W
Wolseley
Guest
I’m sorry, Barbarian, but I just don’t see any evidence of evolution in your beetles. All I see is diversity within a species.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
Family. Beetles comprise an order, of which tiger beetles are a family. The family has numerous genera and a very large number of species.I’m sorry, Barbarian, but I just don’t see any evidence of evolution in your beetles. All I see is diversity within a species.
All evolved from a common ancestor. Evidence? OK. Phylogeny of beetles from DNA analyses. (we use for human paternity, so we know it works)
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Surprise.
W
Wolseley
Guest
Surprise, nothing. They’re still beetles.
I can take two dingoes from the Australian outback, and given enough time, onstensibly breed the line into Rhodesian Ridgebacks and French Poodles, but guess what? They’re still Canis familiaris: just plain old dogs.
I can take two dingoes from the Australian outback, and given enough time, onstensibly breed the line into Rhodesian Ridgebacks and French Poodles, but guess what? They’re still Canis familiaris: just plain old dogs.
O
Orogeny
Guest
How does that contradict what Barbarian has provided? Does evolution predict something different?Surprise, nothing. They’re still beetles.
I can take two dingoes from the Australian outback, and given enough time, onstensibly breed the line into Rhodesian Ridgebacks and French Poodles, but guess what? They’re still Canis familiaris: just plain old dogs.
Peace
Tim
R
rossum
Guest
You need to do a bit more research. Beetles are not a species, beetles are an Order (Coleoptera) comprising about 350,000 different known species. As an example, within the mammals the Artiodactyls are an Order, which includes goats, sheep, pigs, cattle, antelopes, gazelles and many others. That is obviously not “diversity within a species”.I’m sorry, Barbarian, but I just don’t see any evidence of evolution in your beetles. All I see is diversity within a species.
Remember that just like beetles, primates are also an Order. Would you say that the differences between a lemur and a human are “diversity within a species”?
If you are going to discuss biology then you would do well to learn more about it first.
rossum
E
edwest2
Guest
There are a great variety of dogs, but they are all dogs. Breeding by humans is not evolution. It is simply tinkering - trial and error. The same with humans of different races. The people I know of mixed race have not evolved. In both cases, man has exploited something dogs and humans could already do. Already do.
Just add millions of years and - poof! - anything. I don’t think so. I understand the science, it is pure speculation.
God bless,
Ed
Just add millions of years and - poof! - anything. I don’t think so. I understand the science, it is pure speculation.
God bless,
Ed
O
Orogeny
Guest
Now that is insight. What kind of animal do you suggest evolution says that any variety of dog would be?There are a great variety of dogs, but they are all dogs.
Peace
Tim
E
edwest2
Guest
Evolution assigns common descent to man and, supposed, previous creatures that were not men.
God bless,
Ed
God bless,
Ed
O
Orogeny
Guest
Sorry, Ed, but that doesn’t answer my question. What kind of animal do you say that evolution would expect a dog to be other than a dog?Evolution assigns common descent to man and, supposed, previous creatures that were not men.
God bless,
Ed
Peace
Tim
R
ricmat
Guest
So Orogeny,
Do you believe that DNA mutations (random or not) over time, coupled with natural selection can eventually result in the existence of new species?
Do you believe that DNA mutations (random or not) over time, coupled with natural selection can eventually result in the existence of new species?
E
edwest2
Guest
ricmat summed it up nicely.
Ed
Ed
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
I don’t think this question can be answered because it supposes something that is not true, even to my limited knowledge. May I suggest a minimal perusal of a evolutionary biology book first? They actually have charts so you can understand the general order of development.Great. Now, when one of those beetles develops into a fish, or a bird, or a snail, let me know.
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
again, its not surprising you don’t see anything. That is why I would suggest you might try a book on evolutionary biology first. It’s clear you do not understand. I don’t think anybody who can has the time to give you a whole introductory course here.Surprise, nothing. They’re still beetles.
I can take two dingoes from the Australian outback, and given enough time, onstensibly breed the line into Rhodesian Ridgebacks and French Poodles, but guess what? They’re still Canis familiaris: just plain old dogs.
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
Yes, that’s what they called it in college, “tinkering 101”There are a great variety of dogs, but they are all dogs. Breeding by humans is not evolution. It is simply tinkering - trial and error. The same with humans of different races. The people I know of mixed race have not evolved. In both cases, man has exploited something dogs and humans could already do. Already do.
Just add millions of years and - poof! - anything. I don’t think so. I understand the science, it is pure speculation.
Ed
As so many have said, what you think is unfortunately for you not the state of the world. And of course 19 times you said evolution in some form guided by God was the model, and the one accepted by the Church. Now you understand it …and its pure speculation. Ed…do we need to actually go look up all those statements? Why this sudden about face?
E
edwest2
Guest
Common descent. This was once that, was once something else and still further back, something else again.
It is nonsensical that man shares common descent with a tree dwelling, lemur like creature and hominids. It is far more sensible to say that each of these creatures were separate and distinct. I say this in light of the fact that the types of creatures, lemurs and ape like creatures, still exist today. No one has actually observed evolution in action and no, dog breeding and horse breeding, which do not take millions of years to accomplish, do not count.
God bless,
Ed
It is nonsensical that man shares common descent with a tree dwelling, lemur like creature and hominids. It is far more sensible to say that each of these creatures were separate and distinct. I say this in light of the fact that the types of creatures, lemurs and ape like creatures, still exist today. No one has actually observed evolution in action and no, dog breeding and horse breeding, which do not take millions of years to accomplish, do not count.
God bless,
Ed
R
ricmat
Guest
What I think has happened in the last 15-20 posts is the following (IMHO):
Those who believe in unguided evolution insist that their point of view be accepted as totally explaining the development of life from the beginning to now. Everybody knows it’s right. It’s just a matter of time until we’ve actually figured it out, and in the meantime, we insist that you all accept it as actually complete, and just ignore the smoke and mirrors for now.
Others have jumped in and in so many words have suggested that there are still some holes in the current theory of evolution, one of which is that evolution from one species to a subsequent species cannot be duplicated in the lab (although variations within a species - such as getting different types of dogs) can be done in the lab. The example given previously by another poster “beetles to snails” was meant as a general “one species to a subsequent species” example. The general point of that comment was quite clear, or so I thought.
And just so you don’t call me a creationist again, I’d like to reiterate that I personally believe in the general mechanism of evolution as science explains it. I just don’t believe that there has been enough time for everything to develop without “guidance.” (or to put it another way, I don’t think Science has explained how the changes could have occurred so quickly without guidance.)
Those who believe in unguided evolution insist that their point of view be accepted as totally explaining the development of life from the beginning to now. Everybody knows it’s right. It’s just a matter of time until we’ve actually figured it out, and in the meantime, we insist that you all accept it as actually complete, and just ignore the smoke and mirrors for now.
Others have jumped in and in so many words have suggested that there are still some holes in the current theory of evolution, one of which is that evolution from one species to a subsequent species cannot be duplicated in the lab (although variations within a species - such as getting different types of dogs) can be done in the lab. The example given previously by another poster “beetles to snails” was meant as a general “one species to a subsequent species” example. The general point of that comment was quite clear, or so I thought.
And just so you don’t call me a creationist again, I’d like to reiterate that I personally believe in the general mechanism of evolution as science explains it. I just don’t believe that there has been enough time for everything to develop without “guidance.” (or to put it another way, I don’t think Science has explained how the changes could have occurred so quickly without guidance.)
O
Orogeny
Guest
Yes, of course. The point I am trying to make to Ed (who doesn’t seem to get it) is that no matter how you describe a group of dogs, they will, by definition, still be dogs. His post suggests that he thinks that evolution says that once a new species is formed, the original species should not exist, ignoring the fact that “dog” isn’t a species at all. That isn’t what the theory suggests and it reflects a misunderstanding behind a common argument against evolution. Ed claims to understand the science, but his statement leads me to believe he doesn’t.So Orogeny,
Do you believe that DNA mutations (random or not) over time, coupled with natural selection can eventually result in the existence of new species?
Peace
Tim
O
Orogeny
Guest
Who would that be?What I think has happened in the last 15-20 posts is the following (IMHO):
Those who believe in unguided evolution insist that their point of view be accepted as totally explaining the development of life from the beginning to now. Everybody knows it’s right. It’s just a matter of time until we’ve actually figured it out, and in the meantime, we insist that you all accept it as actually complete, and just ignore the smoke and mirrors for now.
It is clear that the person who made the statement doesn’t understand what the theory says and that they have no intention of learning.Others have jumped in and in so many words have suggested that there are still some holes in the current theory of evolution, one of which is that evolution from one species to a subsequent species cannot be duplicated in the lab (although variations within a species - such as getting different types of dogs) can be done in the lab. The example given previously by another poster “beetles to snails” was meant as a general “one species to a subsequent species” example. The general point of that comment was quite clear, or so I thought.
Regarding observing speciation:
talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
You are making a mistake it seems in the use of the term “species”. Beetles to snails is not a matter of different species - they are different phyla.
Peace
Tim
R
ricmat
Guest
Ricmat’s Quote:
Others have jumped in and in so many words have suggested that there are still some holes in the current theory of evolution, one of which is that evolution from one species to a subsequent species cannot be duplicated in the lab (although variations within a species - such as getting different types of dogs) can be done in the lab. The example given previously by another poster “beetles to snails” was meant as a general “one species to a subsequent species” example. The general point of that comment was quite clear, or so I thought.
Orogony’s response:
It is clear that the person who made the statement doesn’t understand what the theory says and that they have no intention of learning. You are making a mistake it seems in the use of the term “species”. Beetles to snails is not a matter of different species - they are different phyla.
Ricmat’s next response:
The theory says that one species evolve from another species.
Can it be done in the lab? Or not?
Others have jumped in and in so many words have suggested that there are still some holes in the current theory of evolution, one of which is that evolution from one species to a subsequent species cannot be duplicated in the lab (although variations within a species - such as getting different types of dogs) can be done in the lab. The example given previously by another poster “beetles to snails” was meant as a general “one species to a subsequent species” example. The general point of that comment was quite clear, or so I thought.
Orogony’s response:
It is clear that the person who made the statement doesn’t understand what the theory says and that they have no intention of learning. You are making a mistake it seems in the use of the term “species”. Beetles to snails is not a matter of different species - they are different phyla.
Ricmat’s next response:
The theory says that one species evolve from another species.
Can it be done in the lab? Or not?
O
Orogeny
Guest
It has been observed in nature.Ricmat’s Quote:
Others have jumped in and in so many words have suggested that there are still some holes in the current theory of evolution, one of which is that evolution from one species to a subsequent species cannot be duplicated in the lab (although variations within a species - such as getting different types of dogs) can be done in the lab. The example given previously by another poster “beetles to snails” was meant as a general “one species to a subsequent species” example. The general point of that comment was quite clear, or so I thought.
Orogony’s response:
It is clear that the person who made the statement doesn’t understand what the theory says and that they have no intention of learning. You are making a mistake it seems in the use of the term “species”. Beetles to snails is not a matter of different species - they are different phyla.
Ricmat’s next response:
The theory says that one species evolve from another species.
Can it be done in the lab? Or not?
Peace
Tim
- Status
- Not open for further replies.