Login

Join for Free!
112262 members


The Colin Leslie Dean species paradox

Discussion of everything related to the Theory of Evolution.

Moderator: BioTeam

Re:

Postby telanerv » Mon Jul 27, 2009 8:43 pm

papa1983 wrote:Species don't just roll out like a new sedan. It takes a while for them to split from the original population.


LOL funny way to say it
telanerv
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 18
Joined: Mon Jul 20, 2009 4:53 pm

Postby gamila » Wed Sep 16, 2009 2:54 pm

LOL funny way to say it
so what the first bird mate with
gamila
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 265
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:20 pm

Re: The Colin Leslie Dean species paradox

Postby EASTstroudsburg13 » Thu Sep 17, 2009 8:29 pm

If this thread is going nowhere, why not just lock it? I think all the points refuting the paradox have been stated by now. Or just ban gamila, that would work too. :roll:
Science rules! :D

"Nothing says 'oops' like a wall of flame." -Marion Winik

Go Phillies!
Go Eagles!
User avatar
EASTstroudsburg13
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2009 9:52 pm
Location: East Stroudsburg, PA


Postby gamila » Fri Sep 18, 2009 7:39 am

I think all the points refuting the paradox have been stated by now

so please tell us in your words what the first bird mated with
gamila
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 265
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:20 pm

Re: The Colin Leslie Dean species paradox

Postby EASTstroudsburg13 » Wed Sep 23, 2009 8:59 pm

Tell me how you define exactly what the first bird was, how you distinguish it from the bird-like organisms it evolved from. There is no exact point at which the first bird existed. From a common ancestor, the species gradually became more bird-like until we have the birds we know today. But that took millions years to go through, so no one can see exactly where one ancetor starts and another begins.

If you insist though, the first "bird" we know today probably mated with an extremely bird-like species that was not exactly like todays but very similar. Similar enough for the bird to mate with.
Science rules! :D

"Nothing says 'oops' like a wall of flame." -Marion Winik

Go Phillies!
Go Eagles!
User avatar
EASTstroudsburg13
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2009 9:52 pm
Location: East Stroudsburg, PA

Postby gamila » Thu Sep 24, 2009 3:34 am

If you insist though, the first "bird" we know today probably mated with an extremely bird-like species


then the bird and bird- like species must have been the same species as we are told that only the same species can mate and have fertile off spring
1) if they are diferent species they cant mate
if different species can mate then the definition of species ends in contradiction and is meaningless nonsense
2) if theyare the same species then we have point two of deans paradox

2)a whole lot of species A gave birth toa whole lot of new individuals of species B at the same time so that these new individual members of species B could mate together

if this 2) was the way it happened
we have a major problem
it would mean something made a whole lot of members of species A give birth to a whole lot new members of species B at the same time
we are told species form due to random mutations
so
it is beyound possibility that the same random mutation took place in a whole lot of different members of species A at the same time

the other alternative is that some intelligence was at wor
gamila
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 265
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:20 pm

Re: The Colin Leslie Dean species paradox

Postby EASTstroudsburg13 » Sun Oct 04, 2009 3:03 pm

Okay, rephrasing: Bird-like animals gradually gained different traits until today's birds. At any specific time, though, all bird-like animals would be the same species.
Science rules! :D

"Nothing says 'oops' like a wall of flame." -Marion Winik

Go Phillies!
Go Eagles!
User avatar
EASTstroudsburg13
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2009 9:52 pm
Location: East Stroudsburg, PA

Postby gamila » Sun Oct 04, 2009 3:34 pm

Okay, rephrasing: Bird-like animals gradually gained different traits until today's birds. At any specific time, though, all bird-like animals would be the same species.


bird-like is not the same thing as bird

being bird -like means they where not birds yet
sorry there where birds long before birds of today

so what what if all bird- like animals- where the same species
what the question is
so what did the first bird mate with
gamila
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 265
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:20 pm

Re: The Colin Leslie Dean species paradox

Postby robsabba » Mon Oct 05, 2009 2:40 pm

EASTstroudsburg13 wrote:Okay, rephrasing: Bird-like animals gradually gained different traits until today's birds. At any specific time, though, all bird-like animals would be the same species.

A better response is that there was no "first bird." Populations evolve not individuals. I have told gamila this over and over, but he ignores me like everyone else. P.S. Don't waste anymore time on him.
User avatar
robsabba
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 106
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2009 6:53 pm
Location: North Dakota State University

Postby gamila » Tue Oct 06, 2009 1:02 am

A better response is that there was no "first bird." Populations evolve not individuals.


populations are made up f individuals
if the individuls dont evovle neither does the population
so is a population made up of
2
or 10
or 10 million individuals
then we are left with option 2

so that means
10 million somethings all changed into 10million birds simulateously ie at the same time

2)a whole lot of species A gave birth toa whole lot of new individuals of species B at the same time so that these new individual members of species B could mate together

if this 2) was the way it happened
we have a major problem
it would mean something made a whole lot of members of species A give birth to a whole lot new members of species B at the same time
we are told species form due to random mutations
so
it is beyound possibility that the same random mutation took place in a whole lot of different members of species A at the same time

the other alternative is that some intelligence was at wor
gamila
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 265
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:20 pm

Re: The Colin Leslie Dean species paradox

Postby LeoPol » Tue Oct 06, 2009 9:51 am

Mono-regional theory leads to a paradox, and muli-regional - not leads. Here's an example:

Our ancestors were flying?
http://translate.google.ru/translate?pr ... ry_state0=
( http://spacenoology.agro.name/?page_id=24 )
User avatar
LeoPol
Death Adder
Death Adder
 
Posts: 66
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2009 8:49 am
Location: Ukraine, Kiev

Re:

Postby robsabba » Tue Oct 06, 2009 2:24 pm

gamila wrote:
A better response is that there was no "first bird." Populations evolve not individuals.


populations are made up f individuals
if the individuls dont evovle neither does the population
so is a population made up of
2
or 10
or 10 million individuals
then we are left with option 2

so that means
10 million somethings all changed into 10million birds simulateously ie at the same time

2)a whole lot of species A gave birth toa whole lot of new individuals of species B at the same time so that these new individual members of species B could mate together

if this 2) was the way it happened
we have a major problem
it would mean something made a whole lot of members of species A give birth to a whole lot new members of species B at the same time
we are told species form due to random mutations
so
it is beyound possibility that the same random mutation took place in a whole lot of different members of species A at the same time

the other alternative is that some intelligence was at wor

Could it be you are almost there? Yes, the population could be made up of millions of individuals, or more often, thousands or hundreds of individuals. Individuals reproduce, but populations evolve. Evolution is a change in gene frequency over time... individuals do not change in gene frequency, that is why they do not evolve. The size of the population does not preclude evolution. If a gene confers a benefit to fitness, it will increase in the population... this is simple statistics. Studies have shown even a small benefit is sufficient. Thus, there does not need to be multiple mutations all at the same time. One is enough, assuming a mutation is part of the preocess, which is not even necessary. This is where you may have been misinformed... mutations are not required for a given speciation event, though they may be invovled. I told you before that polygenic traits can vary widely without any new mutations, but you continue to ignore me. Do some research on population genetics.
User avatar
robsabba
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 106
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2009 6:53 pm
Location: North Dakota State University

PreviousNext

Return to Evolution

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

cron