spans or both or neither. Not that it has much bearing on evolution theory anyway.
d0om on 11/3/2006 at 09:36
Quote Posted by Convict
Are you suggesting that we extrapolate small changes in the same virus to changes from apes to humans (for example).
Well, we only have direct data for the past couple of thousand years. As evolution tends to take longer than this then it makes sense to look at what has changed over our timescale.
Quote:
Here's a better counter-example - for thousands of years we have been breeding dogs and trying to create every possible combination and removing natural selection (which tends to remove the extremes we create). Yet we still haven't made any new species of dogs.
Well it really depends what you mean by a "species". A bulldog and a poodle are incrediably differnet and in the wild would not breed with each other. If you saw them both in the wild, you would label them as seperate species.
Quote:
What is the evidence for this (or is it like the purple men on Mars)? Or are you suggesting punctuated equilibrium theory in a debate on Darwinian evolution?
Puncuated equilibirum theory is an extention of Darwinian evolution. However it goes further and suggests fittness landscapes to try to quantify the rates of evolution in varies circumstances. Certainly both are valid in showing that there is no need to invoke a designer.
Gingerbread Man on 11/3/2006 at 09:55
species more like specious lol
Parrotted like a good little Sunday Scholar, Convict. All domestic dog breeds are Canis familiaris... you're not going to pair a German Shepherd and a Neapolitan Mastiff and create a new species of dog, that's not how things WORK. You may as well complain that after dozens of generations of interracial marriage, no one has classified a new species of human.
Nicker on 11/3/2006 at 09:59
Quote Posted by Convict
Here's a better counter-example - for thousands of years we have been breeding dogs and trying to create every possible combination and removing natural selection (which tends to remove the extremes we create). Yet we still haven't made any new species of dogs.
Firstly - replacing the terms natural selection with artificial selection is a semantic exercise that in no qualitative way alters the function of selection in general. Our breed preferences represent envorinments in which the 'fitness' of a given individual dog is tested. Only the speed at which mutations and "fitness" are brought to bear to create new sub-species is different.
Secondly - While the force of human preference has actually initiated speciation in dogs, it would take tens or hundreds of thousands of years of isolation for any breed's genes to diverge enough to stop producing viable offspring with another sub-species. In fact some species of wild dogs can still produce viable offspring with domestic breeds, despite the wild stock having been isolated from each other for millions of years.
>> Dang GBM beat me by seconds! And with a lower word count too.
Convict on 11/3/2006 at 12:42
How have we initiated speciation in dogs? And what's this about changing scientific terms such as "species" to suit one's own arguments?
Anyway (:p), I'm falling back to my position of is what specific evidence would it take to prove Darwinian evolution wrong. Also "any" isn't specific.
