another evolution thread...

by anakolouthos 42 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • TD
    TD

    Lovelylil

    Whichever group scientists today decide to put the animals in, doesn't matter. You guys know exactly what I mean when I say they reproduce according to their kinds. I do not need to understand ALL the different animal classifications to understand this simple point.

    I know exactly what you mean and it's true as a general observation.

    I brought up hybridization because it's an undeniable means of proving that two species are related genetically. The Lion and Tiger have diverged from a common ancestor. We know this for a fact, because they can be crossed and the result is a very large creature that is obviously a member of the cat faimily, but unlike either parent.

    The question is; How far can this process of divergence go? Well it certainly goes beyond the point where the definition of "Macroevolution" is satisfied. It also goes beyond the point where creatures that are obviously related (e.g. Fox and Coyote) can no longer reproduce and therefore are no longer the same "Kind" using the Biblical (Reproductive) yardstick.

    Does it go to the point where creatures that are not so obviously related have still come from a common ancestor? Did the Bear, Dog and Racoon all spring from a common ancestor? There is a wealth of evidence pointing to the conclusion that they did.

  • lovelylil
    lovelylil

    TD,

    Thanks so much for your thoughtful responses. I understand what you are saying now. Science was never my best subject. I am much better suited for English and the arts.

    It is hard to understand what the bible writers meant by "kind". I wish there was more information to go on but the bible is not a science book.

    You mentioned that some animals that do not seem to be related at all still have common ancestors? Is this a theory or has it been well enough documented? I mean what criteria is used for judging. Do the animals need to have a certain amount of criteria in common to be considered related genetically?

    If you or AlanF can recomend any books for beginners on the subject I will certainly like to read one. That way next time I can add more to the conversation. Thanks , Lilly

  • peacefulpete
    peacefulpete

    There have been some great answers and links. I think it was important for my getting over the mental hurdle to understand how difficult it is defining what "life" is. The more we peer into the microscopic word the harder and harder its getting to define life. We have life like self replicating critters so small and simple that they required a vote as to whether we should call them life or not. superMicro life that exists miles down in the rock, metabolising the very rock. superMicrolife that thrives where no bacteria can live metabolizing toxic chemical cocktails in ocean vents. And my favorite is the nanobee. Noone is sure whether their alive or not they are so small as to be impossibly simple but yet have the appearance of living things. And what causes Chronic Wasting Disease? Prions. They are self replicating proteins with an agenda of their own. Are they life??

    Its really not a huge leap to believe one of the many self replicating nonliving compounds combined with another and became what we think of as life. Its also not only likely but mathmatically guaranteed that somthing similar has occurred on other astronomical bodies. Its entirely possible that it occcurred a couple times in our own solar system. We are here because earth has had the characteristics that supported those simple beginnnings reasonably well for the past few billion years. It has endured a number of devastating astroid blows that nearly ending life's hold. It won't last forever.

    Probabilty is a funny thing. Given a large enough number of tries even what appears impossible happens. The chances of somone eventually winning the lottery is always 100% yet the someone who wins it will imagine he beat the odds.

  • peacefulpete
    peacefulpete

    Lovelylil, a wonderfully written introduction to what evolution is and isn't. Climbing Mount Improbable

  • skeptic2
    skeptic2

    peacefulpete - reminds me a of a Penn and Teller quote: 'A million to one shot happens 8 times a day in New York City.'

  • Deputy Dog
    Deputy Dog

    Alan I don't think the cheetah would be a good example of evolution. They are so inbred, there are many genetic problems, of which breeding being just one likely caused by isolation. It also looks like this animal won't be evolving in the future. From: http://members.fortunecity.com/husom/Trifles/Animals/Cats/Cats.html

  • All cheetahs are nearly identical genetically, like clones, even though they don't cross-breed. In fact, the cheetah is the purest of natural animal breeds. Cheetahs are so alike genetically that any one of them will accept a skin graft from any other.
    • This would be a good argument against evolution.
  • lovelylil
    lovelylil

    Thanks everyone. Lilly

  • skeptic2
    skeptic2
  • All cheetahs are nearly identical genetically, like clones, even though they don't cross-breed. In fact, the cheetah is the purest of natural animal breeds. Cheetahs are so alike genetically that any one of them will accept a skin graft from any other.
    • This would be a good argument against evolution.

    This is not a good argument against evolution (I've never heard a good argument against evolution). If evolutionary theory didn't explain cheetahs as well as it does everything else, it wouldnt be the well tested theory we know today.

    "Several examples of bottlenecks have been inferred from genetic data. For example, there is very little genetic variation in the cheetah population. This is consistant with a reduction in the size of the population to only a few individuals - an event that probably occurred several thousand years ago." Source

    Such a bottleneck occured for our ancestral humans about 70,000 years ago, when the population was reduced to maybe 10-15,000 individuals.

    Both these events are entirely compatible with evolutionary theory.

  • Deputy Dog
    Deputy Dog

    skeptic

    Are you something other than Human?

    Such a bottleneck occured for our ancestral humans about 70,000 years ago, when the population was reduced to maybe 10-15,000 individuals.

    This proves what?

  • Deputy Dog
    Deputy Dog
    (I've never heard a good argument against evolution).

    I've herd many JWs say, they have never heard a good argument against the Watchtower

    • Share this

    Google+
    Pinterest
    Reddit