• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

100 Reasons Why Evolution Is Stupid (Part 1 of 11)

Robert Oz said:
There is a beautiful example given in Richard Dawkins' The Greatest Show On Earth of salamanders around a large lake somewhere in South America.

I can't remember the precise details, but as you make your way around the lake, you encounter salamanders that change in appearance quite drastically. The salamanders that are relatively close to each other as you go around the lake can interbreed, but are separated by distance, and therefore don't. If you put them in a cage together, however, they can.

But this is only the case with the salamanders that are relatively close to each other and, amazingly, only works clock-wise! If you take a salamander from the south-west and a salamander from the west, they can interbreed. Likewise, if you take a salamander from the east and a salamander from the south-east, they can interbreed. This works all the way around the lake. Side-by-side salamanders capable of breeding.

However, if you take a salamander from the south-west and try to breed it with a salamander from the south-east, it doesn't work! The micro-evolution happening gradually around the lake results in a different 'kind' of salamander, based on your definition of 'kind'. This is macro-evolution. The accumulation of micro-evolutionary changes over time.

Of course, you can now expand your definition of 'kind' accordingly.
Click to expand...
It's called Ring Speciation:
Ring species show the process of speciation in action. In ring species, the species is distributed more or less in a line, such as around the base of a mountain range. Each population is able to breed with its neighboring population, but the populations at the two ends are not able to interbreed. (In a true ring species, those two end populations are adjacent to each other, completing the ring.) Examples of ring species are


  • the salamander Ensatina, with seven different subspecies on the west coast of the United States. They form a ring around California's central valley. At the south end, adjacent subspecies klauberi and eschscholtzi do not interbreed (Brown n.d.; Wake 1997).
  • greenish warblers (Phylloscopus trochiloides), around the Himalayas. Their behavioral and genetic characteristics change gradually, starting from central Siberia, extending around the Himalayas, and back again, so two forms of the songbird coexist but do not interbreed in that part of their range (Irwin et al. 2001; Whitehouse 2001; Irwin et al. 2005).
  • the deer mouse (Peromyces maniculatus), with over fifty subspecies in North America.
  • many species of birds, including Parus major and P. minor, Halcyon chloris, Zosterops, Lalage, Pernis, the Larus argentatus group, and Phylloscopus trochiloides (Mayr 1942, 182-183).
  • the American bee Hoplitis (Alcidamea) producta (Mayr 1963, 510).
  • the subterranean mole rat, Spalax ehrenbergi (Nevo 1999).
Click to expand...
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html
Watch the goalpost move.
 
paximperium said:
It's called Ring Speciation:
Click to expand...


Thanks. It's one of my favourite examples of speciation in action.

I truly find this particular gradual course of evolution beautiful:

Animals that can and do biologically interbreed (e.g. any members of the same species or 'kind');

to

Animals that can biologically interbreed, but don't because they are physically separated (e.g. the salamanders referred to above and a grasshopper example given in Richard Dawkins' The Ancestor's Tale where two types can biologically breed, but don't because of different chirping pitches based on temperature!);

to

Animals that can biologically interbreed, but only produce infertile offspring (e.g. horses and donkeys producing mules or lions and tigers producing ligers and tigrons);

to

Animals that can no longer biologically interbreed (e.g. the rest of us).

Evidence of every stage of evolution is all around us and is easily recognised when one discards all the garbage about one species 'giving birth' to another species. It's a strawman argument. The Theory of Evolution says nothing of the sort! The offspring of a member of a species belongs to the same species as its parent. It is only over many generations that, for example, a member of generation 1,000,000 no longer belongs to the same species as a member of generation 100,000.
 
Last edited:
kerikiwi said:
That doesn't change the fact that humans are apes. A rose by any other name...
Click to expand...

True, it doesn't change the fact, because it isn't a fact.
A rose by another name... isn't an ape either?

zooterkin said:
Where does it say that the ambiguity is anything to do with whether humans are apes or not?
Click to expand...

It doesn't, it let's you work that out all by yourself.
 
KingMerv00 said:
Are there really 10 more parts to this?
Click to expand...

Yeah let's get this over with.

Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63IEsn4w1b0
Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_H8HQU4A4dQ
Part 4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMkItE5rfDU
Part 5: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLm9NOT3qbE
Part 6: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCyFykQ_wGI
Part 7: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bgo0J5OqGkY
Part 8: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_J28qdJxbJI
Part 9: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0v1DFUZBiY
Part 10: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkGIhRyDhik
Part 11: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlEnFXdfcXM

There, all the parts linked, now we can avoid dozens of pages between each one.

The funny thing as as I was clicking each one I got to hear the first few seconds of each one, and almost all of them I knew exactly why what he was saying is wrong. :hypnotize
 
sphenisc said:
True, it doesn't change the fact, because it isn't a fact.
A rose by another name... isn't an ape either?
Click to expand...
You have a reference for this?
It doesn't, it let's you work that out all by yourself.
Click to expand...

Yes, it's very ambiguous on that point:
Until a few decades ago, humans were thought to be distinctly set apart from the other apes (even from the other great apes), so much so that many people still do not think of the term "apes" to include humans at all. However, it is not considered accurate by many biologists to think of apes in a biological sense without considering humans to be included.[citation needed] The terms "non-human apes" or "non-human great apes" is used with increasing frequency to show the monophyletic relationship of humans to the other apes while yet talking only about the non-human species.
Click to expand...
 
sphenisc said:
It doesn't, it let's you work that out all by yourself.
Click to expand...

I followed the link that you provided. It said this:

An ape is any member of the Hominoidea superfamily of primates, including humans.

And then it also said this:

Until a few decades ago, humans were thought to be distinctly set apart from the other apes (even from the other great apes), so much so that many people still do not think of the term "apes" to include humans at all. However, it is not considered accurate by many biologists to think of apes in a biological sense without considering humans to be included. The terms "non-human apes" or "non-human great apes" is used with increasing frequency to show the monophyletic relationship of humans to the other apes while yet talking only about the non-human species.

That seems to go directly against your point unless I've misunderstood. Are you sure this is what you wanted to link to?
 
sphenisc said:
It doesn't, it let's you work that out all by yourself.
Click to expand...


The article is very clear that humans are considered to be apes:

"An ape is any member of the Hominoidea superfamily of primates, including humans."

"the family Hominidae consisting of chimpanzees, gorillas, humans and orangutans collectively known as the great apes."

"Except for gorillas and humans, all true apes are agile climbers of trees."

"They are native to Africa and Asia, although humans have spread to all parts of the world."

"Until a few decades ago, humans were thought to be distinctly set apart from the other apes (even from the other great apes), so much so that many people still do not think of the term "apes" to include humans at all. However, it is not considered accurate by many biologists to think of apes in a biological sense without considering humans to be included. The terms "non-human apes" or "non-human great apes" is used with increasing frequency to show the monophyletic relationship of humans to the other apes while yet talking only about the non-human species."

"Most nonhuman ape species are rare or endangered."
 
temporalillusion said:
Yeah let's get this over with.

Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63IEsn4w1b0
Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_H8HQU4A4dQ
Part 4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMkItE5rfDU
Part 5: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLm9NOT3qbE
Part 6: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCyFykQ_wGI
Part 7: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bgo0J5OqGkY
Part 8: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_J28qdJxbJI
Part 9: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0v1DFUZBiY
Part 10: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkGIhRyDhik
Part 11: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlEnFXdfcXM

There, all the parts linked, now we can avoid dozens of pages between each one.

The funny thing as as I was clicking each one I got to hear the first few seconds of each one, and almost all of them I knew exactly why what he was saying is wrong. :hypnotize
Click to expand...

You know, I once saw a comic called "chick tracts" or such, with a student and a teacher. It involved the 5 thesis of evolution, biology was just one of them. :eye-poppi

So in spite of your commendable effort in locating them, I really don't need to see any creationist video's.
 
Robert Oz said:
There is a beautiful example given in Richard Dawkins' The Greatest Show On Earth of salamanders around a large lake somewhere in South America.
...
But this is only the case with the salamanders that are relatively close to each other and, amazingly, only works clock-wise!
Click to expand...

Huh? The bolded portion makes no sense to me.
 
sphenisc said:
That doesn't change the fact that humans are apes. A rose by any other name...
Click to expand...
True, it doesn't change the fact, because it isn't a fact.
A rose by another name... isn't an ape either?
Click to expand...
Actually, I think there were 2 problems with the Wikipedia article that seem to be causing this confusion... in particular, the phrase: Due to its ambiguous nature, the term ape has been deemphasized in favor of Hominoidea as a means of describing taxonomic relationships..

The first problem is the use of the word 'de-emphaize'. That word doesn't necessarily mean "Is not considered correct", just that it's been deprecated.

The second problem is that they never seem to explain what exactly the 'ambiguity' is. Is it because the non-scientific population doesn't understand the definition of 'ape' and falsely assumes it refers to only the hairier creatures in the 'ape family'? If so, 'ape' is not necessarily incorrectly applied, but that the educational system sucks.
 
Toke said:
You know, I once saw a comic called "chick tracts" or such, with a student and a teacher. It involved the 5 thesis of evolution, biology was just one of them. :eye-poppi
Click to expand...


From earlier in the thread:

Vorticity said:
From the OP:

David Henson said:
1. Evolution is a slippery word. His definition allows for 5 unscientific and purely theoretical possibilities, namely; Cosmic evolution (the origin of time, space and matter), Chemical evolution (The origin of higher elements from hydrogen), Stellar and planetary evolution (Origin of stars and planets), Organic evolution (origin of life), and Macro-evolution (Changing from one kind into another), as well as 1 possibility which is scientific (observed) and in harmony with the Bible and that is Micro-evolution (variations within a kind).
Click to expand...



So:

Cosmic Evolution.
Chemical Evolution.
Stellar Evolution.
Organic Evolution.
Macro-Evolution.
Micro-Evolution.

Wait... hang on. Why does that sound so familiar? Where have I seen that list before? Could it be... ?

Yes.
Click to expand...

:D
 
Segnosaur said:
Actually, I think there were 2 problems with the Wikipedia article that seem to be causing this confusion...
Click to expand...
Sphenisc was claiming humans are not apes before the wiki article was linked to. The wikipedia article is not the cause of any confusion.

in particular, the phrase: Due to its ambiguous nature, the term ape has been deemphasized in favor of Hominoidea as a means of describing taxonomic relationships..[

The first problem is the use of the word 'de-emphaize'. That word doesn't necessarily mean "Is not considered correct", just that it's been deprecated.

The second problem is that they never seem to explain what exactly the 'ambiguity' is. Is it because the non-scientific population doesn't understand the definition of 'ape' and falsely assumes it refers to only the hairier creatures in the 'ape family'? If so, 'ape' is not necessarily incorrectly applied, but that the educational system sucks.
Click to expand...

There is some ambiguity alluded to regarding Barbary apes and other non-apes with 'ape' in the name, but nothing about humans.
 
Vorticity said:
Huh? The bolded portion makes no sense to me.
Click to expand...


Sorry. I meant it only works clockwise from the starting point. There is a point around the lake where the next salamander group clockwise can breed with Salamander Group A, but the next salamander group anti-clockwise cannot.

It didn't occur to me that my sentence didn't make sense until your post.

I J K
H L
G M
F N
E O
D P
C Q
B R
A S

(Edit: This is meant to be a circle of letters, but reverts to columns when I post.)

Salamander A can breed with Salamander B and so on around the lake, but Salamander A cannot breed with Salamander S, even though they are next to each other and breeding is possible all the way around.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom