| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and uploads. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Halting Evolution; if we evolved, why not social darwinism? | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: May 3 2008, 11:00 PM (178 Views) | |
| Goda | May 24 2008, 12:16 AM Post #11 |
|
Topic Starter
|
Fossil records. Genetic mutations. Isolation splitting species. |
![]() |
|
| jesusfreak574 | May 26 2008, 02:13 AM Post #12 |
|
Every genetic mutation we have observed doesn't change the species. It's just a different member of the same species. Extrapolating that data to say that mutations could cause new species is potentially reckless but at least not sound science. Everyone seems to point to the fossil record but no one says, "Look at this fossil. We've been examining it for x number of years and it is definitely legit. More than that, it shows strong evidence that links y and z in the evolutionary chain." Isolation splitting species? When? Like the crayfish we watched a video on in biology? They could just as easily have been created apart, and we don't even have any proof that they were once one species. |
![]() |
|
| Goda | May 26 2008, 03:06 AM Post #13 |
|
Topic Starter
|
mutations creating more chromosomes could very well create new species. im not a paleontologist, but im sure one could do such a thing as you just said like shrinking of animals on islands. the Galapagos are an excellent example of a few types of animals with different species on different islands. |
![]() |
|
| jesusfreak574 | May 28 2008, 12:08 AM Post #14 |
|
Creating more chromosomes involves adding more information. We have yet to observe evolution adding information, which makes sense. Random processes simply don't post a net gain in new information. I'm thinking of the biology textbook in tenth grade, which I know cited the fossil record as evidence for evolution. Did it mention specific fossils? I don't think it did, but I could easily be wrong, as it was a couple of years ago. I think that new discoveries in archeology end up invalidating earlier evidence just as often as they discover new fossils to support evolution. Observing different species on different islands isn't conclusive evidence for evolution. It might seem to point in that direction, but we still have to make the assumption that they began as one species. |
![]() |
|
| d0nk3y | Jun 1 2008, 08:17 PM Post #15 |
|
current status: lurking more
|
no, creating more chromosomes does not necessarily involve adding more information.. Ferns can have up to 630 chromosome pairs. Potatoes have 24 (one more pair than humans). Regardless, much of the DNA in chromosomes exists solely for efficient replication. A large part, maybe up to 95%, quite possibly has never done anything. If you consider the ideal conditions which must be present to form a fossil, you would agree that we are lucky to have as many as we have. If you want to talk about observing speciation: Evening Primrose (Oenothera gigas) Kew Primrose (Primula kewensis) Tragopogon Raphanobrassica Hemp Nettle (Galeopsis tetrahit) Madia citrigracilis Brassica Maidenhair Fern (Adiantum pedatum) Woodsia Fern (Woodsia abbeae) Stephanomeira malheurensis Maize (Zea mays) Yellow Monkey Flower (Mimulus guttatus) Fruit Flies: (all separate experiments.) Drosophila paulistorum Drosophila melanogaster Drosophila pseudoobscura Drosophila silvestris Drosophila simulans (Several Housefly species as well) Apple Maggot Fly (Rhagoletis pomonella) Gall Former Fly (Eurosta solidaginis) Flour Beetles (Tribolium castaneum) A Lab Rat Worm, Nereis acuminata Chlorella vulgaris Morphological Changes in Bacteria |
![]() |
|
| jesusfreak574 | Jun 2 2008, 02:49 PM Post #16 |
|
Yes, good point about the chromosomes. I should have said that within one species, adding chromosomes to evolve would entail the production of organized information. (Or in some cases, the loss of information, but you can hardly make an argument for evolution based on the continual loss of genetic information.) As many fossils? I agree. As many "missing link" fossils, or things of that nature? I would like to read up on one such fossil. I am perplexed with where they are, because they are often cited and infrequently named, in my experience. I'm really not a biologist, but looking at some of those organisms (specifically the primrose and drosophila), they seems to me to be examples of many related species. It looks like some can breed with one another and some cannot. But first, there is not evidence to suggest that they all evolved from one ancestor, as much sense as that explanation may seem to make. Second, if that is the extent of change that evolution can produce, it is still intellectual promiscuity to suggest that flies could become any other insect. It was a fly; it is still a fly. It is not a bee or a scorpion. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · Philosophy & Debate · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2






8:55 AM Jul 11