Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
crotch
climber
|
|
|
Feb 17, 2004 - 05:50pm PT
|
"What species has changed into another? Evidence of this in the fossil record? "
Jody,
No need to go to the fossil record. Do a google search for "ring species AND ensatina". This is a salamander that lives here in California and is distributed in a roughly horseshoe pattern. But imagine that the two ends of the horseshoe overlap. The salamanders in one end of the horseshoe can interbreed with the subspecies to the north and so on around the ring until you get to the other end of the horseshoe. Even though these two subspecies coexist in space, they don't interbreed.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/05/2/l_052_05.html
|
|
Jody
Mountain climber
CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 17, 2004 - 05:53pm PT
|
Still a salamander, no significant changes to indicate that it is a different species at the other end.
|
|
crotch
climber
|
|
|
Feb 17, 2004 - 05:55pm PT
|
"Still a salamander"
This is your only refutation of 'ring species' as evidence of evolution? By this logic, your housecat and a mountain lion are the same species. Still a cat, you know.
There are MANY species of salamander. What is your defn. of 'species'? One biological concept involves reproduction. Two sets of organisms are considered different species if they coexist but don't/can't reproduce. This is a generalized version.
Borrowed from the url above:
"The division was not absolute: some members of the sub-populations still find each other and interbreed to produce hybrids. The hybrids look healthy and vigorous, but they are neither well-camouflaged nor good mimics, so they are vulnerable to predators. They also seem to have difficulty finding mates, so the hybrids do not reproduce successfully. These two factors keep the two forms from merging, even though they can interbreed.
By the time the salamanders reached the southernmost part of California, the separation had caused the two groups to evolve enough differences that they had become reproductively isolated. In some areas the two populations coexist, closing the "ring," but do not interbreed. They are as distinct as though they were two separate species. Yet the entire complex of populations belongs to a single taxonomic species, Ensatina escholtzii.
Ring species, says biologist David Wake, who has studied Ensatina for more than 20 years, are a beautiful example of species formation in action. "All of the intermediate steps, normally missing, have been preserved, and that is what makes it so fascinating."
|
|
dufas
Trad climber
san francisco
|
|
|
Feb 17, 2004 - 05:59pm PT
|
Jody: Where is the direct proof that I was calling you an outmatched slob? Please show me the piece of evidence that directly indicates I was calling you an outmatched slob?
In any case, ever watch a test tube with bacteria undergo changes due to selective pressure you outmatched slob? It's called "directed evolution" and proves the concept of genetic change over time. Or don't you believe in DNA unless it's putting someone in the gas chamber?
Regarding the post of whether or not you can toke reef on a ledge with Jody, I wouldn't worry about it. Not much chance that he'll catch up with you.
|
|
Jody
Mountain climber
CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 17, 2004 - 06:13pm PT
|
"They are as distinct as though they were two separate species. Yet the entire complex of populations belongs to a single taxonomic species, Ensatina escholtzii."
My point exactly. Success in dividing a salamander population into two or more separate populations that can't interbreed does not constitute evidence that a similar process could in time produce a salamander from bacterium.
|
|
crotch
climber
|
|
|
Feb 17, 2004 - 06:18pm PT
|
In the first post, you said
'Give me something that proves evolution, not a generality, but a specific fossil, evolution that has actually been witnessed, etc.'
No need to change the rules of the game. You asked for evidence of evolution. There it is. Speciation happening in real time, in the wild. I will not be able to generate a person from a bacterium for you. Sorry.
|
|
dufas
Trad climber
san francisco
|
|
|
Feb 17, 2004 - 06:21pm PT
|
let's all face up to it, he's got us.
All of the evidence either shows too much change to be believable or too little to matter. I guess I'll just start going to church more often.
Good thing Yosemite Valley isn't eroding.
|
|
Matt
Trad climber
SF Bay Area
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 17, 2004 - 06:22pm PT
|
why don't we suggest that you prove to us that there is a god, then prove to us that it is jesus christ.
that would seem to be infinately more important than this "junk science" mumbo jumbo, why not spend your time debating the big stuff?
|
|
Dave
Mountain climber
Fresno
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 17, 2004 - 06:29pm PT
|
Yeah, good thing it only took 6000 years to create the earth, or we would have impermanent features, and someday Yosemite might be flat. Sheesh.
BTW, Jody - why do you care so much what others think? You need to evolve.
|
|
Jody
Mountain climber
CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 17, 2004 - 06:33pm PT
|
Crotch, I am talking about a change from one distinct species to another, i.e., fish to bird, etc. The salamander example you gave was essentially change within a species, not change into an entirely different species. Basically an example of micro-evolution, which I am not contesting.
|
|
Gene
Social climber
Two hours away
|
|
|
Feb 17, 2004 - 06:33pm PT
|
Dave,
Don't you know squat? It only took 6 days to create everything. The Dude took the 7th day off. The last 6,000 years are only decay.
|
|
Jody
Mountain climber
CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 17, 2004 - 06:36pm PT
|
"BTW, Jody - why do you care so much what others think?"
Where did that statement come from? If I cared what people thought about me, why in the heck would I say the things I do on this forum? Huh?
|
|
Dave
Mountain climber
Fresno
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 17, 2004 - 06:37pm PT
|
Details. Let a lightning bolt smight me.
Hmmm. not smighted yet. OK, no God. That problem is solved.
Decay = erosion = creation. I don't think like a fundy.
|
|
Jody
Mountain climber
CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 17, 2004 - 06:38pm PT
|
Why all the smart-ass sarcasm Dave?
|
|
dufas
Trad climber
san francisco
|
|
|
Feb 17, 2004 - 06:42pm PT
|
uuhhhhh oohhhhh, we're using that authoritative cop tone of voice now.
|
|
Dave
Mountain climber
Fresno
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 17, 2004 - 06:42pm PT
|
Creationism is annoying.
And I don't have time to form intelligent arguments today. Besides, everyone else has pretty much taken care of you... I mean that today.
|
|
crotch
climber
|
|
|
Feb 17, 2004 - 06:45pm PT
|
Jody,
If you want to use biological terms, they should be used correctly. Fish and bird are in different CLASSES, not just species. To recap the (very arbitrary) way that organisms are classified in decreasing order of difference:
Kingdom
Phylum
Class
Order
Family
Genus
Species
I gave you evidence of speciation, at least in the way that biologists use the term 'species'. If you want to make up your own definition of species, then we have no common ground and no way to start a coherent discussion. Are you asking for evidence of "classiation"? There's probably a reason why "classiation" isn't a term, and that's because it's not how the world seems to work.
|
|
Jody
Mountain climber
CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 17, 2004 - 06:55pm PT
|
Why is Creation annoying Dave?
"There are only two possible explanations as to how life arose: Spontaneous generation arising to evolution or a supernatural creative act of God...there is no other possibility.
Spontaneous generation was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others, but that leaves us with only one other possibility...that life came as a supernatural act of creation of God, but I can't accept that philosophy because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation leading to evolution."
George Wald, "Origin, Life, and Evolution,"
Scientific American(1978),
Professor emeritus of Biology at Harvard and the
Nobel Prize winner in biology in 1971.
|
|
dufas
Trad climber
san francisco
|
|
|
Feb 17, 2004 - 07:00pm PT
|
oh come on, you dork, pasteur's experiments did not disprove spontaneous generation of life. they proved that in a sealed environment with rich but sterilized media, life will not arise during the time and under the conditions of the experiment.
now that's not quite disproving spontaneous generation of life on earth 500,000,000 years after the solar system f'in EVOLVED now is it.
|
|
anachronism
Trad climber
Yosemite, CA
|
|
|
Feb 17, 2004 - 07:04pm PT
|
I like the Johnny Holmers, errrr... Larry Holmes analogy. Realize though, that poor white slob really wanted in the ring. Hard to feel sorry for him. Same case with Jody. The only difference here is that that poor slob in the ring knew when his ass was whooooped. Flat and bloody on the matt. That's where Jody is he just doesn't have the blood to show himself he's done.
Keep it up boys! I'd put any of you folks up against George Foreman (yeah, he's actually coming back).
Heck, if nothing else that poor white guy provided practice for Johnny, errr... Larry... so just think of Jody as a punching bag. Gotta get some practice in just in case a real opponent shows.
I think it's time to stoke the virtual camp fire again. Gee, what's it gonna be tonight, boys and girls? The cyber-twister never took off last night! Any more cats to run over out there?
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!