Bob Talks to Kids about Evolution

[Alate_One]

The morphological similarities between chimps and humans are also far outweighed by their morphological differences. Plus, the morphological similarities are also shared between other species as well and therfore cannot be considered to be unique to the chimp human relationship. You said that if I could allow such great evolution in the lineage of horses, why not allow it in the evolution of ape to man. This is assuming that changing the chromosome structure is a huge evolutionary change. It seems obvious that zebras and horses are of the same kind. Yes, there is a great variety in the number of chromosomes. I think i was in error on that restriction and agree that such evolution of chromosome number would also be possible in an ape to man evolution if that indeed did happen.

You can have great morphological differences with very little genetic difference. You can simply look at the wide variety of dogs and then recognize that they are all far closer to one another genetically than an individual human is to any other. Conversely you can have wide differences in genetics and very similar appearance.

But I think you are being dishonest with yourself if you are willing to accept whales and hippos are the same kind but chimps and humans cannot be? The genetic similarities are FAR greater between humans and the great apes.

But in morphology there isn't an extreme amount of difference between humans and great apes. If we were talking about any other group of animal, you would readily acknowledge these are the same "kind".

Full Resolution here

 

[Alate_One]

Instead of equal number of chrosomes being a restriction on what a kind is, i think genome size would be better.

Um. You do realize that genome size is related to chromosome number? You can have two very closely related species with vastly different genome sizes. The Cope's and the Gray tree frogs are a case in point. One has twice the DNA as the other but both are virtually identical in appearance.

Now I think you were on the right track with your organization idea, though most relatively closely related organisms have lots of similarities in their gene organization.

That includes the non protein coding DNA as well.

Genome size always includes noncoding DNA. That's why it's a geneOME - the "ome" part means all encompassing in cellular and molecular biology.

I also think a large percentage of each chromosome should be identical for there to be a kind. Chromosome 6 in both human and chimp should be more similar to each other than any other pair of animals and that same guideline should be applied to the other chromosomes as well. So while chimps and humans may have different numbers of chromosomes and that difference in itself is not restrictive, the number of chrosomosomes that they do have in common shoul be very nearly identical and i don't know if that has been established.

That has been established in humans and chimps. Our chromosomes are homologous save one chromosome that is fused in humans but remains separate in other primates. But the DNA is so similar we can locate the fusion point in chimps vs. humans without about 15 bases.

 

[voltaire]

Yes great morphological differences can be had with very similar genetics , but the morphological similarites that are seen with great genetic difference are never quite the same as the morphological similarities when the genetics are similar. What was your point in stating what we both agree on? Hippos and whales are the same kind because there are clear and unambiguous fossil lineages for both that lead back to the same point in time. The genetic similarity is also quite great. Can you say the same for the human and apes?

 

[Alate_One]

Yes great morphological differences can be had with very similar genetics , but the morphological similarites that are seen with great genetic difference are never quite the same as the morphological similarities when the genetics are similar. What was your point in stating what we both agree on?

It didn't seem like you were agreeing.

Hippos and whales are the same kind because there are clear and unambiguous fossil lineages for both that lead back to the same point in time. The genetic similarity is also quite great. Can you say the same for the human and apes?

For humans and apes I would say the evidence is even clearer. The genetics are far more obvious and there are plenty of fossils as well. The morphological differences are much smaller so you don't even need so many fossils to bridge them.

 

[voltaire]

The genetic similarities between humans and apes is greater than that between hippos and whales? In which measurement?.... Genome size? Identical sequences on each chromosome? Length of each chromosome? Another thing to consider is that oligocene fossils for the ancestors of whales and hippos are more morphologically similar than the fossils for any supposed ancestors for chimps and humans.

 

[Alate_One]

The genetic similarities between humans and apes is greater than that between hippos and whales? In which measurement?.... Genome size? Identical sequences on each chromosome? Length of each chromosome?

Yes to all. Human and chimp chromosomes are homologous to one another, aside from the fused one.

Another thing to consider is that oligocene fossils for the ancestors of whales and hippos are more morphologically similar than the fossils for any supposed ancestors for chimps and humans.

By what measure? Looks like an almost perfect gradation to me . . .

* (A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern
* (B) Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My
* (C) Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My
* (D) Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My
* (E) Homo habilis, OH24, 1.8 My
* (F) Homo rudolfensis, KNM-ER 1470, 1.8 My
* (G) Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium D2700, 1.75 My
* (H) Homo ergaster (early H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My
* (I) Homo heidelbergensis, "Rhodesia man," 300,000 - 125,000 y
* (J) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Ferrassie 1, 70,000 y
* (K) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Chappelle-aux-Saints, 60,000 y
* (L) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Le Moustier, 45,000 y
* (M) Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon I, 30,000 y
* (N) Homo sapiens sapiens, modern

 

[voltaire]

You said there wasn't an extreme amount of difference in morphology between humans and apes. You said if the same amount of similarity was found between any other two species, i would say they were the same kind. Not necessarily. I have a list of about 5 qualifications of which morphology is only one. Humans are more morphologically similar to great apes than any other animal. True. But great apes share more morphological similarity with other primates than they do any other animal. Besides, we are talking about human chimp common ancestry and not human great ape common ancestry. The morphological similarites between say a zebra and horse are far greater than the morphological similarites between humans and great apes. Every species has to be more morphologically similar to one other species. That does not mean they had a common ancestor. There still can be great genomic differencebetween two species that are more morphologically closer to each other than to any other species.

 

[Stripe]

What straw man? I simply asked how you know what shares a common ancestor, the very definition you're using for "kind".

This straw man.

It's amazing that you think asking how you use your definition in practice is a "straw man".

It's amazing how completely incapable you are of honest dialogue.

And then what exactly is your problem with species, since most species are obvious?

It's a bunch of arbitrary and ad hoc distinctions made up to enforce an evolutionary world view.

Politically motivated? Name me a species that is "politically motivated".

Mbuti and Inupiat.

Do you think "kind" isn't motivated by a desire to force the world to conform to YEC theology?

Nope.

And, by the way, could you consider posting smaller images? Perhaps you could just paste the link instead. :up:

 

[Alate_One]

This straw man.

What does your link have to do with our discussion? Are you going to tell me how you know what is a kind and what isn't by way of common ancestry or not?

It's a bunch of arbitrary and ad hoc distinctions made up to enforce an evolutionary world view.

I've given you a definition. You saying it is ad hoc is no evidence it is so.

Mbuti and Inupiat.

And when were those considered species? 1798? How about you give us a cite for that one since I'm not finding it. Even Darwin knew that humans are all one species. And no I'm not listening to a random radio program. And you complain about my links . . .at least mine can be read.

And, by the way, could you consider posting smaller images? Perhaps you could just paste the link instead. :up:

You have a really small monitor? They don't even take up 100% of the space on mine. And no I'm not going to paste links because you never follow them.

 

[Stripe]

What does your link have to do with our discussion?

You posted a straw man. :idunno:

I've given you a definition. You saying it is ad hoc is no evidence it is so.

Your "definition" was vague and useless: "Species can be defined fairly well by interbreeding in animals". Kind is defined in a rigorous and solid way. We may not have the information available to classify animals, but we know that with the information, classification will never be a matter of opinion.

Practically every single kind has different species that can and do interbreed. This is no sort of definition when it is routinely ignored in favour of numerous other factors.

And when were those considered species? 1798?

No idea. :idunno:

Even Darwin knew that humans are all one species.

He did?

There is no reason why you should call tigers and lions a different species and yet these two people groups the same. Unless there are certain political reasons for doing so.

And no I'm not listening to a random radio program. And you complain about my links . . .at least mine can be read.

Who is complaining about your links? :idunno:

And no I'm not going to paste links because you never follow them.

:chuckle: I don't look at your pictures either.

 

[Alate_One]

You posted a straw man.

No, I asked you how you use your kind definition. If you think that's a straw man, you're even dumber/ more dishonest than I thought.

Your "definition" was vague and useless: "Species can be defined fairly well by interbreeding in animals".

Stripe, you know that isn't the standard definition of species. I simplified it for you.

A set of actually or potentially interbreeding populations that are reproductively isolated from other such populations.

Reproductive isolation includes the formation of viable but sterile offspring.

It works fairly well for higher taxa of animals that do not reproduce asexually.

Kind is defined in a rigorous and solid way.

Except than when I ask you how you tell the difference between kinds you call it a straw man.

We may not have the information available to classify animals, but we know that with the information, classification will never be a matter of opinion.

And specifically what information is that?

There is no reason why you should call tigers and lions a different species and yet these two people groups the same. Unless there are certain political reasons for doing so.

Why? Lions and Tigers form infertile hybrids with obvious genetic difficulties (growth abnormalities etc.). No two existing human populations have had such difficulties. Plus you can look at the far higher genetic similarity between humans vs. different species of big cats.

I don't look at your pictures either.

But you complain about the size so you must have looked at it. :chuckle:

 

[Stripe]

No, I asked you how you use your kind definition.

And now you're just lying. You launched into an irrelevant assault on the term 'kind' when it was pointed out how arbitrary the term 'species' is and how definitive the term 'kind' is. When called on your ridicule of the definition you launched into a tirade about how you don't know how to tell if two creatures share a common ancestor.

Stripe, you know that isn't the standard definition of species. I simplified it for you.

I know. There is no one definition for species. It is vague and malleable and its common to find great disagreement between experts on some classifications.

A set of actually or potentially interbreeding populations that are reproductively isolated from other such populations.

You need to iron out the equivocation. :up:

Reproductive isolation includes the formation of viable but sterile offspring.

:rotfl: Are sterile creatures viable now?

It works fairly well for higher taxa of animals that do not reproduce asexually.

No, it doesn't. The Mbuti and Inupiat are 'reproductively isolated' yet there's no way you're ever going to class a group of humans as a distinct species. You're never even going to say it might be possible. But only to avoid the political ramifications.

Fortunately you have a definition that can equivocate in order to cover up these sorts of challenges. In the human case you just claim they can 'potentially interbreed'. But anything else you're free to describe them as 'reproductively isolated'.

Evolutionists are past masters of devising such structures in order to protect their theory.

Except than when I ask you how you tell the difference between kinds you call it a straw man.

With good reason.

I say the term 'kind' is definitive. You claim that I cannot classify creatures. This retort does nothing to dispel the accuracy of my assertion. Even if you were to be found correct in your response you would only have knocked over an assertion of your own making.

'Kind' is a definitive classification. 'Species' is vague and malleable. Even your extended definition (which still requires much clarification in most cases) is full of equivocation.

And specifically what information is that?

You're a biologist and you're asking me how to determine if two creatures share a common ancestor?

Weird. :chuckle:

Why? Lions and Tigers form infertile hybrids with obvious genetic difficulties (growth abnormalities etc.). No two existing human populations have had such difficulties. Plus you can look at the far higher genetic similarity between humans vs. different species of big cats.

Or we could describe the two situations from a non-biased point of view. Human couples are just as capable as big cat couples of producing non-viable and genetically inferior offspring. The differences in interbreeding rates can easily be accounted for by the difference in mobility and lifestyle between cats and people.

And I don't think the genetic problems involved with lions and tigers is as all-pervasive as you make it out to be. Their offspring are not necessarily sterile and they even live longer and grow larger than their parents.

 

[Yorzhik]

You can have great morphological differences with very little genetic difference. You can simply look at the wide variety of dogs and then recognize that they are all far closer to one another genetically than an individual human is to any other. Conversely you can have wide differences in genetics and very similar appearance.

But I think you are being dishonest with yourself if you are willing to accept whales and hippos are the same kind but chimps and humans cannot be? The genetic similarities are FAR greater between humans and the great apes.

But in morphology there isn't an extreme amount of difference between humans and great apes. If we were talking about any other group of animal, you would readily acknowledge these are the same "kind".

Full Resolution here

Great. So we're back to the argument that evolution stands on "looks". I think this is wise of you to stay with this argument because it's so wishy-washy even contradictory evidence can fit.

 

[Alate_One]

Great. So we're back to the argument that evolution stands on "looks". I think this is wise of you to stay with this argument because it's so wishy-washy even contradictory evidence can fit.

Do you actually read context before you jump in and make random comments? volt specifically asked about morphology. And yes morphology is one part of evidence, it certainly isn't all of it.

 

[Stripe]

Do you actually read context before you jump in and make random comments? volt specifically asked about morphology. And yes morphology is one part of evidence, it certainly isn't all of it.

Using a modern monkey skull and showing how it is different from human skulls is no evidence that one turned into the other.

"All" your evidence amounts to carefully equivocated "definitions" and pretty drawings. Y. shows you the evidence you should really look at, but you run from that discussion every time.

 

[Alate_One]

And now you're just lying. You launched into an irrelevant assault on the term 'kind' when it was pointed out how arbitrary the term 'species' is and how definitive the term 'kind' is.

It isn't irrelavent when you make a statement that species is silly, whatever you propose as an alternative must be LESS silly otherwise you're a hypocrite. Which is exactly what, in every conversation, you reveal yourself to be.

:rotfl: Are sterile creatures viable now?

They are viable as in living, sterile as in they can't reproduce. Are you really this stupid?

No, it doesn't. The Mbuti and Inupiat are 'reproductively isolated' yet there's no way you're ever going to class a group of humans as a distinct species. You're never even going to say it might be possible. But only to avoid the political ramifications.

You are being incredibly pig headed. The definition includes "potentially interbreeding".

Fortunately you have a definition that can equivocate in order to cover up these sorts of challenges. In the human case you just claim they can 'potentially interbreed'. But anything else you're free to describe them as 'reproductively isolated'.

No stripe. Scientists don't call the same species that lives on different continents different species just because they don't usually interbreed due to distance. There are Golden Eagles here in the US as well as in Asia. Same species. There are grey squirrels here in the US as well as introduced into Europe. They didn't suddenly stop being grey squirrels simply because they were moved on a boat.

Honestly, Stripe I really thought you were smarter than this, but you are being unbelievably pig headed, probably because even you recognize you don't actually have a leg to stand on.

I say the term 'kind' is definitive. You claim that I cannot classify creatures. This retort does nothing to dispel the accuracy of my assertion.

Sure it does. If it's a definitive classification you should be able to tell me what is a kind and what isn't very easily.

You're a biologist and you're asking me how to determine if two creatures share a common ancestor?

You're the one using common ancestry as the basis for your categorization. You should know that biologists know that ALL organisms share a common ancestor if you go back far enough, so using that as a distinction is truly meaningless.

Or we could describe the two situations from a non-biased point of view. Human couples are just as capable as big cat couples of producing non-viable and genetically inferior offspring.

Not consistently as one group breeds with another. Ligers are consistently larger than either parent, whereas tigons are consistently smaller than either parent. That tells you there's some serious genetic difficulties between the two groups. You really are being incredibly stupid, even for you. If you think random infertility has anything to do with what we're discussing.

And I don't think the genetic problems involved with lions and tigers is as all-pervasive as you make it out to be. Their offspring are not necessarily sterile and they even live longer and grow larger than their parents.

Growing larger isn't necessarily a good thing. There's an imbalance of growth hormones. And most of these hybrids are sterile, nor do they happen naturally at any frequency at all outside of a zoo.

 

[Alate_One]

Using a modern monkey skull and showing how it is different from human skulls is no evidence that one turned into the other.

"All" your evidence amounts to carefully equivocated "definitions" and pretty drawings. Y. shows you the evidence you should really look at, but you run from that discussion every time.

Y hasn't shown me any evidence that contradicts evolution.

The genetics are obvious, regardless of the obviousness of the morphology. Perhaps you don't understand the concept of "family resemblance". I guess the fact that humans resemble each other is no evidence they share a common human ancestor either. All those human races must have been separately created then, according to your logic, there's no evidence they are related.

 

[voltaire]

I have a little time now to read everything alate has replied to me on. I wont have time to reply to it all till later, but i'm going to state something now while it is still fresh in my mind. It may be true as alate stated that the genome of the chimp and man us more similar to each other than the genome of the whale and hippo are to each other. I did a little investigating on the human and chimp genome, and if what i read is correct, what is compared is mainly the exons within genes and the positions of those genes on the chromosome. They said the non protein coding sequences are not being compared. This is a big difference. If this is truly not junk DNA, it could play a big role in making a man and not a chimp and vice versa....more

 

[voltaire]

Alate said it was hypocritical to claim the genomic similarity of the whale and hippo as evidence of common descent and ignore the genomic similarity of man and chimp, especially when they are even closer genomically. If they were TRULY closer genomically then alate may really have a point. If humans and chimps are more similar than the hippo whale connection based ONLY on genes and their positions on the chromosomes, it really does not necessarily indicate common descent....... why next.

 

[voltaire]

As alate already pointed out to me and which i already knew, you can have two animals with very similar genomes and yet have radically different morphologies... Why is that? I say it is because genes themselves, whether they code for protein that cells use or code for protein that regulates other genes, are not capable of performing all the tasks neccessary to develop and animal from a zygote or to maintain all its functions from embryo to old age. It is the so called junk DNA that basically tells the functioning genes when proteins are to be made and where they are to be made and hbow much are to be made. I think (notsure) that the hippo and whale share more junk dna in common and share this junk dna is precise locations on the chromosomes more so than chimps and humans do. To the extent that chimps and humans share the same junk dnna, i would say it is because precisely the same functions are being carried out in humans and chimps.