Theory

dmpotter · Post by **dmpotter** » Sat Oct 28, 2006 12:11 am

[quote="Sophira";p="686739"]"Proof" is an entirely different thing, which you have already acknowledged, dmpotter. It was you who insisted it could be proven in the first place.[/quote]
I love how you link and don't quote, because I said nothing of the sort. I said evolution has had experiments done to provide evidence for it, and evidence has been found that supports it. I specifically said it can be proven as well as any other theory can be.

I never it said it could be proven in the absolute sense which is what you're implying and Deacon is insisting has to be done for no apparent reason.

Sophira · Post by **Sophira** » Sat Oct 28, 2006 12:14 am

[quote="dmpotter";p="686137"][quote="Deacon";p="686135"]I will point out that evolution by its very nature cannot be tested by any human. It can be neither conclusively proven nor falsified by any human.[/quote]
Wrong. It can, and has been.[/quote]

There you go.

jimkatai · Post by **jimkatai** » Sat Oct 28, 2006 12:36 am

But intra-species evolution can't.

Also, my point is that one chromosome pair is one chromosome pair, no matter how slow the transformation is. Unless you can show me where an animal with a different count of chromosome pairs than the one it breeds with can produce offspring that can also reproduce, this is a huge problem. Even beyond that, this jump would have to happen with two different specimens at the same time, and these specimens would have to find each other, not to mention, survive the mother that gave birth to things outside her species when she is instinctually protective of her offspring OF THE SAME SPECIES, especially in the case of apes. Yes, she could have died during birth and not killed her young, but again this would have to happen twice.

I ALREADY SAID THIS AFTER THAT QUOTE YOU SUPPLIED, BUT I GUESS YOU SKIPPED IT

dmpotter · Post by **dmpotter** » Sat Oct 28, 2006 12:42 am

[quote="Sophira";p="686766"][quote="dmpotter";p="686137"][quote="Deacon";p="686135"]I will point out that evolution by its very nature cannot be tested by any human. It can be neither conclusively proven nor falsified by any human.[/quote]
Wrong. It can, and has been.[/quote]

There you go.[/quote]
And, if you go through the entire quote, it should be clear that applies only to the "tested by any human" section.

It has been tested by laboratory experiments using animals with short generations.

Sophira · Post by **Sophira** » Sat Oct 28, 2006 12:48 am

[quote="dmpotter";p="686761"]I never it said it could be proven in the absolute sense which is what you're implying and Deacon is insisting has to be done for no apparent reason.[/quote]

My confusion stems from having not read a post where he says such a thing. I would have more to say, but I'm out for a while.

jimkatai · Post by **jimkatai** » Sat Oct 28, 2006 12:53 am

But intra-species evolution? Link to that lab-test. Or ignore me every time I say this. That would be fine, too.

EDIT: Also, just so I'm clear. I'm not saying evolution doesn't happen. I'm just saying this is one of those huge gaping holes that a huge gaping part of the theory concerns. Saying it happens over a long period of time does not satisfy this question. One chromosome pair does not happen over time, one chromosome pair happens in one generation. You don't have 1/3 of a chromosome pair. You do have 1/2 of a chromosome pair, obviously, but this causes some huge problems and diseases, and if you don't know that then you really shouldn't be arguing on this subject.

EDIT2: And I've been reading through the wikis on evolution and I still can't find even a theory that explains this problem and a solution, so if someone can at least provide with a quote from somewhere that suggests a solution, I would give SOME ground. Although actually testing the process with bacteria or something with capabilities similar would still be essential.

dmpotter · Post by **dmpotter** » Sat Oct 28, 2006 1:49 am

You're talking about polyploidy.

JudgeMental · Post by **JudgeMental** » Sat Oct 28, 2006 2:16 am

I'm going to echo jimkatai. Has intra-species evolution been observed? I have a hard time admitting fossil evidence into these kinds of debates for one simple reason; it's sketchy enough to be open to interpretation, and can be admitted into several theories. Some of those theories may be invalid for other reasons, but the fossil record alone wouldn't be enough to do so. Even so, what fossil evidence I've seen argues more for modification within a kind of animal. Whale-to-whale, bird-to-bird, that kind of thing.

And I don't remember who did so, but whoever compared evolution evidence with time dilation as described in the theory of evolution needs to be smacked with a book on logic.

The time dilation effect is a quite simple effect governed by a exponential relationship. Thus, you only need a little proof to lend the whole thing credibility. Evolution does NOT work that way. You CANNOT look at Darwin's finches, see that their gene pool has seperated from related finches, and conclude that speciation is possible.

By that reasoning, you can say you may start with one bird, and end up with lots of kinds of birds. That kind of reasoning I would admit as plausible. But saying a unicellular organism developed into trees, shrubs, insects, birds, lichens, mammals, arachnids, etc, that's basically taking the theory of relativity to say that if I move at the speed of light, I'll have god-like powers over space and time.

And how were viruses supposed to have evolved anyway? Seriously, I want to know modern evolutionary explainations for it. I don't think viruses make much sense, from an evolutionary standpoint.

dmpotter · Post by **dmpotter** » Sat Oct 28, 2006 2:22 am

Yes, intra-species speciation has been observed.

jimkatai · Post by **jimkatai** » Sat Oct 28, 2006 2:31 am

Actually, none of those were observing one species turning into another species. Just a species of bird turning into a different subspecies of bird or a species of plant into a different species of plant.. This isn't what we are talking about. I need an experiment that has one species producing another species.

dmpotter · Post by **dmpotter** » Sat Oct 28, 2006 2:46 am

Those are new species. Don't try and weasel out of it by saying they don't count because they're just "sub-species" because that's exactly how evolution works - subspecies are created via speciation and then further evolution create additional changes.

JudgeMental · Post by **JudgeMental** » Sat Oct 28, 2006 3:21 am

In a different thread I addressed that. At the bottom of the taxonomy scale, I have no problems with evolution producing different species. But the further up the taxonomy ladder you go, the more I have difficulties believing evolution is an adequate explaination.

dmpotter · Post by **dmpotter** » Sat Oct 28, 2006 4:03 am

The further up the scale you go, the more time has elapsed to eliminate the steps between species.

jimkatai · Post by **jimkatai** » Sat Oct 28, 2006 9:15 am

sub-species are not the same as species, slick. Don't try and slip out of this one. I am not talking about a goat turning into a different type of goat. I am talking about a goat turning into a dog. Something turning into something else with a somewhat similar but still remarkably different dna structure. None of those experiments talked about a stage of evolution where chromosome pairs were added on. That other link you gave me only defined different types of chromosome pairs, still not explaining where the transformation takes place.

EDIT: damn! I'm looking for a genus change, not a species change. I hate biology. Basically, I'm looking for the BIG difference. the difference between man and ape. The way this takes place. What exactly happens and how this fits into natural selection. This is what information I need. Sorry for the confusion this caused. I knew what I was talking about, just not the name of it. :p

Aerdan · Post by **Aerdan** » Sat Oct 28, 2006 10:11 am

I point you at Tribe Canis & Tribe Vulpes. They're both canids, just you can't get a fox-dog due to genetic differences.

Real Life Forums

Theory

Who is online