:
|
I thought by need you ment that when a species climate changes the species will suddenly need to change and thus mutations will occur specifically so that the species could survive better. You didn't exactly make yourself clear.
|
Where did I not make myself clear? I said "If you studied evolution to the depths you've claimed to, you'd understand that a species will only evolve when there is a need to. A species perfectly adapted to their environment will not change." I only said that bacteria are known to be a very mutative group of organisms, mutation of course, being only one component of the proccess of evolution.
:
|
Also, the majority of what I know about evolution comes mainly from my biology teachers at school, so the teachers we must have different opinions on evolution if we can't even agree on what evolution is. Funny, if evolution was a fact like we are supposed to believe, you would think all the scientists would be in agreement on the basics of the theory.
|
I thought we'd agreed on the biological mechanism that drives evolution? At least, you haven't adequately responded to what I've explained so I'd assume we're in agreement. If your teachers are telling you that evolution is not directed by the need to conform to environmental factors, then your teachers are hardly qualified to be teaching it. There are no disagreements on the basics of evolution among biologists. You must be assuming that because of your misunderstanding of what evolution is, the scientific community misunderstands it, too.
:
Yes there is a big difference between a species adapting and a species becoming a completely new species. A bird, become a new version of the same bird, is still a bird. A bacteria adapting to antibiotics, isn't even becoming a new species. Minor adaptation, which is NOT evolution in the sense I am using the word, occurs within specieal boundries. The species may begin to express traits it never required before, but it is still the same species. Evolution on a major scale is much different. It requires, over a long period of time, every single living thing on the entire planet to have evolved from one tiny cell that supposedly formed itself. There is a big difference between the two.
In micro-adaptation, species are becoming variants of the same species because one population requires different traits to survive than another population. In evolution, species mutate and thus create entirely new traits, which eventually cause the species to eventually develope into a completely new type of animal.
|
You haven't answered my question. If, as suggested in your later post, you agree that taxonomy is vague and unreliable, then where exactly is the line that stops speciation from occuring? You've basically said you agree that animals can adapt, but you refuse to accept that over time a new species can develop. Where is the line that prevents this from happening? It works through the same process and there are no genetic parameters that determine how much a group of organisms can change. What evidence do you have that says adaption, over time, can't lead to a new species? There have been some examples of speciation observed both in the lab and in the wild, which you can read about
here. And here is an extract:
"Three species of wildflowers called goatsbeards were introduced to the United States from Europe shortly after the turn of the century. Within a few decades their populations expanded and began to encounter one another in the American West. Whenever mixed populations occurred, the specied interbred (hybridizing) producing sterile hybrid offspring. Suddenly, in the late forties two new species of goatsbeard appeared near Pullman, Washington. Although the new species were similar in appearance to the hybrids, they produced fertile offspring. The evolutionary process had created a separate species that could reproduce but not mate with the goatsbeard plants from which it had evolved."
:
|
I think it is very annoying that you that you must insult my intelligence just because you disagree with me. Why can't you just show me where I am scientifically wrong? You haven't done that yet.
|
Yes, I have. My previous post highlighted your misconceptions on evolutionary theory.
:
|
I disagree, since my understanding of science tells me that is impossible. We won't get anywhere to continue arguing about this part of evolution. So let's move on to other evidences, and forget about whether or not there is a biological mechansim by which it occurs.
|
You haven't used any scientific evidence showing that evolution is impossible, you've merely said repeatedly that you don't believe in it because you think it's impossible for it to work. No explanations of why, and no science.
:
|
I pretty much agree with you Max. Since taxonomy is more of a convenience than a science, arguing over the species is pointless, which is one of the reasons I moved the debate away from that subject.
|
Are you sure it wasn't because you realised you were losing the debate?
:
|
There is a lot to the fossil record, but I'll wait until someone else brings something up.
|
I'll start with this:
(A) Ornitholestes, a theropod dinosaur
(B) Archaeopteryx
(C) Sinornis, an archaic bird from the lower Cretaceous
(D) the wing of a modern chicken
What does this kind of continuity suggest if not the chronological progression of intermediate forms? Why do fossils show that chickens didn't exist in the time of Ornitholests, Archaeopteryx, or Sinornis? The fossil records show a progression of change. As for the human footprints alongside dino prints:
Click.
