Quotes critical of evolution

[Wowbagger]

If pelicans evolve longer necks, are they no longer pelicans?

Depends on what your working definition of pelicans are.

We call various animals "dogs" even though they look very different. This is mostly because most of that dog variation developed while humans were around to record it, and indeed, influence much of it.

We call camels and llamas by two different words, even though the differences between them are not more than the differences between many dogs. We call them two different things mostly because humans were not able to record their division at the time it was happening, and only discovered their common ancestry later.

So, the bottom line: It doesn't matter if we call the longer-necked pelican a "pelican" or not. The fact that it evolved a longer neck would be evidence of evolution at work. Don't get so hung up on semantics.


ETA: Also, I reiterate what Mercutio stated: Look up "ring species"! You might find why your question becomes less relevant to actual science.

 

[Belz...]

So, the bottom line: It doesn't matter if we call the longer-necked pelican a "pelican" or not. The fact that it evolved a longer neck would be evidence of evolution at work. Don't get so hung up on semantics.

Indeed. It really doesn't matter what we call them. The simple fact is, Rodney's very question implies that evolution works. The question and its intent are contradictory.

 

[Starrman]

Hmmmmm...
Oprah?
Tom Cruise?
George W. Bush?

The answer is - Jeffrey Dahmer. He said it AFTER finding Jesus in prison, of course. And since he did find Jesus in prison, before being bludgeoned to death with a mop handle, he is in heaven now, right?

 

[Rodney]

Well, I guess now we're going to have to know YOUR definition of species, because methinks you're using a different one than I.

I'm listening.

According to Theodosius Dobzhansky, speciation is "that stage of evolutionary progress at which the once actually or potentially interbreeding array of forms becomes segregated into two or more arrays which are physiologically incapable of interbreeding."

 

[Mercutio]

According to Theodosius Dobzhansky, speciation is "that stage of evolutionary progress at which the once actually or potentially interbreeding array of forms becomes segregated into two or more arrays which are physiologically incapable of interbreeding."

Thus:

Depends. Can they still interbreed with short-necked pelicans?


Read up on "ring species"; the question you ask is not as clear-cut as you would like it to be.

 

[Rodney]

The answer is - Jeffrey Dahmer. He said it AFTER finding Jesus in prison, of course. And since he did find Jesus in prison, before being bludgeoned to death with a mop handle, he is in heaven now, right?

I don't know, but what's your opinion as to whether Dahmer would have committed his heinous crimes if he had found Jesus earlier in his life -- say when he was a teenager?

 

[Rodney]

Read up on "ring species"; the question you ask is not as clear-cut as you would like it to be.

Are ring species "physiologically incapable of interbreeding"?

 

[Slimething]

... but what's your opinion as to whether Dahmer ... had found Jesus earlier in his life -- say when he was a teenager?

A great night of sex followed by an opulent dinner with fava beans and chianti.

 

[wahrheit]

Just out of curiousity, how come the guy that started this thread doesn't post in it anymore?

 

[wollery]

Because he doesn't actually have anything to say.

Ever.

 

[Mercutio]

Are ring species "physiologically incapable of interbreeding"?

Yes and no. Did you look up the term?

Suppose a species is expanding its territory into a new geographic area (A, moving from left to right). A geographic barrier (mountain, but could be a lake, a glacier, a desert, whatever) makes a fork in the road; the species spreads its territory along both the upper and lower edge. As it spreads, small mutations accumulate. A can interbreed freely with B, even though some identifiable morphological or behavioral differences are observable. A can also interbreed with B' on the other side. B can interbreed with C, C with D, D with E, E with F; B' can interbreed with C', C' with D', D' with E', E' with F'. So, all are still one species, right? We have a population that is spread out, but anywhere along the ring we can see interbreeding among them. One species. Except that when these animals meet on the other side of the barrier, F and F' do not interbreed. The accumulation of mutations has taken two different paths (because natural selection is not directed toward any particular outcome), and as Frost would say, "that has made all the difference."

                  D
               C      E
             B           F
A  A  A  A  A   mountain
             B’          F’
               C’     E’
                  D’

So, are ring species physiologically incapable of breeding? It depends. F and F' do not interbreed. They are clearly separate species. But each step along the way can interbreed freely. So they are clearly not separate species.

In the same way that Pluto is what Pluto always was, and it does not matter a bit whether we call it a planet or not, these animals are what they are, and it does not matter whether we call them separate species. For some, enough time has elapsed since the fork in the road that "whether they are a species" is difficult to tell (chimps and bonobos, for instance). For others, the fork in the road is far enough back that it is relatively easy (chimps and us).

This is a very brief cliff-notes version of the concept. I recommend "The ancestor's tale" (in particular, the chapter "the salamander's tale") for a more thorough explanation. Or just google "ring species", and have fun.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

To go along with the ring species points being made, it seems that Rodney needs a little tutorial on classification.

Something this is won't produce something that isn't, but it will produce something different. I realize at first this seems contradictory, but if you look at a phylogenetic tree you can probably deduce the answer to your question about pelicans on your own.

Lets start with Vertebrata. All species in this classification will have these characteristics.

The main characteristics supporting the nodes of this phylogeny are:

Node 1: Mineralized exoskeleton, sensory-line canals and grooves
Node 2: Perichondral bone or calcification, externally open endolymphatic duct
Node 3: Paired fins containing musculature and concentrated in pectoral position, two dorsal fins, epicercal (i.e. upwardly tappering) tail, sclerotic ring and scleral ossification, cellular dermal bone

Within Vertebrata are Gnathostomata or jawed vertebrates. And within Gnathostomata are ray finned fishes or Actinopterygii and lobe finned fishes or Sarcopterygii

Now here is where it gets important. You know the old stumper, "did humans come from fish?" The answer isn't as easy as yes or no. Humans are under the clade Sarcopterygii, and thus are classified with lobe finned fishes, but evolution has changed our form many times since sharing a common ancestor with the ancient root species.

So then humans are Homo sapiens
and also Hominidae
and also Catarrhini
and also Primates
and also Eutherians
and also Mammals
and also Therapsids
and also Synapsids
and also Amniotes
and also Terrestrial Vertebrates
as well as bing Sarcopterygii.

We, nor any other species will ever stop being a part of the groups we are now, we only further divide below what we currently call a species to branches within it that can no longer interbreed. Ex. Homo sapiens terra and Homo sapiens luna.

Similarly the pelican will never stop being a pelican, a bird, a reptile, and amniote, a terrestrial vertebrate or a Sarcopterygii either, the species will just branch.

So, can you answer your own question now?

 

[Foster Zygote]

Because he doesn't actually have anything to say.

Ever.

Interresting...

 

[autumn1971]

The ubiquity of the argument from design forces me to give this example.

Posit a hypothetical river with a random bottom. If the river is shallow, the flow of molecules of water at the suface will, due to the irregularity of the riverbed, seem to be random. It is essentially impossible to determine the path of any particular molecule. Two molecules of water beginning the river at arbitrarily close points will end up arbitrarily far apart at the end of the course(chaotic, not random, but I think the analogy holds). Given the unpredictability of paths of individual water molecules, the ability to predict the positions of a set of molecules over time would seem an improbability of the highest degree. Yet.
Yet, now and then, regularly, but not predictably, there appears out of the chaos an eddy. This eddy, while it persists, is a very sturctured entity. Within this limit, although the math is difficult, the positions of water molecules can be determined, at least to a reasonable approximation(molecules not exactly behaving as a liquid). Out of randomness comes order.

 

[Taffer]

Yes and no. Did you look up the term?

Suppose a species is expanding its territory into a new geographic area (A, moving from left to right). A geographic barrier (mountain, but could be a lake, a glacier, a desert, whatever) makes a fork in the road; the species spreads its territory along both the upper and lower edge. As it spreads, small mutations accumulate. A can interbreed freely with B, even though some identifiable morphological or behavioral differences are observable. A can also interbreed with B' on the other side. B can interbreed with C, C with D, D with E, E with F; B' can interbreed with C', C' with D', D' with E', E' with F'. So, all are still one species, right? We have a population that is spread out, but anywhere along the ring we can see interbreeding among them. One species. Except that when these animals meet on the other side of the barrier, F and F' do not interbreed. The accumulation of mutations has taken two different paths (because natural selection is not directed toward any particular outcome), and as Frost would say, "that has made all the difference."

                  D
               C      E
             B           F
A  A  A  A  A   mountain
             B’          F’
               C’     E’
                  D’

So, are ring species physiologically incapable of breeding? It depends. F and F' do not interbreed. They are clearly separate species. But each step along the way can interbreed freely. So they are clearly not separate species.

In the same way that Pluto is what Pluto always was, and it does not matter a bit whether we call it a planet or not, these animals are what they are, and it does not matter whether we call them separate species. For some, enough time has elapsed since the fork in the road that "whether they are a species" is difficult to tell (chimps and bonobos, for instance). For others, the fork in the road is far enough back that it is relatively easy (chimps and us).

This is a very brief cliff-notes version of the concept. I recommend "The ancestor's tale" (in particular, the chapter "the salamander's tale") for a more thorough explanation. Or just google "ring species", and have fun.

Very good summery, Merc. I thought I'd quote it so it wasn't missed.

 

[Taffer]

Interresting...

HA!

 

[Dancing David]

Wikipedia

Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution is a 1973 essay by the evolutionary biologist and Russian Orthodox Christian Theodosius Dobzhansky, criticising Young Earth creationism and espousing evolutionary creationism. The essay was first published in the American Biology Teacher, volume 35 125-129.

 

[Starrman]

I don't know, but what's your opinion as to whether Dahmer would have committed his heinous crimes if he had found Jesus earlier in his life -- say when he was a teenager?

I don't know, and it doesn't matter. People who say they have found Jesus kill. People who have not said they found Jesus kill. Dahmer says he found Jesus because his dad sent him some creationist literature in prison. So what? Do we know for sure that he wouldn't have killed if he were released after that, when the opportunity was again in front of him? Would anyone, Christian or otherwise, agree that if evolution is true and there is no god then what Dahmer did is OK?

I'm just trying to help illustrate that quotes about something don't matter. Evolution stands on its evidence, not on pretty things you can say about it.

 

[ponderingturtle]

how about this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strata_(novel)

creator has a sense of humour and is playing a practical joke by faking evidence for the age of the world and evolution and giving us the brains to deduce contra-biblical accounts of Earth's origin...

Jim,

OK I'm not an anti-evolutionist

Not a sense of humor, but a very sadistic one. Remember the damning to hell all those who fall for his trick.

 

[Belz...]

According to Theodosius Dobzhansky, speciation is "that stage of evolutionary progress at which the once actually or potentially interbreeding array of forms becomes segregated into two or more arrays which are physiologically incapable of interbreeding."

It's all irrelevant. The Pelican question assumes evolution to be true.