Evolution Thread to continue conversation with BIOFLEX

by NewChapter 71 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  bioflex

  Is it possible to draw a clear line between dogs and other animals?

  @TD:i all i am trying to say is this : if two dogs mate they obviously would produce another dog which might differ a bit from both parents, if that process continues for no matter how long the outcome would always be the same- a dog.

  if a dog mates with a fox, then their offspring would turn out to be a mixture of both and that is the ONLY way the process of evolution can continue - INTERBREEDING.

  but what is the probability that animal A would NATURALLY interbreed with animal B when they are of different species let alone family or genus? and how long is the process assured to continue?

  Now lets consider humans, is it possible that a pure breed of caucasians would birth a child of different race given enough time? NO . it takes two to make a race, the same applies to all organisms.

  so for humans to be related to chimps there has to be some kind of sexual relation between their supposed ancestors.

  That is why i find it hard to accept that the laryngeal nerve in fishes and mammals are related because of the process of evolution like explained in the video i posted earlier.
• 

  NewChapter

  just consider the insane diversity of animals, dont you think its quite intruiging if you consider the vast level of intelligence humans posses, no other animal even comes close, so what is the probalibily that evolution could have set us this far apart?even from the ones you call our relatives?

  There are many reasons why my belief in God and your definiation of evolution cannot co exist. The genesis account is just one of numerous scenarios neither science nor evolution can explain. Consider these if you want to

  The probablilty that evolution could set us apart is high (it happened) and explainable, if you understand evolution. Secondly, science and evolution cannot explain the Genesis account because they have falsified the account. It would be like asking science to prove pink unicorns. It cannot. Your arguments are not cohesive or well-thought out.

  Also the insane diversity of animals strongly supports natural selection and speciation. It insanely supports it, because evolution would predict a huge number of species, and that prediction has come true.

  But using your reasoning, you are saying ineffect, the advanced intelligence of humans could not have come out by evolution (simply because you say so---you have not supported this statement) therefore the creation account is true! Period. But even if the theory of evolution is falsified, Genesis is not true simply by default. If evolution proves untrue, then there are MANY hypothesis than can be looked, not just one. Your Either OR argument does not hold up. You cannot win an argument by simple default.

  NC
• 

  bioflex

  Secondly, science and evolution cannot explain the Genesis account because they have falsified the account.

  So since science has falsified the genesis account how does it explain life then?. Science does not even prove the how life came about. i guess you also think you can win this aruement be default.

  Also the insane diversity of animals strongly supports natural selection and speciation.

  Perhaps you might want to define natural selection, without interbreeding there is no way evolution is justifiable, unless perhaps you want to tell me animals evolve on their own over periods of time how which is absurd considering factors like life span.

  One thing you dont realize is that is takes two different life forms to make a new breed/species/race. i am bringing this up again : in humans is it possible that a pure breed of caucasians would birth a child of different race given enough time? its impossible.

  Do you think natural selection would ever cause humans to mate with any other species? cos that is the only way you can justify humans and monkeys comming from the same ancestor. Perhaps lets just mate with chimps and see what new breed we can produce or lets wait for evolution to give us our pefect match.
• 

  NewChapter

  So since science has falsified the genesis account how does it explain life then?. Science does not even prove the how life came about. i guess you also think you can win this aruement be default.

  I'm not trying to win the argument by default. The issue here is that you are changing the argument between your comment and my answer. The argument was not where life came from, it was how we evolved and how creation was falsifed. There are hypotheses for how the actual spark of life began, but I'm not familiar enough with them to go into it at the moment. I'm picking up the argument a bit later. So back on topic---even if you falisifed evolution (no one has to this point) then you don't win by default. It is not an either/or argument. If you falsify evolution, then you must come up with a hypothesis and work to disprove it. If the argument is to be won by default, then it is just as valid to say, "if evolution is false, then we are here by space aliens--those are the only two options.". See---that's what I mean by default.

  in humans is it possible that a pure breed of caucasians would birth a child of different race given enough time? its impossible.

  Whoa, whoa, whoa. You are treading dangerous territory here. There are no "purebreed" caucasions. For that matter, anthropologically "race" cannot be defined. This also shows a complete ignorance of how skin color came about. I will give you a clue. Look at the nearly black skin color of people that inhabited equitorial Africa for millenia and compare it to the skin color of people that have inhabited the snowy cold regions north (think Scandinavian). It will give you a clue as to where that diversity comes from.

  As to defining race---if you compare an Equitorial African with a Scandinavian you will immediately see differences in skin tone. But if you were able to walk south to north---you would not see this change! As you move the change will be so gradual it would be unnoticable.

  Now imagine a very dark skinned group moving from the equator to a cooler region. Those with slightly lighter skin ( there are always variations in hue) will absorb the sun better and process vitamin D. Those with darker skin will not do so as well, and maybe they won't be as reproductively successful. Lighter skin is necessary because with less sun, the skin must absorb more efficiently. Dark skin block more uv's. So now, those with slightly lighter skin are beginning to outnumber those with darker skin. It won't be noticeable at first, but it will happen. Those lighter skinned offspring will fare better reproductively, and those at the lighter end will do even better and process continues. So today we have people with extremely dark skin along the equator, and people with extremely light skin at the poles. And in between---a graduation of shades, and within those shade, variances that would come into play should the climate change.

  The reason we don't see such changes in the Americas, (native inhabitants were all brown regardless of region) is because they are relative newcomers. They migrated here around 15,000 years ago (this number is often adjusted) and so the variances are not seen as much. Eskimoes still have brown skin. If they had thousands of more years, they too, may come to have light skin which would be more efficient in the north, but they survived because their diet is very high in fish oils, so it may not be as strong a factor in natural selection. Today this has pretty much been interupted because we manipulate our environment. We have sunscreen and heaters and vitamins.

  NC
• 

  NewChapter

  It might also interest you to know that Neanderthal genes have shown them to be most likely light skinned. And there is genetic evidence that homo sapien "interbred" with neanderthal. This suggests that the two are not different species, but rather sub species within the same species. Some scientists now classify us as homo sapien sapien and homo sapien neanderthal. That doesn't exactly fit in with the Genesis account either.
• 

  Retrovirus

  Hi Bioflex,

  There is a recurring point in your posts that I'd like to clear up.

  that is the ONLY way the process of evolution can continue - INTERBREEDING

  You have stated this several times and not supported it. It is not correct. Here are a couple of considerations

  1. Way down the bottom of the evolutionary tree - or shrubs - are one celled critters and viruses. No males and females. No interbreeding as you understand it, but still, DNA exchange and influencing.

  2. You are correct that when two dogs mate, the offspring will be dogs. However. If a viable population of dogs were isolated in a different environment from other dogs, different climate, food, predators, the features that help their survival will become more dominant. Over hundreds of thousands of years, selection would continue to refine these features. The chromosome count could change over time, as well as scent, vocalisation etc (as NC has observed). If the isolation ended, they might look and behave so unlike dogs, that we'd call then something else (eg not-dogs, foxes, whatever). They might no longer be able to mate with dogs, let alone produce viable, fertile offspring.

  They would be a new species, one which looks, sounds, different from dogs. The common heritage, however, would still be traceable. The name "dog" is an artificial designator, and might well not be applied to the not-dog.

  So, evolution is not just interbreeding. It is random change and natural selection (ie those best fitted to their environment produce more offspring). And it takes a very long time.

  And yes, there is very probably more to it than that. But that much has never been falsified.

  Hope that help to clarify the issue. Retro
• 

  bioflex

  @RetroVirus : I think i understand what you mean. But all i am asking is, do you think over enough time those not-dogs could change extensively in their body structure as to be considered as totally different animals? like maybe goats?

  For example, evolution is the cause of speciation, whereby a single ancestral species splits into two or more different species.<- wikipedia

  from the definition above we can assume that all the animal forms in existence today have a single ancestor, so fishes, mammals,reptiles,birds and all you can think of comes from a common life form.

  My problem lies in how one species can split into two or more speices on its own. I know viruses and algae can reproduce on their own but no matter how they split all the end up producing is another of their kind.

  If i am correct fishes and reptiles cant interbreed so how do you prove a fish splitting to produce a reptile without these two having any kind of sexual interferance?

  Is it possible that a virus through speciation and natural selection can split to form an algae or fungi?

  take a look at this video

  http://richarddawkins.net/videos/643369-demonstrating-an-accident-of-evolution-in-a-giraffe

  i find it hard to accept that natural selection or speciation can link features of a girrafe from a fish. Its like saying evolution is the reason why dogs have tails like reptiles.
• 

  NewChapter

  Retrovirus, that was excellent.

  Bioflex, a dog would not change into a goat in one step. I'm not sure what the goat and dog line are, but they do have a common ancestor. Their last common ancestor holds no resemblance to either of them.

  We are not saying that species interbreed. We are saying that through isolation, a segment of the population begins to breed only with themselves. Through natural selection and genetic drift, this isolated population begins changing in ways that the original population is not changing. The original population may be changing, but it will not make the same changes. So this isolated population continues to evolve independantly of the mother population. If enough time passes, the changes will be so profound that if they are brought together again, they will not be able to breed. This is speciation. It's not a mixture of species, rather a group from a larger population becoming isolated and changing so much, they speciate.

  NC
• 

  TD

  Bioflex

  if a dog mates with a fox, then their offspring would turn out to be a mixture of both

  Dog species and fox species are infertile together. The North American wolf is infertile with the South American Maned wolf. They possess much of the same genetic information, but the arrangement of that information is incompatible. Several of the smaller chromosomes in the dog are fused into larger chromosomes in the fox.

  and that is the ONLY way the process of evolution can continue - INTERBREEDING.

  The process occurs through drift. Groups of the same animal that are separated gradually drift apart over time. It's intuitively apparent that the dog and fox are very closely related, but they have drifted apart to the point where they are no longer fertile.

  Another good example is the lion and tiger. It's apparent that these two big cat species sprang from a common ancestor, because they can still interbreed. But they've drifted apart to the point where genetic incompatibilities make the offspring infertile.

  In the same vein, it's believed that the dog, bear and raccoon have all drifted apart from a common ancestor:

  

  As an explanation for animals like the Raccoon dog above, (Which is actually a dog, but looks very much like a raccoon) it's far less arbitrary than a whimsical Creator who made some animals one 'kind,' and some animals another 'kind' and some animals half-way inbetween to confuse everybody.

  but what is the probability that animal A would NATURALLY interbreed with animal B when they are of different species let alone family or genus? and how long is the process assured to continue?

  The probabililty is low, but when it does happen it is proof positive of common ancestry and speciation through drift.

  For example, it's apparent that the camel and llama, who are not only different species, but different genera as well both sprang from a common ancestor, because they can be interbred via artificial insemination

  The resultant animal has the course hair of a camel, the cloven feet of a llama and no hump:

  

  Now lets consider humans, is it possible that a pure breed of caucasians would birth a child of different race given enough time? NO . it takes two to make a race, the same applies to all organisms.

  I don't think this is a good example if you believe that all humans sprang from one original pair created by God.

  At any rate, there is no valid biological reason for dividing humans into races and the whole concept was rejected by anthropologist many years ago.
• 

  Caedes

  Bioflex,

  Yes, in the example given, by physically isolating a breeding group of dogs any selection pressures in that environment will start to select over many generations a change in their form. As you pointed out earlier one of the most obvious is climate, cold climates will mean that the dogs with the most fur will have an advantage over the ones with less. This change is gradual and occurs over many generations with the dogs developing thicker and warmer fur over time, no individual will develop thicker fur over a lifetime, it is merely that the ones that are more likely to successfully breed and pass on their genes are the ones that have the thickest fur in their generation.

  In your other example, you have to remember that at the time the fishes started to speciate into amphibians there were no reptiles, so imagine that some fish started to live exclusively in rivers and streams, over successive generations they had adapted so well that they could no longer tolerate living in the oceans. Evolution is that gradual change, eventually the fish had evolved into something that could survive in very shallow water and eventually into something at home in and out of the water.

  Evolution does not require interbreeding of fish and reptiles or fish and giraffes! Evolution does not mean that fish give birth to reptiles or that viruses turn into fungi, in fact we are more closely related to fungi than viruses are.

  At high school I remember a debate entitled "Teignmouth is the best place in the world" the guy who won argued that "Teignmouth is the best Plaice in the world" very amusing debate but since they were both talking about different things they didn't really debate each other. Evolution has a very specific meaning and debating without a clear agreement about what the definition of the word is will be an exercise in futility.