Early Whales Had Legs

Post Reply New Topic

Ok. So let me ask you this: Lets assume the species stays the same. After all, the DNA is going to be virtually identical. Why causes you to believe that incremental change over millions of years will not render a offshoot group of a species to be unrecognisable as belonging to the base stock?

That is what we mean by macro evolution. In the end, the concept of species doesnt matter. What matters is that two divergent populations exist in the same area, but do not naturally interbreed, such as wolves and coyotes. They are cross fertile, they are close enough that its possible, but behavior prevents it.

Here is my question put simply: Its the only part I am asking you to answer.

Why doesnt incremental add up to a new phenotype over geologic time spans?

You lack is an accurate definition of species - a hundred years ago, people thought it was simple - that if there was a clear cut distinction between population A and population C, and if A and C cant successfully reproduce with each other, then those populations are different species. But we know that there are plenty of cases where both A and C can successfully breed with population B - speciation is not a simple, discrete matter, but can only accurately be described in terms of a continuum.

This lack of a continuum concept is responsible for your exasperation at the lack of 'transitional fossils' or the notion that a dog will always be a dog. You are wrong - eventually some dogs can become so different from other dogs that they no longer intermingle, and their characteristics and DNA will become increasingly different.

Chihuahuas and Great Danes cannot physically mate - consider the physics. According to the old idea of speciation, they already have become distinct functional species, although gene transfer can occur through other breeds. But drop a pack of chihuahuas and a pack of great Danes on an island somewhere, and they will not mingle genetically. And over time, because of geographic reproductive isolation, they would diverge from other varieties of dogs, due to .... evolution.

Wolves and Coyotes don't breed because they aren't the same animals. . you're the one assuming that they were once the same animal, but that is neither here nor there.


And I don't think that incremental differences add up because everything has limits. People can gain immunity to snake poison in less than a lifetime, is that incremental evolution?.. or is that just one way of looking at it?.. it's all perspective isn't it?.. the deeper you go into this subject, the more general barriers dissolve.. but that's merely a result of over indulgence. If you study things long enough, you begin to draw false conclusions, and forget the bigger picture. It's the novelty of being in the know.

True, it would be hard to mix a chihuahua with a german shepherd or great dane. . but I dare you to try and produce an animal other than a dog out of a dog, that bears children.
The deeper you indulge into a very specific act of science, the more the barriers dissolve, as I recently said. But the overall picture is that dogs are still dogs.. despite my lack of intellect with the continuum concept, I still don't find dogs bearing something other than dogs..
someone should ask these animals why they dont breed together.. I would be curious to know their response

Thank you. I am satisfied with your answer to me in your previous post. I dont happen to agree, but I was really just trying to understand your view point.

I didnt mean to suggest that you must believe Wolves and Coyotes were the same species. Its simply MY belief.

So here I am offering something in return. You certainly dont have to agree, but I hope to illuminate something for you.

Nobody seriously believes that a new species jumps out wholly formed from another species. You wont find dogs bearing anything but dogs, and nobody doing practical research will suggest that you should. In that regard, you stand aligned with conventional science. One "new" creature does not represent a species.

In that regard, everyone here is in agreement(I hope!)

Further, without a vast collection of sequenced DNA from Great Danes, a DNA researcher would probably be unable to identify a Great Dane from a wolf. They are that close genetically(I dont know if you agree with that but its a separate concept from species). The fact that they can breed suggests a compatibility of size, shape and genetics.

So I guess next I must ask you of your perspective on interspecies breeding? I know you think of them as different animals/species. How(if you do) do you classify a half breed? I get the impression you have a strong perspective that a creature can only be one thing or another.

What is your classification of the offspring of a half wolf/half dog male and a half wolf/half dog female? Of which species are the parents?

The science behind it isn't new to me, but I admit I don't indulge in it nearly as much as I should if I'm to refute evolution.


It''s a good question though.. I do know that wolves can breed with dogs now that you mention it. Is it not possible that wolves are simply of the same animal classification as dogs? There are so many variations of dogs, that wolves aren't too far off.. afterall, you're talking about wolves and dogs, not about squirrels and.. bunnies.

I understand that some of 'same species' stop breeding with each other under certain geological or rather random cirumstances.. that part I can't figure out, but that doesn't mean there isn't an answere. You have information here, and it supports the theory of evolution, but that could be a false conclusion.. when you look hard enough, you can draw false conclusions from any situation, and I know scientists are working soo hard to prove it. But it does not mean that the Macro evolution theory is legitimate. Still these things are minor details, as even if the species stop interbreeding, that doesn't make them seperate species. There are just too many scientific terms and loopholes that scientists use amongst themselves that are forced on everyone else. To us it is to be interpreted as fact, but them it is to help them understand each other in the field, nothing more..

The things that will prevent two similar creatures from mating may be visual cues, such as a distorted mating ritual, song, or coloration, in the case of things like birds. In this case, it may be possible for human intervention to create a hybrid with artificial insemination.

This is like a cultural divide in humans. Not insurmountable, but highly unlikely. Its the classic aspie mating problem.

Sometimes this works very well such as in the case of a wolf/dog hybrid, and other times only a partial success results. For instance, crossing a horse with a donkey results in a mule. Unfortunately mules are sterile; they cannot breed. They can behave sexually, but something inhibits the production of viable sperm, or perhaps its combination with an egg.

Other similar examples are lion/tiger crosses. Beautiful animals.

This can be the result of a lack of ability to process an amino acid, or perhaps something else. Its not unlike snipping off the tabs on a jigsaw puzzle piece and expecting it to stay in place. In the case of the mule, its something in the reproductive process. In the case of that muscular baby, its affected his muscle development instead.

Once you start having to mess with surgery, genetics and chemistry to combine two types of creatures its called a chimera.

yes... whales used to live on land. they be mammals.

all dogs are the same species. heck, all the breeds that we have were generated within 5,000 generations of controlled breeding.

Obviously not. That is adaptation or conditioning - repeated exposures to non-lethal amounts of a toxin can up-regulate the genes involved in metabolizing that toxin, can lead to changes in receptor number and sensitivity, etc. The fact that can happen has nothing to do with proving or refuting evolution, just a red herring.




Sounds like a very mushy way of claiming that you don't you have to understand a subject to be an authority on it.

Well, most mutations are detrimental or have no effect - far less than one percent are beneficial. But the fact is that mutations do occur, and that they affect the viability of that line of organisms.

Capitalism works the same way - most small businesses fail. Most of their products or services are nothing new - the same or inferior. But when a new good idea arises, it can confer an advantage, and those types of businesses expand to fill a new niche.





Obviously not. That is adaptation or conditioning - repeated exposures to non-lethal amounts of a toxin can up-regulate the genes involved in metabolizing that toxin, can lead to changes in receptor number and sensitivity, etc. If the change is not heritable, it isn't evolution.




Sounds like a very mushy way of claiming that you don't you have to understand a subject to be an authority on it.

Don't we all come from blue-green algae? Or, is it water? Vapor? God? All life shares some of the same DNA.
We all come from the same source I think.

WEll, we have more chromosomes that simpler life, and some animals have more than us. If it were as simple as that then we could divide speciation thusly.

Unfortunately, some humans have less or extra DNA as well. Down Syndrome, Turners syndrome, and such. Several of these do not inhibit reproduction. Things like fragile X syndrome are probably good examples of singular mutations that could deviate a species given a limited mating pool. It presents with physical differences and at times, mental too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fragile_X_syndrome

I don't not understand the subject you slimy scumbag. .