"No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"

  • 103 Replies
  • 19816 Views
*

Vindictus

  • 5455
  • insightful personal text
Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
« Reply #60 on: February 17, 2012, 01:04:36 PM »
It still hasn't been demonstrated that 'microevolution' and 'macroevoltuion' aren't just the same things, on different time scales.

*

Marcus Aurelius

  • 4546
  • My Alts: Tom Bishop, Gayer, theonlydann
Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
« Reply #61 on: February 17, 2012, 01:20:36 PM »
define what you want to see by macro evolution.

*

WardoggKC130FE

  • 11842
  • What website is that? MadeUpMonkeyShit.com?
Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
« Reply #62 on: February 18, 2012, 06:56:22 AM »
Not sure how many times people have to tell you this.  Evolution does not allow one thing to turn into an entirely different kind of thing.  Dogs won't turn into cats, a peach tree will not turn into a pineapple bush.  Evolution is only modifications to what is already there.

That is why you can have one cat ancestor, that splits off into all the different species of felidae today, but none of them stopped being part of the cat family.



Except for that pesky original single cell organism that became everything. 

*

Marcus Aurelius

  • 4546
  • My Alts: Tom Bishop, Gayer, theonlydann
Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
« Reply #63 on: February 18, 2012, 07:41:33 AM »
Not sure how many times people have to tell you this.  Evolution does not allow one thing to turn into an entirely different kind of thing.  Dogs won't turn into cats, a peach tree will not turn into a pineapple bush.  Evolution is only modifications to what is already there.

That is why you can have one cat ancestor, that splits off into all the different species of felidae today, but none of them stopped being part of the cat family.



Except for that pesky original single cell organism that became everything.

No, not really.  All animals are still Eukaryotas, just like their single cell ancestors, and they can't evolve out of that.  Bacteria can't evolve into something that is not bacteria either.  This is what I've been trying to explain.  When the original mammal species evolved into all the different species of mammal today, they are ALL still mammals, and can't evolve into something that is not a mammal.

This is why a peach tree cannot evolve into something that is not a peach tree, such as a pineapple bush.  They can evolve into distinct species of peach tree though.

Do you comprehend yet?

Edit:  took out a dumb mistake.
« Last Edit: February 18, 2012, 09:37:07 AM by Marcus Aurelius »

*

Tausami

  • Head Editor
  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6767
  • Venerated Official of the High Zetetic Council
Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
« Reply #64 on: February 18, 2012, 08:45:13 AM »
Marcus is, of course, being somewhat fallacious. A peach tree could, theoretically speaking, evolve into a pineapple bush, but it would take millions of generations of peach tree under perfectly sculpted settings.

*

Marcus Aurelius

  • 4546
  • My Alts: Tom Bishop, Gayer, theonlydann
Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
« Reply #65 on: February 18, 2012, 09:32:59 AM »
Marcus is, of course, being somewhat fallacious. A peach tree could, theoretically speaking, evolve into a pineapple bush, but it would take millions of generations of peach tree under perfectly sculpted settings.

Nothing has ever evolved out of it's ancestry.  We have observed organisms lose features that it's relatives still have, such as a snake losing it's limbs or an ape losing it's tail, but it's still a primate.  We have also observed similar traits evolve from separate clades, such as wings.  Flight has evolved several different times from entirely separate lines, so there is no common ancestor for flight.  A mammal wing is built on an entirely separate structure from a bird wing, for example.

But if we ever found something like a birds wing growing out of a mammal, such as this:



Evolution would have no way of explaining it, because evolution follows rules and something like that breaks them all.  Creation on the other hand, does not follow any rules, so finding a Pegasus would be perfectly explainable under creationism.

*

Pongo

  • Planar Moderator
  • 6753
Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
« Reply #66 on: February 18, 2012, 09:45:31 AM »
lol, evolution says people evolved from monkeys, but I ain't no monkey.  Explain that, Hot Shot.  Didn't think so.

*

Rushy

  • 8971
Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
« Reply #67 on: February 18, 2012, 07:57:00 PM »
Riddle me this, batman.

If birds are dinosaurs, where are all the dragons?

*

Tausami

  • Head Editor
  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6767
  • Venerated Official of the High Zetetic Council
Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
« Reply #68 on: February 18, 2012, 09:09:22 PM »
Riddle me this, batman.

If birds are dinosaurs, where are all the dragons?

???

Marcus is, of course, being somewhat fallacious. A peach tree could, theoretically speaking, evolve into a pineapple bush, but it would take millions of generations of peach tree under perfectly sculpted settings.

Nothing has ever evolved out of it's ancestry.  We have observed organisms lose features that it's relatives still have, such as a snake losing it's limbs or an ape losing it's tail, but it's still a primate.  We have also observed similar traits evolve from separate clades, such as wings.  Flight has evolved several different times from entirely separate lines, so there is no common ancestor for flight.  A mammal wing is built on an entirely separate structure from a bird wing, for example.

But if we ever found something like a birds wing growing out of a mammal, such as this:

Evolution would have no way of explaining it, because evolution follows rules and something like that breaks them all.  Creation on the other hand, does not follow any rules, so finding a Pegasus would be perfectly explainable under creationism.

Except that Chordata evolved from Arthropoda and we cannot reasonably be considered arthropods.

*

Tausami

  • Head Editor
  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6767
  • Venerated Official of the High Zetetic Council
Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
« Reply #69 on: February 18, 2012, 09:10:49 PM »
Relevant:

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

Actually that's not relevant at all.   Show me a peach tree seed that macro evolves into pineapple bush and then you may have something.

And I have found the issue. Wardogg believes that evolution is a dog giving birth to a cat.

*

WardoggKC130FE

  • 11842
  • What website is that? MadeUpMonkeyShit.com?
Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
« Reply #70 on: February 19, 2012, 06:15:20 AM »
Relevant:

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

Actually that's not relevant at all.   Show me a peach tree seed that macro evolves into pineapple bush and then you may have something.

And I have found the issue. Wardogg believes that evolution is a dog giving birth to a cat.

I was unaware the "theory of common descent" was in dispute.  Care to elaborate?

While on the topic of plants, let me see if I got the basics of animal evolution down.  Animal has a mutation, that mutation doesn't kill the animal, possibly makes the animal better but doesn't have to, just has to not kill it.  Then that animal has sex with another animal and passes that mutation down the line.  After a large amount of time many mutations have happened and the animal speciates.  So with plants with no real way to pass down the genetic code.  There is no combination or passing of genetic material between two like plants.  How do plants ensure that its mutated genetic code gets handed down?   And what is the common animal/plant ancestor?  Seems like such a hard life for the early animal ancestor to find food, where as his plant counterpart had to do was sit there and soak up the nutrients and the sun to survive.

*

Ichimaru Gin :]

  • Undefeated FEer
  • Planar Moderator
  • 8829
  • Semper vigilans
Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
« Reply #71 on: February 19, 2012, 06:35:44 AM »
Wardogg has a good point. Plants, being the eukaryotes that they are, lack DNA, their cells can't undergo division, and there are no techniques for dispersal such as wind.
I saw a slight haze in the hotel bathroom this morning after I took a shower, have I discovered a new planet?

*

Marcus Aurelius

  • 4546
  • My Alts: Tom Bishop, Gayer, theonlydann
Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
« Reply #72 on: February 19, 2012, 06:36:26 AM »
Except that Chordata evolved from Arthropoda and we cannot reasonably be considered arthropods.

What?  Arthropoda and Chordata are two separate Phylums.  Chordata are a sub group of Dueterostomia which is a subgroup of Bilateria, arthropods are also in the Bilateria group but are protostomes.  Chordata is not named as a subgroup of Arthropods, where did you hear this?

*

WardoggKC130FE

  • 11842
  • What website is that? MadeUpMonkeyShit.com?
Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
« Reply #73 on: February 19, 2012, 06:54:24 AM »
Wardogg has a good point. Plants, being the eukaryotes that they are, lack DNA, their cells can't undergo division, and there are no techniques for dispersal such as wind.

So genetically mutated pollen causes another like plant to also have genetically mutated offspring?

*

Lorddave

  • 16438
Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
« Reply #74 on: February 19, 2012, 07:59:25 AM »
Wardogg has a good point. Plants, being the eukaryotes that they are, lack DNA, their cells can't undergo division, and there are no techniques for dispersal such as wind.

So genetically mutated pollen causes another like plant to also have genetically mutated offspring?
Why not?
Pollen is not unlike sperm.

And there's nothing that says mutated pollen is the only way to produce a mutated offspring.  It could be mutated DNA after the seed is formed.  Or maybe some kind of chemical interacted with the seed? 
I am a terrible person and I am a typical Blowhard Liberal for being wrong about Bom.

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
« Reply #75 on: February 22, 2012, 09:33:56 AM »
Not sure how many times people have to tell you this.  Evolution does not allow one thing to turn into an entirely different kind of thing.  Dogs won't turn into cats, a peach tree will not turn into a pineapple bush.  Evolution is only modifications to what is already there.

That is why you can have one cat ancestor, that splits off into all the different species of felidae today, but none of them stopped being part of the cat family.



Except for that pesky original single cell organism that became everything.

No, not really.  All animals are still Eukaryotas, just like their single cell ancestors, and they can't evolve out of that.  Bacteria can't evolve into something that is not bacteria either.  This is what I've been trying to explain.  When the original mammal species evolved into all the different species of mammal today, they are ALL still mammals, and can't evolve into something that is not a mammal.

This is why a peach tree cannot evolve into something that is not a peach tree, such as a pineapple bush.  They can evolve into distinct species of peach tree though.

Do you comprehend yet?

Edit:  took out a dumb mistake.

All animals ARE eucharyotes, too bad the first cells were prokaryotes. Good thing they can't change what they are.  ::)

?

EireEngineer

  • 1205
  • Woo Nemesis
Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
« Reply #76 on: February 25, 2012, 11:54:33 AM »
Wardogg has a good point. Plants, being the eukaryotes that they are, lack DNA, their cells can't undergo division, and there are no techniques for dispersal such as wind.
Uh...plants have DNA. Sorry to disappoint, and they do exchange genes.  After all, it was plants that "invented" sex.
If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the precipitate.

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
« Reply #77 on: February 25, 2012, 09:19:05 PM »
Wardogg has a good point. Plants, being the eukaryotes that they are, lack DNA, their cells can't undergo division, and there are no techniques for dispersal such as wind.
Uh...plants have DNA. Sorry to disappoint, and they do exchange genes.  After all, it was plants that "invented" sex.

Which was ichi's point. Calibrate your sarcasm detector senior.

*

Tausami

  • Head Editor
  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6767
  • Venerated Official of the High Zetetic Council
Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
« Reply #78 on: March 04, 2012, 01:24:33 PM »
Except that Chordata evolved from Arthropoda and we cannot reasonably be considered arthropods.

What?  Arthropoda and Chordata are two separate Phylums.  Chordata are a sub group of Dueterostomia which is a subgroup of Bilateria, arthropods are also in the Bilateria group but are protostomes.  Chordata is not named as a subgroup of Arthropods, where did you hear this?

Sorry for the long pause. I forgot.

That's exactly my point. Early chordates evolved from some of the more advanced arthropods, but cannot be considered arthropods. Therefore, your claim that evolution can't cause something to become something completely different is false.

?

Cat Earth Theory

  • 1614
  • I practise the Zetetic Method!
Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
« Reply #79 on: March 04, 2012, 02:05:56 PM »
Except that Chordata evolved from Arthropoda and we cannot reasonably be considered arthropods.

What?  Arthropoda and Chordata are two separate Phylums.  Chordata are a sub group of Dueterostomia which is a subgroup of Bilateria, arthropods are also in the Bilateria group but are protostomes.  Chordata is not named as a subgroup of Arthropods, where did you hear this?

Sorry for the long pause. I forgot.

That's exactly my point. Early chordates evolved from some of the more advanced arthropods, but cannot be considered arthropods. Therefore, your claim that evolution can't cause something to become something completely different is false.

I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that chordates evolved from arthropods.  All vertebrates are more closely related to star fish than any arthropod.

We don't have a great fossil record for the evolutionary history of chordates.  What we do have shows jellyfish-like creatures becoming more slug-like/worm-like, and eventually developing a tadpole shape.  Unlike arthropods, which have hard outer coverings, these creatures were quite soft and didn't get preserved as easily. 

Somewhere along the line they developed notochords, which are simple, flexible rods that act like a backbone.  All chordates, including humans, still have notochords at some point in their development.  There's no a single arthropod, living or dead, which has anything similar.
If you focus on the cloud, and conceive of it just as you would a dream you are trying to interpret, with practice its meanings and memories will be revealed to you.

*

Tausami

  • Head Editor
  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6767
  • Venerated Official of the High Zetetic Council
Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
« Reply #80 on: March 04, 2012, 04:21:08 PM »
Except that Chordata evolved from Arthropoda and we cannot reasonably be considered arthropods.

What?  Arthropoda and Chordata are two separate Phylums.  Chordata are a sub group of Dueterostomia which is a subgroup of Bilateria, arthropods are also in the Bilateria group but are protostomes.  Chordata is not named as a subgroup of Arthropods, where did you hear this?

Sorry for the long pause. I forgot.

That's exactly my point. Early chordates evolved from some of the more advanced arthropods, but cannot be considered arthropods. Therefore, your claim that evolution can't cause something to become something completely different is false.

I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that chordates evolved from arthropods.  All vertebrates are more closely related to star fish than any arthropod.

We don't have a great fossil record for the evolutionary history of chordates.  What we do have shows jellyfish-like creatures becoming more slug-like/worm-like, and eventually developing a tadpole shape.  Unlike arthropods, which have hard outer coverings, these creatures were quite soft and didn't get preserved as easily. 

Somewhere along the line they developed notochords, which are simple, flexible rods that act like a backbone.  All chordates, including humans, still have notochords at some point in their development.  There's no a single arthropod, living or dead, which has anything similar.

It's been a long time since I've had marine bio, but I seemed to remember that the more complex arthropods like lobster were the first to have central ganglia, which was a precursor to a brain and were therefore considered to have been the closest to chordates. But even if I'm misremembering, the point stands.

?

Cat Earth Theory

  • 1614
  • I practise the Zetetic Method!
Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
« Reply #81 on: March 04, 2012, 04:29:52 PM »
Except that Chordata evolved from Arthropoda and we cannot reasonably be considered arthropods.

What?  Arthropoda and Chordata are two separate Phylums.  Chordata are a sub group of Dueterostomia which is a subgroup of Bilateria, arthropods are also in the Bilateria group but are protostomes.  Chordata is not named as a subgroup of Arthropods, where did you hear this?

Sorry for the long pause. I forgot.

That's exactly my point. Early chordates evolved from some of the more advanced arthropods, but cannot be considered arthropods. Therefore, your claim that evolution can't cause something to become something completely different is false.

I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that chordates evolved from arthropods.  All vertebrates are more closely related to star fish than any arthropod.

We don't have a great fossil record for the evolutionary history of chordates.  What we do have shows jellyfish-like creatures becoming more slug-like/worm-like, and eventually developing a tadpole shape.  Unlike arthropods, which have hard outer coverings, these creatures were quite soft and didn't get preserved as easily. 

Somewhere along the line they developed notochords, which are simple, flexible rods that act like a backbone.  All chordates, including humans, still have notochords at some point in their development.  There's no a single arthropod, living or dead, which has anything similar.

It's been a long time since I've had marine bio, but I seemed to remember that the more complex arthropods like lobster were the first to have central ganglia, which was a precursor to a brain and were therefore considered to have been the closest to chordates. But even if I'm misremembering, the point stands.

No, the point doesn't stand because chordates didn't come from arthropods.  We came from chordate ancestors.  We're still chordates.  Things evolve and change, but remnants of the past remain.

Even earlier than notochords, we had ancestors whose first opening developed into an anus.  We're still like that now.  The first opening of an arthropod becomes its mouth.  This is an ancient development, and it's still around today.
If you focus on the cloud, and conceive of it just as you would a dream you are trying to interpret, with practice its meanings and memories will be revealed to you.

*

Ichimaru Gin :]

  • Undefeated FEer
  • Planar Moderator
  • 8829
  • Semper vigilans
Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
« Reply #82 on: March 04, 2012, 04:51:35 PM »
ITT: people recite 2nd semester bio  :P
I saw a slight haze in the hotel bathroom this morning after I took a shower, have I discovered a new planet?

?

Cat Earth Theory

  • 1614
  • I practise the Zetetic Method!
Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
« Reply #83 on: March 04, 2012, 05:00:21 PM »
ITT: people recite 2nd semester bio  :P

Perhaps you can enlighten us as to what effect moonlight had on the evolution of arthropods into chordates with that big brain/unidentified leading scientist position of yours.
If you focus on the cloud, and conceive of it just as you would a dream you are trying to interpret, with practice its meanings and memories will be revealed to you.

*

Tausami

  • Head Editor
  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6767
  • Venerated Official of the High Zetetic Council
Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
« Reply #84 on: March 04, 2012, 05:02:55 PM »
ITT: people recite 2nd semester bio  :P

How dare you! That was first semester marine bio, you condescending prick!  >:(

agrees

*

Tausami

  • Head Editor
  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6767
  • Venerated Official of the High Zetetic Council
Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
« Reply #85 on: March 04, 2012, 05:08:46 PM »
Except that Chordata evolved from Arthropoda and we cannot reasonably be considered arthropods.

What?  Arthropoda and Chordata are two separate Phylums.  Chordata are a sub group of Dueterostomia which is a subgroup of Bilateria, arthropods are also in the Bilateria group but are protostomes.  Chordata is not named as a subgroup of Arthropods, where did you hear this?

Sorry for the long pause. I forgot.

That's exactly my point. Early chordates evolved from some of the more advanced arthropods, but cannot be considered arthropods. Therefore, your claim that evolution can't cause something to become something completely different is false.

I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that chordates evolved from arthropods.  All vertebrates are more closely related to star fish than any arthropod.

We don't have a great fossil record for the evolutionary history of chordates.  What we do have shows jellyfish-like creatures becoming more slug-like/worm-like, and eventually developing a tadpole shape.  Unlike arthropods, which have hard outer coverings, these creatures were quite soft and didn't get preserved as easily. 

Somewhere along the line they developed notochords, which are simple, flexible rods that act like a backbone.  All chordates, including humans, still have notochords at some point in their development.  There's no a single arthropod, living or dead, which has anything similar.

It's been a long time since I've had marine bio, but I seemed to remember that the more complex arthropods like lobster were the first to have central ganglia, which was a precursor to a brain and were therefore considered to have been the closest to chordates. But even if I'm misremembering, the point stands.

No, the point doesn't stand because chordates didn't come from arthropods.  We came from chordate ancestors.  We're still chordates.  Things evolve and change, but remnants of the past remain.

But even if we evolved form echinoderms, we still evolved from something unlike us. We can and do lose features that belonged to our ancestors. About 98% of our DNA is inactive. At some point in the future, whales will lose their hips (if they manage to survive, which they probably won't). We are already losing our appendixes.

?

Cat Earth Theory

  • 1614
  • I practise the Zetetic Method!
Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
« Reply #86 on: March 04, 2012, 05:16:30 PM »
Except that Chordata evolved from Arthropoda and we cannot reasonably be considered arthropods.

What?  Arthropoda and Chordata are two separate Phylums.  Chordata are a sub group of Dueterostomia which is a subgroup of Bilateria, arthropods are also in the Bilateria group but are protostomes.  Chordata is not named as a subgroup of Arthropods, where did you hear this?

Sorry for the long pause. I forgot.

That's exactly my point. Early chordates evolved from some of the more advanced arthropods, but cannot be considered arthropods. Therefore, your claim that evolution can't cause something to become something completely different is false.

I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that chordates evolved from arthropods.  All vertebrates are more closely related to star fish than any arthropod.

We don't have a great fossil record for the evolutionary history of chordates.  What we do have shows jellyfish-like creatures becoming more slug-like/worm-like, and eventually developing a tadpole shape.  Unlike arthropods, which have hard outer coverings, these creatures were quite soft and didn't get preserved as easily. 

Somewhere along the line they developed notochords, which are simple, flexible rods that act like a backbone.  All chordates, including humans, still have notochords at some point in their development.  There's no a single arthropod, living or dead, which has anything similar.

It's been a long time since I've had marine bio, but I seemed to remember that the more complex arthropods like lobster were the first to have central ganglia, which was a precursor to a brain and were therefore considered to have been the closest to chordates. But even if I'm misremembering, the point stands.

No, the point doesn't stand because chordates didn't come from arthropods.  We came from chordate ancestors.  We're still chordates.  Things evolve and change, but remnants of the past remain.

But even if we evolved form echinoderms, we still evolved from something unlike us. We can and do lose features that belonged to our ancestors. About 98% of our DNA is inactive. At some point in the future, whales will lose their hips (if they manage to survive, which they probably won't). We are already losing our appendixes.

I understand what you're trying to say here, but the point is that things don't evolve into other classifications of things.  A feline isn't going to evolve into a canine.  An arthropod isn't going to evolve into a chordate.  They'll always be different because they have different evolutionary baggage, even if they're similar on the surface.

I think the whole discussion started because some people get confused about evolution by thinking one thing just turns into another.  Like a cat suddenly turning into a dog.  It never happens like that.  The changes are gradual.  The new creature will still have characteristics from its ancestors.  They may be greatly changed, and over a really long time may just disappear entirely, but the point is that it isn't just one thing suddenly turning into another.
If you focus on the cloud, and conceive of it just as you would a dream you are trying to interpret, with practice its meanings and memories will be revealed to you.

?

EireEngineer

  • 1205
  • Woo Nemesis
Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
« Reply #87 on: March 04, 2012, 05:53:36 PM »
Um...98% of DNA is most certainly not inactive.
If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the precipitate.

*

Tausami

  • Head Editor
  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6767
  • Venerated Official of the High Zetetic Council

?

OrbisNonSufficit

  • 3124
  • I love Gasoline.
Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
« Reply #89 on: March 04, 2012, 06:42:23 PM »
Um...98% of DNA is most certainly not inactive.

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

Depends on what you mean by "inactive", but noncoding DNA still performs valuable functions, even if its not coding.