This thread is now about Evolution

I wouldn't say the change would be a combination, just micro-evolution. It is likely that the two new "species" are still the same species, just a different variety (much like humans and dogs). The main issue is the definition of a species. This has always been a matter of debate. There are at least least two major species definitions (Biological and Morphological) as well as a few minor ones. However, the biological definition (A species is capable of breeding and producing viable offspring) contradicts many animals defined as "species" that can breed in their population's overlapping zone. The Morphological definition (similar appearance) contradicts that even more, considering the similar structure. So really, most things we consider different "species" are actually the same species but in a different variety.

To refer to your previous post, the problem with the fish, turtles, and other amphibians evolving around the islands is that, according to the evolutionary theory, all three of these underwent that kind of evolution long (100's of millions of years) before the Galapagos islands were formed (8 million to 90 million years ago). Your bird hypothesis would work, however, the chance of seeds is low considering they would have "to be blown by the wind, in the correct direction, hundreds of miles, and land on the islands (not the water)". The seeds would also have to land on fertile ground (at least enough to grow). However your bird hypothesis would rely on the seed hypothesis, because without the plants and seeds the birds would starve or eat themselves until extinction, there is also the matter of the birds migrating in the correct direction.

In reply to the second paragraph of your earlier post, even if the tree had a gene granting it long, life that long life could, in no way, reach several million years. After death, decay follows. A tree can not be fossilized for a long period of time without dying, the lack of resources would kill it off, starting the decaying process and destroying the tree before being fossilized successfully. By-the-way this tree is called a prostrate (many strata) tree and there are many like this, this increases the unlikeliness of one-time occurrences (in relation to your two hypotheses) happening in many locations. For your next hypothesis, an asexual system of trees are separate organisms that reproduce asexually, they don't feed each other in the way on organism would its parts. If 9 out of 10 trees are killed in an asexual tree population that 1 still survives because it doesn't rely on others for its food. Likewise, a dying tree is not feed by its neighbors to keep it alive.
 
I have no reply for the first paragraph because I don't how I can answer how many species of dogs can breed among each other.

The second paragraph I can reply with that this happened over 100's of millions of years as you say. How many birds migrate over the galapagos islands? With an uneducated guest I'll say around 100 different flocks of different species a year. How many times does wind blow in that direction from another landmass each year? Educated guest: 100's of thousands a time a year or more. Now the probability of birds migrating in the correct path and seeds landing on fertile soil from being carried by a wind is incredibly low, but given the circumstances of how often it can happen, a probability of it happening has been reached. And I haven't yet considered continental drift and climate changes, how these can also affect the probability.

On the third paragraph I first say that I'm assuming that the tree has been carbon dated on each strata and the results say each section of the tree is of a different ages and secondly I believe you are mistaken. The entire Fishlake National Park forest is considered as only one entity. The tree spreads its roots horizontally and makes a genetic copy of itself but it is still connected to one tree. Trees in the same vicinity do in fact actually nourish each other since they all intake nutrients through the same plant.
 
In response to your first reply, I did not say "that this happened over 100's of millions of years", I said that fish, turtles, and amphibians, according to the evolutionary theory, evolved 100's of millions of years ago. The Galapagos islands were formed 8 million to 90 million years ago. Although, birds do migrate over the islands now (it is likely the patterns were different), it is very unlikely that 100's of flocks of different species do (too exaggerated). You also guessed that winds blew to the islands "100's of thousands a time a year or more", if we say that winds blew even 100 thousand times a year (200 or 300 would be incredible), then that would mean that winds would blow about 274 times a day to the islands or about 11 times an hour. That is way too extreme, and the winds would also have to last long enough to reach the island. Considering continental drift wouldn't have much effect because the islands were supposedly formed by a hot spot, not as a break-off from South America. A climate change? You would still need seeds and animals. In summation, although your bird hypothesis is a bit more likely, your seed hypothesis very unlikely, but for your bird hypothesis to be possible you would need seeds.

In response to your second reply, I was incorrect in my statement about multiple organisms and they are in fact one organism called a clonal colony. Although, it seems that this is not just one large multicellular organism but a colonial organism. If one "individual" is split from the colony it can still survive on its own. However, even a clonal colony cannot even reach one million years, much less multiple, meaning that it would still decay before strata formation.
 
In conclusion it is odd to find a tree towering through several strati, very strange indeed. I would respond with what if it was a clonal colony and had an immortal gene, but the probability of that is extremely low to impossible.

Whoops, I must of misread your statement. Anyways the point I was getting across to is that the probability for life on the Galapagos islands is low since the island was formed by a hot spot, but it is likely that birds do have migration patterns over that island and that there are winds that flow from another landmass and over the Galapagos islands, and given the time for life to appear there, the likelihood of it happening has also risen because how often it can be repeated.

Anyways, I look up about dog species and came to a stunning conclusion. Huskies, dalmations, chihuahuas, grey hounds, and St. Bernards are not separate species of dog, in fact dog is not a species either. Dog is a sub-species of wolves and that sub-species is composed of many different breeds that are able to mate with each other. Now this explanation will be defeated if let's say humans are capable of cloning neanderthals back to life and those neanderthals are capable of mating with humans.

To recap, can we all agree that micro-evolution and acclimation are proven theories?
 
Exactly, dogs are just different varieties in the same species (or sub-species) much like humans have differnt varieties but can still mate with each other. On your second part, unless those neanderthals are still the same species as humans, then the dog explanation would remain true. (Neanderthals are sometimes considered sub-species)

Were you trying to argue adaption or (macro) evolution? The whole disscussion was verifying adaption (aka micro-evolution and acclimation) and separating it from (macro) evolution. So, I guess we were on the same page from the start. By-the-way, the term micro-evolution is just trying to relate adaption to evolution (later dubbed macro-evolution). Usually, when someone says "I know how to prove evolution", people think you are referring to macro-evolution.
 
General bob-omb said:
...much like humans have differnt varieties but can still mate with each other.
Click to expand...
I'm suspecting you mean different ethnicity and races? That would make sense where H. Sapien appeared, somewhere between northern Africa and Mesopotamia, and spread throughout the globe and adapt to their new conditions like the Inca example I presented earlier.
 
General bob-omb said:
Yes. So, do we agree that all of this disscussion was evidence for adaption (not evolution)?
Click to expand...
Yes, it's almost impossible to observe macro-evolution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back