Login

Join for Free!
117057 members


Origins of life

Discussion of everything related to the Theory of Evolution.

Moderator: BioTeam

Postby damien james » Wed Mar 29, 2006 5:34 am

If from literal translation, bible says that organisms were created as seperate species, not as descending from common ancestor. This is creationist view. It is very important to understand how species are genetically interrelated to understand biology with depth.

And you forgot to list full taxonomic name of domestic dog. Canis lupus familiaris. Wolf is Canis lupus. familiaris indicate sub-species. I am sorry but this is still same species by and by.

Here is excerpt from well documented article. If you do not want to believe, that is up to you:

Quietly, without fanfare in September 1993, wolves and dogs were recognized as the same species. Per the American Society of Mammalogists' Mammal Species of the World, adhering to the Code of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, Canis lupus is the official species of both dogs and wolves. If you have a 'dog', your dog's classification is Canis lupus familiaris, where familiaris is the subspecies of wolf. If you have a 'wolf', your wolf's classification is Canis lupus X, where X is the subspecies of wolf. If you have a 'wolfdog', your wolfdog's classification is Canis lupus familiaris, according to United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, R.L. Rissler, February 21, 1986.


http://www.idir.net/~wolf2dog/annd2.htm

And many scientists believe in religion as being in harmony with evolution as religions are just natural tenet of human evolution providing further examples for evolving, so concept of religion does not go against evolution.
User avatar
damien james
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 237
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 5:51 am
Location: U.S.

Postby AstusAleator » Wed Mar 29, 2006 7:37 pm

Canis is a tricky example. I personally can't think of any other examples in natural history where the morphology and personalities of a species was specifically manipulated through selective breeding by another species than humans. I can't think of any other species that has "pets". Symbionts, yes. Parasites, yes. But pets? no.
If you were to really get into canis evolution, you'd need to analyze all the selective forces. You'd soon see (I believe) that canis evolution mirrors our current human evolution in many ways.

The point: Canis evolution does not necessarily fit the pattern defined by "Natural Selection". It may be an example of rapid (relatively 20-100 ty) morphological change in a species, but you need to look at the context.
User avatar
AstusAleator
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 1039
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 8:51 pm
Location: Oregon, USA

Postby alextemplet » Wed Mar 29, 2006 10:02 pm

That's a very good point, Astus, but I assume you're talking specifically about domestic dogs? Because I think wild canids are significantly older, possibly predating hominids. This link indicates that all canids, wild and domestic, are descended from a common ancestor living seven to ten million years ago:

http://www.idir.net/~wolf2dog/wayne2.htm

Lynne, I agree with your faith in the Bible, but I think you're taking parts of it a bit too literally. The creation and flood stories in Genesis contradict themselves, so how can they be seen as literal truth? It's almost as if this is God's way of telling us that these stories are not literal history, but metaphors for spiritual and moral truths.
Generally speaking, the more people talk about "being saved," the further away they actually are from true salvation.

~Alex
#2 Total Post Count
User avatar
alextemplet
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 5599
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 4:50 pm
Location: South Louisiana (aka Cajun Country)


Postby David George » Thu Mar 30, 2006 11:03 am

I am sorry that I am deviating from the topic but here is something nice

The process of evolutionary selection and change can be illustrated by the work of Peter and Rosemary Grant (e.g., Grant & Grant, 1989; Grant & Grant, 1993); this research is nicely captured in Weiner’s (1995) Pulitzer Prize winning narrative. For several decades the Grants have been studying the relation between ecological change on several of the Gal?font> pagos islands--Daphne major and Genovesa--and change in the survival rates and physical characteristics of several species of finch that reside on these islands, often called Darwin’s finches. One of these finches, the medium ground finch (Geospiza fortis), resides on Daphne major and ecological change on this island has been shown to result in changes in the average beak size of individuals of this species from one generation to the next (Grant & Grant, 1993). Figure 1.1 shows that individual medium ground finches naturally vary from each other in beak size, as well as for other physical characteristics. To the left is an illustration of an individual with a relatively small beak and to the right is an individual of the same age and sex with a relatively large beak. The distributions show that the beak size of most individuals will be in-between these two extremes.

For the medium ground finch, and in fact for all of Darwin’s finches, the size and shape of an individual’s beak determines which foods can be eaten and which foods cannot. When food sources (e.g., seeds, insects, etc.) are plentiful and varied there is little relation between beak size and survival and reproductive rates. Under these conditions, most of Darwin’s finches--within and across species--survive and reproduce. When foods are scarce, individual birds tend to specialize in one food source (e.g., seeds) or another (e.g., insects) depending on the size and shape of their beak. Under these conditions, some food sources are usually more plentiful than others. Individuals who are able to specialize--due to beak size and shape--in a relatively abundant food source survive and reproduce in greater numbers than do individuals whose beak size and shape forces them to specialize in a scarce food source.

To illustrate, there was very little rain on Daphne major in 1973. The result of this drought was an 84% decline in the quantity of foods available to Darwin’s finches and a sharp increase in finch mortality rates (Weiner, 1995). For Darwin’s finches, life or death depended greatly on beak size. One of the foods that was still relatively plentiful during this time was the seeds of the caltrop plant (Tribulus cistoides). These seeds are encased in mericarps--shown in the center of Figure 1.1--which are armored with spikes and relatively large, at least for a finch. Some medium ground finches or fortis were able to exploit this food source, whereas others were not.

fortis with bigger beaks can crack the mericarp and gouge out the seeds faster than those with smaller beaks. Tiny variations are everything. A fortis with a beak 11 millimeters long can crack caltrop; a fortis with a beak only 10.5 millimeters long will not even try. "The smallest grain in the balance" can decide who shall live and who shall die. Between a beak big enough to crack caltrop and a beak that can’t, the difference is only half a millimeter (Weiner, 1995, p. 64).

During this time medium ground finches with relatively large beaks survived in greater numbers than did conspecifics (recall, member of the same species) with relatively small beaks. To make matters worse, survivors with relatively small beaks were at a mating disadvantage. It appears that short-beaked males were weaker than their better fed large-beaked peers, which appeared to result in a difference in the vigor of the courtship displays of small- and large-beaked finches. Female medium ground finches choose mates based on the vigor of their courtship display and thus preferred large-beaked males. The combination of differential survival rates and female choice--a feature of sexual selection discussed in Chapter 2--resulted in a measurable shift in the next generation’s average beak size (beak size is heritable), as illustrated in Figure 1.1. The leftmost distribution represents the beak size characteristics of medium ground finches before the drought and the rightmost distribution represents these characteristics after the drought. Just after the drought, individual differences in beak size are still evident, but the average beak size has now increased and there are fewer individuals with extremely small beaks and more individuals with extremely large beaks.

For the medium ground finch having a beak that is larger than average is not inherently better than having a beak that is smaller than average, it is only beneficial during periods of drought. Several years after the drought, in 1982-83, an especially strong El Ni??ont> o event resulted in a 14 fold increase in rainfall on Daphne major (Grant & Grant, 1993). Following this heavy rainfall, the number of caltrop plants and their mericarps decreased significantly and the number of smaller seeds available on the island increased significantly. "Mechanical efficiency of handling small seeds appears to be a feature of finches with small beaks" (Grant & Grant, 1993, p. 114). The result was small-beaked individuals survived in greater numbers than did large-beaked individuals and small-beaked males were preferred as mating partners (presumably due to more vigorous courtship displays). The survival and reproductive advantages of small-beaked individuals was evident for at least 6 years following the El Ni??ont> o event. After several generations, the average beak size of medium ground finches was now smaller than it was just after the drought--the distribution had shifted back to the left!

An equally important finding was that these selection pressures only effected beak size and not other physical characteristics (e.g., leg length) (Grant & Grant, 1993). In other words, under difficult conditions--those resulting in strong selection pressures--evolutionary selection acts quickly (sometimes in one or a few generations) and selectively (effecting only those traits that directly influence survival and reproduction). The process of relatively fast evolutionary selection and change is not restricted to Darwin’s finches. It has also been demonstrated with a number of other species (e.g., Reznick, Shaw, Rodd, & Shaw, 1997; Seehausen, van Alphen, & Witte, 1997), including perhaps humans (Holliday, 1997). On the basis of change in relative bone size (e.g., femur, that is thigh bone, length) comparing fossils dating from 6,000 to 30,000 years ago to modern populations, Holliday concluded "that the current patterns of body form in Europe go back no farther than 20,000 years" (Holliday, 1997, p. 444).
"Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution"
-Theodosius Dobzhansky
User avatar
David George
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 317
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2006 12:48 pm
Location: India [place where religion rules people]

Postby Linn » Thu Mar 30, 2006 3:05 pm

If from literal translation, bible says that organisms were created as seperate species, not as descending from common ancestor
.

No the literal septuagint translation from hebrew is kind/s. And each
kind produced was "good."
logicaly, if he is the creator/s he knew about what kinds
of animals would produce the variety we see today?
Unless you dont believe in a creator (usualy its God to most)
The biblical "kinds" seem to constitute divisions of life-forms
wherein each division allows for cross-fertility within it's limits.
The boundary between kinds is to thus be drawn at the point
where fertilization ceases to occur,
twhere it could occur then and how it may occur now.

This is creationist view.
It is very important to understand how species are genetically interrelated to understand biology with depth.
And you forgot to list full taxonomic name of domestic dog. Canis lupus familiaris. Wolf is Canis lupus. familiaris indicate sub-species. I am sorry but this is still same species by and by.


I am just a stupid woman from Massachusetts, and I must have imagined that I used the genus and species in my identification. :? :?:

Here is excerpt from well documented article.
If you do not want to believe, that is up to you:


Thank you for this article, I actually have continuously
said in other threads, that species should be defined
with sterility as the limiting factor. They are finaly getting it correct.
And the books I have were written 3 years after 1993,
so I guess these people are ignorant too, and also my college
professors anfd fellows who can not keep up with the ever changing classifications.
Quote:
Quietly, without fanfare in September 1993, wolves and dogs were recognized as the same species. Per the American Society of Mammalogists' Mammal Species of the World, adhering to the Code of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, Canis lupus is the official species of both dogs and wolves. If you have a 'dog', your dog's classification is Canis lupus familiaris, where familiaris is the subspecies of wolf. If you have a 'wolf', your wolf's classification is Canis lupus X, where X is the subspecies of wolf. If you have a 'wolfdog', your wolfdog's classification is Canis lupus familiaris, according to United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, R.L. Rissler, February 21, 1986
.

In addition not every one adheres to the ASM.
Although since you pointed this out I can agree with
this classification, but they should add coyotes to it
and possibly a few others.



And many scientists believe in religion as being in harmony
with evolution as religions are just natural tenet of human
evolution providing further examples for evolving,
so concept
of religion does not go against evolution.

Whatever you want to
believe in I dont really care.
Then are you saying you have a religion?
And believe in god? Then you dont believe in full evolution?

What I keep saying and I said before is that what
I say somehow gets misconstrued and I think you
just want to argue instaed of listen to what I say cause
maybe you think I am an idiot..

What I am interested in is the facts and truth and not to what is biologicaly possible.
And also in the fact that the bible is scientific.
not descibed in modern terminology but still scientific
way before modern times.

I would say more but I am trying to be polite.

quote]Here is excerpt from well documented article.
If you do not want to believe, that is up to you: [/quote

I just love that so much I had to repeat it. :lol:
Ya and no one has to believe the well documented
articles that I have cited either. :P
"How far you go in life depends on your being tender with the young, compassionate with the aged, sympathetic with the striving and tolerant of the weak and strong. Because someday in life you will have been all of these".

~ George washington Carver
User avatar
Linn
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 1735
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2006 3:53 am
Location: Massachusetts, USA

Postby alextemplet » Thu Mar 30, 2006 3:36 pm

Linn wrote:No the literal septuagint translation from hebrew is kind/s. And each
kind produced was "good."
logicaly, if he is the creator/s he knew about what kinds
of animals would produce the variety we see today?
Unless you dont believe in a creator (usualy its God to most)
The biblical "kinds" seem to constitute divisions of life-forms
wherein each division allows for cross-fertility within it's limits.
The boundary between kinds is to thus be drawn at the point
where fertilization ceases to occur,
twhere it could occur then and how it may occur now.


I'm sure you'll disagree but to me, as well as to damien, kind sounds a lot like species. Unfortunately for both of us, the Bible doesn't clarify exactly what that term means, so I guess one opinion's as good as the other.

Thank you for this article, I actually have continuously
said in other threads, that species should be defined
with sterility as the limiting factor. They are finaly getting it correct.


Does anyone really question this? I thought species were always defined that way.

Then are you saying you have a religion?
And believe in god? Then you dont believe in full evolution?


I'm a bit confused as to what you mean by "full evolution," but I believe in God and also evolution, and so do many other people, and I don't think the two are mutually exclusive.

What I am interested in is the facts and truth and not to what is biologicaly possible.


I agree that facts and truth should take precedence over possibilities, but sometimes it isn't possible to determine absolute fact or truth, and it boils down to what's the most likely possibility. So while I agree with you to a point I wouldn't throw out possibilities altogether.

That's all I have to say for now. Have a nice day! :P
Generally speaking, the more people talk about "being saved," the further away they actually are from true salvation.

~Alex
#2 Total Post Count
User avatar
alextemplet
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 5599
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 4:50 pm
Location: South Louisiana (aka Cajun Country)

Postby Linn » Thu Mar 30, 2006 3:51 pm

Quote:
Thank you for this article, I actually have continuously
said in other threads, that species should be defined
with sterility as the limiting factor. They are finaly getting it correct.


Does anyone really question this? I thought species were always defined that way.


Ya would think so :wink:
apparently not though :?
You have a nice day too :) 8)
"How far you go in life depends on your being tender with the young, compassionate with the aged, sympathetic with the striving and tolerant of the weak and strong. Because someday in life you will have been all of these".

~ George washington Carver
User avatar
Linn
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 1735
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2006 3:53 am
Location: Massachusetts, USA

Postby Linn » Thu Mar 30, 2006 3:57 pm

AstusAleator wrote:Canis is a tricky example. I personally can't think of any other examples in natural history where the morphology and personalities of a species was specifically manipulated through selective breeding by another species than humans. I can't think of any other species that has "pets". Symbionts, yes. Parasites, yes. But pets? no.
If you were to really get into canis evolution, you'd need to analyze all the selective forces. You'd soon see (I believe) that canis evolution mirrors our current human evolution in many ways.

The point: Canis evolution does not necessarily fit the pattern defined by "Natural Selection". It may be an example of rapid (relatively 20-100 ty) morphological change in a species, but you need to look at the context.


Yes
And I think Canis is an excellent study for evolution.
"How far you go in life depends on your being tender with the young, compassionate with the aged, sympathetic with the striving and tolerant of the weak and strong. Because someday in life you will have been all of these".

~ George washington Carver
User avatar
Linn
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 1735
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2006 3:53 am
Location: Massachusetts, USA

Postby AstusAleator » Fri Mar 31, 2006 1:59 am

There are different ways of defining species:
Linn what you're defining as species fits best in the Typological Species Concept.
Typological Species Concept Assigns species according to type (eg all rats are same sp. and all mice are same sp. etc)
Nominalistic Species Concept: simply groups similar organisms together (not really based on much science, just casual observation). This is similar to the...
Morphological Species Concept: Based on morphology. More scientific, based on detailed morphological observation.
Biological Species Concept: Based on the ideas of successful reproduction and reproductive populations.
Evolutionary Species Concept: Takes a evolutionary-taxonomic approach to defining species. Attempts to assign species classification based on what can be observed on their possible or probable ancestral linkages.
Karyotypic/Genetic Species Concept: Defines species based on their genetic similarities.

Of course, most biologists try to take all of these concepts into account. These are/were the major schools of thought though.




Linn wrote:What I am interested in is the facts and truth and not to what is biologicaly possible.


So what's the purpose of this conversation? The FACT could be that we and everything around us are simply an idea that can interact with itself. Maybe all is illusion. Perhaps this existence you percieve is just the result of random interactions of unknown forces. Or the fact could be that an all powerful god assembled the cosmos and created all life on earth. Or the fact could be that matter assembled randomly into solar systems and life abiogeneticly evolved on earth.
Ideas and possiblities are ALL we have. I'm sorry but what you call truths, I call ideas.

Yes the Bible is scientific in that it takes observations of phenomenon and attempts to explain them. The science stops there, though, as the "answers" provided are taken as absolute fact.

ugh, sorry to propagate the argument when it's probably not going to have a constructive conclusion...
User avatar
AstusAleator
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 1039
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 8:51 pm
Location: Oregon, USA

Postby damien james » Fri Mar 31, 2006 5:58 am

Linn, I did not want to make you mad and sorry if I did. I like you and think you are nice person. I was giving just my observation of religion as being part of naturalistic view, as having evolved alongside of human. So that we can study evolution of philosophy as well as human history is interesting to me.
The hand of God may well be all around us, but it is not, nor can it be, the task of science to dust for fingerprints.
User avatar
damien james
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 237
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 5:51 am
Location: U.S.

Postby alextemplet » Fri Mar 31, 2006 4:04 pm

Does anyone know what rules are used to determine levels above species, such as genera, families, orders, etc.? That could probably figure as an important topic in this discussion as well. And what rules are used to determine subspecies?
Generally speaking, the more people talk about "being saved," the further away they actually are from true salvation.

~Alex
#2 Total Post Count
User avatar
alextemplet
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 5599
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 4:50 pm
Location: South Louisiana (aka Cajun Country)

Postby David George » Sat Apr 01, 2006 9:51 am

Now tell me guys why are you interpreting the Bible.Can you say that the ancient Jews had any knowledge of evolution.The Bible gives interpretation where it has to for example the crucification of Jesus Chirst.It says that the crucification was to wash our sins.Here there is an interpretation because they thought that the readers of Bible might wrongly understand that Chirst was weak hence could not defend himself.The Bible only accepts Creation and not Evolution.Also it is said in the Bible that those plants of one race can only produce the same race.For example mango plants only give mango fruits or produce only mango plants.This does tell plants did not evolve.
"Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution"
-Theodosius Dobzhansky
User avatar
David George
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 317
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2006 12:48 pm
Location: India [place where religion rules people]

PreviousNext

Return to Evolution

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron