Evolution Debate

[Wounded Cheesie]

State one theory, idea / whatever and we will stick to that debate and show your evidence,support or speculations. Try not to go off topic.

 

Ill start it...

 

Although there is speculations there is no evidence I've see for macro evolution, evolution from one species to another. Am I missing something?

[Unclean]

According to the Theory of Evolution, every fossil is transitional. There is no "final form". However, there are transitions between currently identified families. For example, archaeopteryx is a good example of a transitional between reptiles and birds. Whales have hip bones, but no legs. And what about the platypus? A poisonous mammal with a reptilian bone structure? It doesn't get much more "transitional" than that.

[Wounded Cheesie]

archaeopteryx is a good example of a transitional between reptiles and birds

 

is it or is it simply a different species long since extinct? There are many animals with similar traits that dont follow accepted evolutionary lines.

 

According to the Theory of Evolution, every fossil is transitional

 

Transitional meaning from one species to a different species.

Edited July 12, 2005 by Wounded Cheesie

[Unclean]

is it or is [the archaeopteryx] simply a different species long since extinct?

The 'pteryx is almost 50-50 bird/reptile. If that's another species, by definition, there could never be a "transitional" organism of any kind.

 

Example: species A has "A" traits. Species B has "B" traits. Let's say we've observed this change over time:

 

1. AAAA

2. AAAB

3. ABBB

4. BBBB

 

Either 2 and 3 are "transitionals", or 2 and 3 are "different species". But if that's the case, taxonomists are going to have a HECK of a time going back and creating thousands more species names.

[Wounded Cheesie]

1) By your argument a water melon must be an evolution of a cloud or vise versa.

Even in current accepted evolution models simalar traits do not mean one evolved from the other.

 

2) There are only a few fossils that are accepted as (species) transitional by the scientific community. Im just saying since there are so few it seams more plausable that its just an extict species like any other dinosaur. In fact it is equally logical to say aliens dropped off archaeopteryx.

[KiRiN]

i nomally dont do this but....

 

"By your argument a water melon must be an evolution of a cloud or vise versa"

 

What you talkin' bout Willis?

[Wounded Cheesie]

i nomally dont do this but....

 

"By your argument a water melon must be an evolution of a cloud or vise versa"

 

What you talkin' bout Willis?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

lol

 

it was argued Similar traits mean transitional evolution. Watermelons and clouds are both mostly water ie similar trait.

 

better example a tooth was studied by Henry Fairfield Osborn (big wig in dinosaurs) he deduced it had traits like a human and and ape and was seen as an evolutionary link. It was much publicised and even was used in a big trail about evolution. Aprox. 7 years later they finished the dig and found the rest of the remains and it turned out to be the tooth of a type of pig. Similar traits <> evolutional transition.

Edited July 13, 2005 by Wounded Cheesie

[ishmael]

funny you should mention pig.

pig's have a 99.9% DNA similarity to humans.

monkeys have only a 99%

[Wounded Cheesie]

Pigs 99.9% Monkeys 99%

Yet in accepted evolutionary models pigs are considered lower that monkeys in the chain to humans. Shouldnt it be the closer the traits the closer the evolution line?

 

 

Heres an interesting quote:

"My reservations concern not so much this book but the whole subject and methodology of paleoanthropology. But introductory books - or book reviews - are hardly the place to argue that perhaps generations of students of human evolution, including myself, have been flailing about in the dark: that our data base is too sparse, too slippery, for it to be able to mold our theories. Rather the theories are more statements about us and ideology than about the past. Paleoanthropology reveals more about how humans view themselves than it does about how humans came about. But that is heresy."

Dr. David Pilbeam an anthropologist at Harvard

 

It pushes my point that the grandios wealth of congeture, books and theories comes out abut say archaeopteryx with such little evidence. Many assume its transitional but there is no proof again it just may be a different species.

[Unclean]

it was argued Similar traits mean transitional evolution.

Nope -- I never intended that. I should have been more specific, but I got lazy with the taxonomy. My bad.

 

Replace "traits" with "traits from a particular class of organism". For example, we all know that birds (class aves) are different than lizards (class reptilia), right? There are different *species* of birds, but they fall under the class of aves. There are different *species* of reptiles, but they fall under the class of reptilia.

 

What about a creature that has half of the traits from the class aves, and the other half from the class reptilia? Organisms are identified by their traits (do they fly? Do they have hollow bones? Do they have a fused wishbone? etc). So what you're suggesting is that the creatures are not only a new species, but a new genus, a new family, a new order, AND a new class. Phew! Taxonomists sure have their work cut out for them.

 

Or do they? Taxonomy is structured with modern biological organisms (sorry, no clouds). If we were to go back and add all of the creatures that shared traits between different species, genus, families, etc, then that would make all of taxonomy useless. "Oh, the archaeopteryx is a repto-bird. This creature is a 80%repto20%bird. This creature is a 90%repto20%bird".

 

This concludes Unclean's short lesson in Taxonomy. If you'd like to learn more, go here:

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

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

[ishmael]

Pigs 99.9% Monkeys 99%

Yet in accepted evolutionary models pigs are considered lower that monkeys in the chain to humans. Shouldnt it be the closer the traits the closer the evolution line?

 

no. not nessesarily, we also share something like a 75% genetic similarity with common wheat plants. its just an interesting fact that hints more and more at seperate evolutionary patterns being following in seperate species. there are so many factors to traits of animals, to family trees and such that its hard to get into really in depth. the bone structure and brain functions, birthing, communication, muscle structures, ect ect ect.

 

and that wouldn't be the accepted evolutionary model, that would be the animal kingdoms of zoology. another science branch.