If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Wall Street Journal)   Scientists claim have discovered the missing link between man, apes and monkeys. And it is.... a lemur. A very intelligent and nicely designed lemur I might add   (online.wsj.com) divider line 296
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

9914 clicks; posted to Main » on 16 May 2009 at 7:42 PM (5 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



296 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
CDP [TotalFark]
2009-05-16 03:02:57 PM
The Fallacy that Darwin's Theory Natural Selection and Survival of the Fittest Proves the Theory of Evolution

Logical conclusions are much more easily acquired through God-centered thinking than by trying to force information to conform to pre-conceived assumptions and blind faith that evolution is fact rather than theory. One result of limited thinking is that scientists are quick to use Darwin's theory of Natural Selection and Survival of the Fittest as proof of evolution, when they are quite unrelated.

An example is that people like to pick the largest snow lotus flowers in a species called Saussures laniceps that grows only in the high levels of the Himalayas. This has resulted in smaller lotuses in that area where people mostly pick. The research was supported by the National Science Foundation, the Melon Foundation and the Nature Conservancy, resulting in an Article by Associated Press Writer Randolph E. Schmid on July 4, 2005 entitled "Lotuses Evolve Smaller on Human Picking" (emphasis mine).

Natural selection and survival of the fittest has caused some minor changes in some localized areas, but has never caused one species to actually evolve into another species. Picking larger lotus flowers does not cause lotuses to evolve into other species. The basic theory of evolution is that one species evolves into a different species, a theory that has never been substantiated with proof. Thus, it is highly unscientific to relate natural selection and survival of the fittest to evolution, a practice that is commonly accepted by the scientific community.

Evolutionists have never proven a single change in species or that two different kinds of species can mate and have progeny or that one kind can give birth to a different kind. The theory of evolution stills fails to explain how life began or why it began.

"Then God said, 'Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit after their kind, with seed in them, on the earth; and it was so.' (Genesis1:11 NASB) "

"And God created the great sea monsters, and every living creatures that moves, with which the waters swarmed after their kind, and every winged bird after its kind; and God saw that it was good (Genesis 1:21 NASB)."

"And God made the beast of the earth after their kind. And the cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind, and God saw that it was good (Genesis 1:25 NASB)."

Link (new window)

i132.photobucket.com
 
2009-05-16 03:25:30 PM
CDP: Evolutionists have never proven a single change in species

really?^ and while not a proven theory, it has strong evidence and has yet to be disproved.

Anyway, I give you a 2/10, only because I actually had to respond to show some evidence that you are talking completely out of your very ignorant ass when it comes to any lack of proof for a species change.

The rest of your post was completely self-explanatory to that effect.
 
2009-05-16 03:50:22 PM
CDP: Link (new window)

Looks like SOMEONE hasn't been touched by His noodly appendage. (^)
 
2009-05-16 03:50:44 PM
First, this is a terrific find because the fossil record of non-human primates (particularly gorillas and chimpanzees) is incredibly barren, especially compared to the fossil record of early hominims which is relatively quite robust (sorry for the pun, anthropologists, but you laughed, admit it).

Second,
Anthropologists have long believed that humans evolved from ancient ape-like ancestors.

Scientists of all fields accept the evidence from a wide variety of disciplines, including paleoanthropology, genetics, and comparative anatomy (among many others) which all converge on the conclusion of humans and other primates sharing common ancestry with an ancient primate species. It goes a ways beyond a "belief" and is solidly within the realm of scientific fact.

Third,
The discovery has little bearing on a separate paleontological debate centering on the identity of a common ancestor of chimps and humans, which could have lived about six million years ago and still hasn't been found.

The discoverers of both Sahelanthropus tcahdensis and Orrorin tungensis would like to have a word with the author of TFA, who apparently has done zero actual research into the topic he is writing about.

Seriously, could we get journalists who write about scientific discoveries and findings to have a little goddamn knowledge about the field they are writing about?
 
2009-05-16 03:52:07 PM
Hmm. I shall have to poke around this a bit later.
 
2009-05-16 03:53:13 PM
Kome: The discoverers of both Sahelanthropus tcahdensis and Orrorin tungensis would like to have a word with the author of TFA, who apparently has done zero actual research into the topic he is writing about.

It was a very poorly written article. I'm surprised none my Anthropology RSS feeds hit this, they usually get the juice before the reporters.
 
2009-05-16 04:12:32 PM
Awesome, an evolution thread with CDP to start us out. This will be fun to watch.
 
2009-05-16 04:14:25 PM
Hmmm, link doesn't seem to be working for me.

Kome: sorry for the pun, anthropologists, but you laughed, admit it

*fistbump*

Seriously, could we get journalists who write about scientific discoveries and findings to have a little goddamn knowledge about the fieldwhatever they are writing about?

FTFY

And I expect not. It's not really what they do. Journalism isn't about dissemination of actual knowledge; it's about selling papers. Or to be more accurate, selling advertising space.
 
2009-05-16 04:19:42 PM

Ah, I see why we haven't heard about this yet. The current story is a leak.

Gingerich tells ScienceInsider that his interview with The Wall Street Journal was off the record until the press conference Tuesday. He and other researchers on the team are now refusing to talk to any reporters about the paper, which will be published by the Public Library of Science also on Tuesday. "We can't say anything," says paleontologist Jørn Hurum of the University of Oslo Natural History Museum in Norway, where the skeleton is kept.


The actual paper and details won't be available for another four days. Bummer, I was hoping there might be some good chatter on this between the snarks.

Tuesday though, the paper will be available to everyone, since PloS is open access.
 
2009-05-16 04:20:54 PM
Any time you see the word "evolutionist" the article loses major science points, and the word "agenda" comes to mind.
 
2009-05-16 04:21:56 PM
jekxrb: Hmmm, link doesn't seem to be working for me.

It's down for me as well, perhaps the WSJ pulled it since it was supposed to be off the record.
 
2009-05-16 04:25:36 PM
By GAUTAM NAIK

In what could prove to be a landmark discovery, a leading paleontologist said scientists have dug up the 47 million-year-old fossil of an ancient primate whose features suggest it could be the common ancestor of all later monkeys, apes and humans.

Anthropologists have long believed that humans evolved from ancient ape-like ancestors. Some 50 million years ago, two ape-like groups walked the Earth. One is known as the tarsidae, a precursor of the tarsier, a tiny, large-eyed creature that lives in Asia. Another group is known as the adapidae, a precursor of today's lemurs in Madagascar.

Based on previously limited fossil evidence, one big debate had been whether the tarsidae or adapidae group gave rise to monkeys, apes and humans. The latest discovery bolsters the less common position that our ancient ape-like ancestor was an adapid, the believed precursor of lemurs.

s.wsj.net
[lemur] AP Photo/Karen Tam

A fossil discovery suggests humans may be descended from an animal that resembles present-day lemurs like this one.


Philip Gingerich, president-elect of the Paleontological Society in the U.S., has co-written a paper that will detail next week the latest fossil discovery in Public Library of Science, a peer-reviewed, online journal.

"This discovery brings a forgotten group into focus as a possible ancestor of higher primates," Mr. Gingerich, a professor of paleontology at the University of Michigan, said in an interview.

The discovery has little bearing on a separate paleontological debate centering on the identity of a common ancestor of chimps and humans, which could have lived about six million years ago and still hasn't been found. That gap in the evolution story is colloquially referred to as the "missing link" controversy. In reality, though, all gaps in the fossil record are technically "missing links" until filled in, and many scientists say the term is meaningless.

Nonetheless, the latest fossil find is likely to ignite further the debate between evolutionists who draw conclusions based on a limited fossil record, and creationists who don't believe that humans, monkeys and apes evolved from a common ancestor.

Scientists won't necessarily agree about the details either. "Lemur advocates will be delighted, but tarsier advocates will be underwhelmed" by the new evidence, says Tim White, a paleontologist at the University of California, Berkeley. "The debate will persist."

The skeleton will be unveiled at New York City's American Museum of Natural History next Tuesday by Mayor Michael Bloomberg and an international team involved in the discovery.

According to Prof. Gingerich, the fossilized remains are of a young female adapid. The skeleton was unearthed by collectors about two years ago and has been kept tightly under wraps since then, in an unusual feat of scientific secrecy.

Prof. Gingerich said he had twice examined the adapid skeleton, which was "a complete, spectacular fossil." The completeness of the preserved skeleton is crucial, because most previously found fossils of ancient primates were small finds, such as teeth and jawbones.

It was found in the Messel Shale Pit, a disused quarry near Frankfurt, Germany. The pit has long been a World Heritage Site and is the source of a number of well-preserved fossils from the middle Eocene epoch, some 50 million years ago.

Prof. Gingerich said several scientists, including Jorn Hurum of Norway's National History Museum, had inspected the fossil with computer tomography scanning, a sophisticated X-ray technique that can provide detailed, cross-sectional views. Dr. Hurum declined to comment.

Although the creature looks like a lemur, there are some distinctive physical differences. Lemurs have a tooth comb (a tooth modified to help groom fur); a grooming claw; and a wet nose. Dr. Gingerich said that the adapid skeleton has neither a grooming claw nor a tooth comb. "We can't say whether it had a wet nose or not," he noted.

Since the fossilized creature found in Germany didn't have features like a tooth comb or grooming claw, it could be argued that it gave rise to monkeys, apes and humans, which don't have these features either.
 
2009-05-16 04:30:39 PM
GAT_00: Awesome, an evolution thread with CDP to start us out. This will be fun to watch.

It's even better that he is from Texas. Perfect fit? I think so!
 
2009-05-16 04:41:59 PM
jekxrb: Hmmm, link doesn't seem to be working for me.


It's the Wall Street Urinal; you're better off.

The Herald Sun.com.au had a decent article about it last week. It's a nearly complete Adapid. Pretty cool find.



Kome: sorry for the pun, anthropologists, but you laughed, admit it

*fistbump*


I laughed too.
 
2009-05-16 04:48:45 PM
mediablitz: It's even better that he is from Texas. Perfect fit? I think so!

And things like that make this even funnier.
 
2009-05-16 05:07:38 PM
FloydA: The Herald Sun.com.au had a decent article about it last week. It's a nearly complete Adapid. Pretty cool find.

Oh nice, David Attenborough already has the scoop. I love him.
 
2009-05-16 05:21:33 PM
Lemur is funny, but I think "rhesus monkey" has more bang for the buck, myself.
 
2009-05-16 05:25:42 PM
ninjakirby: Nonetheless, the latest fossil find is likely to ignite further the debate between evolutionists who draw conclusions based on a limited fossil record, and creationists who don't believe that humans, monkeys and apes evolved from a common ancestor.

Who the fark wrote this? It sounds like the reporter did some research on Bevets.com


ninjakirby: In reality, though, all gaps in the fossil record are technically "missing links" until filled in, and many scientists say the term is meaningless.

farm3.static.flickr.com

FloydA: The Herald Sun.com.au had a decent article about it last week. It's a nearly complete Adapid. Pretty cool find.

I think ninjakirby's link 'leak' had a link to another story that was pretty much the same, so I caught up, but thanks. I shall await tues with almost the same excitement that I did last wed's unveiling of the female figurine from Hohle Fels.
 
2009-05-16 06:58:06 PM
Nice marmot

.
 
CDP [TotalFark]
2009-05-16 07:41:31 PM
rcain: CDP: Evolutionists have never proven a single change in species

really?^ and while not a proven theory, it has strong evidence and has yet to be disproved.

Anyway, I give you a 2/10, only because I actually had to respond to show some evidence that you are talking completely out of your very ignorant ass when it comes to any lack of proof for a species change.

The rest of your post was completely self-explanatory to that effect.


The oldest living thing on earth is either an Irish Oak or a Bristlecone pine. If we assume a growth rate of one tree ring per year, then the oldest trees are between 4,500 and 4,767 years old. Because these trees are still alive and growing, and because we don't yet know how old they will get before they die, this indicates that something happened around 4,500 to 4,767 years ago which caused the immediate ancestors of these trees to die off. 13,14,15 Note also that it is possible for trees to produce more than one growth ring per year, which would shorten the above estimated ages of these trees. Also, with regard to fossil tree rings, the author has been unable to find any documented instances of fossil trees having more than about 1500 rings. Janelle says 1700. This is significant because we are told that God (literally) made the Earth, and all that is in it, only about 1500 - 1800 years before the Worldwide Flood.

Link (new window)

i132.photobucket.com
 
KIA
2009-05-16 07:45:44 PM
Yes, but how does this explain

THE FOOSA!!!!
 
2009-05-16 07:48:17 PM
It's more accurate to say that it's a common precursor, not a link with humans on one side and apes and monkeys on the other (or humans and apes on one side and monkeys on the other)
 
2009-05-16 07:49:15 PM
jekxrb: I shall await tues with almost the same excitement that I did last wed's unveiling of the female figurine from Hohle Fels.

You're lucky, I await the unveiling of the female figure almost every day.
 
2009-05-16 07:49:40 PM
rcain: CDP: Evolutionists have never proven a single change in species

really?^ and while not a proven theory, it has strong evidence and has yet to be disproved.

Anyway, I give you a 2/10, only because I actually had to respond to show some evidence that you are talking completely out of your very ignorant ass when it comes to any lack of proof for a species change.

The rest of your post was completely self-explanatory to that effect.


As people here are so found of poitning out you can't prove a negative. He's claiming a lack of evidence. I assume you think such evidence exists. Formal logic puts the burden of proof on you. Show me the evidence.
 
2009-05-16 07:50:16 PM
"Me and you and Zoboomafooooooo"
 
2009-05-16 07:50:18 PM
CDP: The Fallacy that Darwin's Theory Natural Selection and Survival of the Fittest Proves the Theory of Evolution

Logical conclusions are much more easily acquired through God-centered thinking than by trying to force information to conform to pre-conceived assumptions and blind faith that evolution is fact rather than theory. One result of limited thinking is that scientists are quick to use Darwin's theory of Natural Selection and Survival of the Fittest as proof of evolution, when they are quite unrelated.

An example is that people like to pick the largest snow lotus flowers in a species called Saussures laniceps that grows only in the high levels of the Himalayas. This has resulted in smaller lotuses in that area where people mostly pick. The research was supported by the National Science Foundation, the Melon Foundation and the Nature Conservancy, resulting in an Article by Associated Press Writer Randolph E. Schmid on July 4, 2005 entitled "Lotuses Evolve Smaller on Human Picking" (emphasis mine).

Natural selection and survival of the fittest has caused some minor changes in some localized areas, but has never caused one species to actually evolve into another species. Picking larger lotus flowers does not cause lotuses to evolve into other species. The basic theory of evolution is that one species evolves into a different species, a theory that has never been substantiated with proof. Thus, it is highly unscientific to relate natural selection and survival of the fittest to evolution, a practice that is commonly accepted by the scientific community.

Evolutionists have never proven a single change in species or that two different kinds of species can mate and have progeny or that one kind can give birth to a different kind. The theory of evolution stills fails to explain how life began or why it began.

"Then God said, 'Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit after their kind, with seed in them, on the earth; and it was so.' (Genesis1:11 NASB) "

"And God created the great sea monsters, and every living creatures that moves, with which the waters swarmed after their kind, and every winged bird after its kind; and God saw that it was good (Genesis 1:21 NASB)."

"And God made the beast of the earth after their kind. And the cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind, and God saw that it was good (Genesis 1:25 NASB)."

Link (new window)


Except for bacteria, of course.
 
2009-05-16 07:51:22 PM
I so love how he puts on the show for every evolution thread and it always works.
 
2009-05-16 07:53:28 PM
www.thesimpsonsquotes.com


"And then Wayland lurked out of the shadows, drunk as a lemur, and shot me!"

/Saturday night, mailin' it in
 
2009-05-16 07:53:55 PM
What the heck is wrong with these scientists who say humans evolved from an ape-like ancestor when humans __are__ apes?
 
2009-05-16 07:53:58 PM
ninjakirby: You're lucky, I await the unveiling of the female figure almost every day.

heh.

Being in possession of a female figure, I get to see one of THOSE daily. Or at least on the days I'm brave enough to look in the mirror. ;-)
 
2009-05-16 07:55:10 PM
img4.imageshack.us
 
2009-05-16 07:55:55 PM
CDP:
Evolutionists have never proven a single change in species or that two different kinds of species can mate and have progeny or that one kind can give birth to a different kind. The theory of evolution stills fails to explain how life began or why it began.


I know you're trolling but I'll bite.
Peppered Moth (new window)

I'm sure you won't read it because it doesn't fit your mindset, selective logic. But, please educate yourself.

You're correct, evolution does not explain how life began or why, but it does get us closer to that answer.

Just stating that life was started by God still doesn't answer how or why. Sure, the Bible says 6 days but that's is man's interpretation, remember? Nobody, according to the Bible, can fathom God's power nor his intention. Those that say they can are, according to the Bible, calling themselves as great or better than God. So, please, explain why or how God created life.
 
2009-05-16 07:56:55 PM
Your god doesn't exist. I'm laughing at you.
 
2009-05-16 07:57:06 PM
wademh: What the heck is wrong with these scientists who say humans evolved from an ape-like ancestor when humans __are__ apes?

Lemurs aren't apes.
:P
 
2009-05-16 08:01:15 PM
genner:

As people here are so found of poitning out you can't prove a negative. He's claiming a lack of evidence. I assume you think such evidence exists. Formal logic puts the burden of proof on you. Show me the evidence.


In case he doesn't see your post, I'll show you some of the evidence: Observed Instances of Speciation and Some More Observed Speciation Events.


We have indeed observed cases of cladogenic and anagenic evolution.

So, the notion that evolution doesn't happen is conclusively refuted, since it has been observed. I'm happy I was able to offer you that information. I hope you enjoy it.
 
2009-05-16 08:01:28 PM
I wish these threads didn't always devolve (get it?) into flamewars between 'scientists' and 'religious people'. Hell, the bible thumpers get trashed whether they show up or not.

I've never really understood all the controversy over evolution, either. I mean, look, the earth isn't the center of the universe, the stars aren't holes poked in the sky, haystacks don't give birth to mice, and the weather isn't under the influence of evil spirits. As far as we can tell, everything in this universe works in a logical fashion that our minds are capable of observing and understanding. If there is a god (and who knows? I certainly don't), why would he make everything in the world work in rational processes, then plop man down fully formed, with no biological history whatsoever? I mean, man's favorite passtime is the study of man. What kind of sick joke would it be if our own origins were so outside of the normal universe that we'd never be able understand it?

Well, I dunno. If there is an intelligent creator, his mind would be so far beyond mine I'd never be able to understand his motives.

Well, shiat. Haven't I just been rambling on? I'm on the drugs again, major shingles action going on here. Plus I have PMS and my prostate is acting up.
 
2009-05-16 08:02:17 PM
Did they find any fossil foosa?

img399.imageshack.us
(sleeping foosa in the San Antonio Zoo)
 
2009-05-16 08:03:27 PM
This will be hugely racist, but please follow along. I am only reporting what I view of the staunch creationist crowd.

Usually creationists are whites that intense Bible beaters. I suggest there is a strong correlation between white Bible beaters and racism. With this, I am able to conclude the white Bible beaters are intense creationists because they're afraid of being scientifically connected to black people (the Devil's children).
 
2009-05-16 08:04:19 PM
Deacon Blue: I wish these threads didn't always devolve (get it?) into flamewars between 'scientists' and 'religious people'. Hell, the bible thumpers get trashed whether they show up or not.

I've never really understood all the controversy over evolution, either. I mean, look, the earth isn't the center of the universe, the stars aren't holes poked in the sky, haystacks don't give birth to mice, and the weather isn't under the influence of evil spirits. As far as we can tell, everything in this universe works in a logical fashion that our minds are capable of observing and understanding. If there is a god (and who knows? I certainly don't), why would he make everything in the world work in rational processes, then plop man down fully formed, with no biological history whatsoever? I mean, man's favorite passtime is the study of man. What kind of sick joke would it be if our own origins were so outside of the normal universe that we'd never be able understand it?

Well, I dunno. If there is an intelligent creator, his mind would be so far beyond mine I'd never be able to understand his motives.

Well, shiat. Haven't I just been rambling on? I'm on the drugs again, major shingles action going on here. Plus I have PMS and my prostate is acting up.


Blame the Lawrence Welk Show.
 
2009-05-16 08:05:24 PM
"Based on previously limited fossil evidence, one big debate had been whether the tarsidae or adapidae group gave rise to monkeys, apes and humans."

TEACH THE CONTROVERSY
 
2009-05-16 08:06:22 PM
andrew131: CDP:
Evolutionists have never proven a single change in species or that two different kinds of species can mate and have progeny or that one kind can give birth to a different kind. The theory of evolution stills fails to explain how life began or why it began.


I know you're trolling but I'll bite.
Peppered Moth (new window)

I'm sure you won't read it because it doesn't fit your mindset, selective logic. But, please educate yourself.

You're correct, evolution does not explain how life began or why, but it does get us closer to that answer.

Just stating that life was started by God still doesn't answer how or why. Sure, the Bible says 6 days but that's is man's interpretation, remember? Nobody, according to the Bible, can fathom God's power nor his intention. Those that say they can are, according to the Bible, calling themselves as great or better than God. So, please, explain why or how God created life.



There you go that wasn't hard now was it.
Creature have been proven to evolve at the species level.

Now go up a couple taxonomic ranks and try to prove evolution causes changes at "Family" or higher. You'll find it doesn't work as well.
 
2009-05-16 08:08:01 PM
wademh: What the heck is wrong with these scientists who say humans evolved from an ape-like ancestor when humans __are__ apes?

What? Humans are apes which evolved from an ape-like ancestor. I don't see the problem.

andrew131: Usually creationists are whites that intense Bible beaters. I suggest there is a strong correlation between white Bible beaters and racism. With this, I am able to conclude the white Bible beaters are intense creationists because they're afraid of being scientifically connected to black people (the Devil's children).

There may be some vestiges of this within the rhetoric, holdovers as it were, but it's not that accurate. Additionally, there are certainly Muslim and even Hindu creationists, they just aren't located or vocalize in America.
 
2009-05-16 08:09:21 PM
genner: As people here are so found of poitning out you can't prove a negative. He's claiming a lack of evidence. I assume you think such evidence exists. Formal logic puts the burden of proof on you. Show me the evidence.

You cannot prove a negative, but you can disprove, and this is the way science works; evidence to the contrary requires the dismissal or reworking of current theory. This is what rcain was doing, demonstrating (well, let's not say he was demonstrating as much as providing a useful beginning to locate evidence) evidence for a change in species.

He already answered your later demand.

I sincerely hope you're a troll, but you're still a rather meager one.
 
2009-05-16 08:09:49 PM
CDP:

drosophila
 
2009-05-16 08:10:50 PM
genner: andrew131: CDP:
Evolutionists have never proven a single change in species or that two different kinds of species can mate and have progeny or that one kind can give birth to a different kind. The theory of evolution stills fails to explain how life began or why it began.


I know you're trolling but I'll bite.
Peppered Moth (new window)

I'm sure you won't read it because it doesn't fit your mindset, selective logic. But, please educate yourself.

You're correct, evolution does not explain how life began or why, but it does get us closer to that answer.

Just stating that life was started by God still doesn't answer how or why. Sure, the Bible says 6 days but that's is man's interpretation, remember? Nobody, according to the Bible, can fathom God's power nor his intention. Those that say they can are, according to the Bible, calling themselves as great or better than God. So, please, explain why or how God created life.


There you go that wasn't hard now was it.
Creature have been proven to evolve at the species level.

Now go up a couple taxonomic ranks and try to prove evolution causes changes at "Family" or higher. You'll find it doesn't work as well.


Of course they are. They'd span millenia for those kinds of changes, and if you think about how many skeletonized animals we don't find that die from modern time, how likely is it we'll find things that died thousands, if not millions of years ago? Pretty close to nil. When we do find something it's really pretty unique and likely only a fraction of what existed at the time.

I think the debate of birds and flight is much more interesting than man, anyway. Talk about controversy. From the trees or from the ground...who knows?! Exciting stuff.

To me, anyway.
 
2009-05-16 08:11:10 PM
in before bevets!
 
2009-05-16 08:12:08 PM
genner:


There you go that wasn't hard now was it.
Creature have been proven to evolve at the species level.

Now go up a couple taxonomic ranks and try to prove evolution causes changes at "Family" or higher. You'll find it doesn't work as well.



Those "higher" taxonomic levels, and even genera, are mere arbitrary mental constructs that we use to keep track of the nested sets of similarities. They have no "reality" outside of our thoughts about them.

Once two populations (species) are reproductively isolated, they remain that way, and their descendants remain that way forever.

After that, the two groups begin accumulating variants within each group that are not shared between groups. If there are only a few of those, we are likely to say that they are two species in a single genus. If there are many, people may decide that they are two species in two different genera. But in either case, it is an arbitrary decision on the part of the taxonomist, and not a "discovry" of anything in the species themselves.
 
2009-05-16 08:12:31 PM
Nice, an evolution thread.

www.mrchuckles.net
 
2009-05-16 08:14:07 PM
farm4.static.flickr.com
 
2009-05-16 08:15:43 PM
FloydA: genner:


There you go that wasn't hard now was it.
Creature have been proven to evolve at the species level.

Now go up a couple taxonomic ranks and try to prove evolution causes changes at "Family" or higher. You'll find it doesn't work as well.


Those "higher" taxonomic levels, and even genera, are mere arbitrary mental constructs that we use to keep track of the nested sets of similarities. They have no "reality" outside of our thoughts about them.

Once two populations (species) are reproductively isolated, they remain that way, and their descendants remain that way forever.

After that, the two groups begin accumulating variants within each group that are not shared between groups. If there are only a few of those, we are likely to say that they are two species in a single genus. If there are many, people may decide that they are two species in two different genera. But in either case, it is an arbitrary decision on the part of the taxonomist, and not a "discovry" of anything in the species themselves.


This to. Hell, talk to any taxonomist and he will tell you that even species definitions are a bit fuzzy. Take two species of flycatcher; it is thought they likely breed together and even a well trained ornithologist holding the bird in hand could not tell the difference between the species. The thing that sets them apart is their song and DNA. Still, classified as two distinct species rather than different "breeds" like we do dogs.
 
Displayed 50 of 296 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report