quote:

---

Originally posted by Bill scott

quote:

---

Originally posted by BigPapaSmurf

I meant to change into something we would have to classify as something other than mosquito it would take many thousands of years, so bitching about that point when we have only been looking for 100 years is goofy.

---

So you equate mosqutios, who lost their food source and have adapted to a new food source, as evidence for macroevolution? That is microevolution which I have no problem with...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bill scott

quote:

---

Originally posted by pleco

quote:

---

Another evolutionist claiming to have a rock that supports macroevolution that was peered reviewed by more evolutionist. So what?

---

Maybe I wasn't clear. I asked you what you thought about the fossil.

So to you this is just a rock? Do you believe the age of this rock to be accurate? Do you believe the dating techniques used are accurate?

What, exactly, do you think this "rock" is and how to you account for its existence?

---

quote:

---

and how to you account for its existence?

---

Let me guess, as a man of science, you will not except my answer of, "it was just there and how it got there is irrelevant.", will you?


But yet when it comes to Darwin's "primordial entities" here I just have to accept your statment that, "They were just there bill, and how they got there is irrelevant."?!?!?!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by trogdor

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bill scott

quote:

---

Originally posted by trogdor

this is the Culix pipiens I was talking about:


Another issue that is continually brought up by creationists is the fact that no one has ever seen a species evolve. Darwin assumed that because the earth was extraordinarily old, any species would have many, many years to evolve and therefore no human would be alive for long enough to observe evolution in action.(Darwin, 123) Despite this fact, anti-evolutionists continue to use this idea to try to disprove Darwin. Recent evidence from mosquitoes in the London Underground has shown that species can indeed evolve in decades not centuries.
When the London subway system was being built, a small number of mosquitoes, of the species Culex pipiens found their way into the tunnel. Because these mosquitoes normally feed on birds, and because there were no birds in the subway system, new food sources had to be found. After 100 years of natural selection and evolution, now the subway mosquitoes are different. This table shows the differences between the aboveground populations of pipiens and the underground population, dubbed molestus
character molestus Pipiens
breeding site Hypogeous Epigeous
(underground) (above ground)
Mating Stenogamous Eurygamous
(occurs in confined spaces) (cannot occur in confined spaces)
Host preference Mamophilic ornotherophilic
(bites mammals) (bites birds)
Egg production Autogenous anautogenous
(oviposition without a blood meal) (requires oviposition for blood meal)
Life cycle Homodynamic Heterodynamic
(no winter diapause) (Winter diapause)
(Nichols & Byrne, 8).
Two researchers at the University of London, Richard Nichols and Katharine Bryne, studied both populations of pipiens mosquitoes and found that they are very different genetically as well (Nichols & Byrne, 7). The differences within the two populations are minimal, about 2-5%. But on the other hand, when the two populations are compared to each other, the difference is much more apparent, closer to 20% (Nichols & Bryne, 10). This difference is incredible, proof that evolution can happen on short time scales.

---

quote:

---

After 100 years of natural selection and evolution, now the subway mosquitoes are different.

---

(bill) So what? They are still mosquitoes! They did not turn into whales or lizards or anything else. They are still mosquitoes!...

---

ahh but Bill you said very clearly in your last post that no evolution happens between species. You were wrong. don't go changing your mind on me now. that would be dishonest

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by trogdor

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bill scott

quote:

---

Originally posted by BigPapaSmurf

I meant to change into something we would have to classify as something other than mosquito it would take many thousands of years, so bitching about that point when we have only been looking for 100 years is goofy.

---

So you equate mosqutios, who lost their food source and have adapted to a new food source, as evidence for macroevolution? That is microevolution which I have no problem with...

---

you see the problem is, this IS macroevolution. they are a new species. They can no longer mate with their outdoor brethren. The definition of macroevolution is evolution at or above the species level. don't change definitions to suit your needs.

---

quote:

---

you see the problem is, this IS macroevolution.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bill scott
Wrong again. An American Mastiff can not mate with a Toy Poodle, yet they are both still dogs.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by trogdor

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bill scott

quote:

---

Originally posted by pleco

quote:

---

Another evolutionist claiming to have a rock that supports macroevolution that was peered reviewed by more evolutionist. So what?

---

Maybe I wasn't clear. I asked you what you thought about the fossil.

So to you this is just a rock? Do you believe the age of this rock to be accurate? Do you believe the dating techniques used are accurate?

What, exactly, do you think this "rock" is and how to you account for its existence?

---

quote:

---

and how to you account for its existence?

---

Let me guess, as a man of science, you will not except my answer of, "it was just there and how it got there is irrelevant.", will you?


But yet when it comes to Darwin's "primordial entities" here I just have to accept your statment that, "They were just there bill, and how they got there is irrelevant."?!?!?!

---

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD BILL STOP CHANGING THE SUBJECT!!!!


Really, when responding to a post that has nothing to do with abiogenesis don't talk about abiogenesis. It's rude and makes it look like you are avoiding the question.

and that can't possibly be your intent

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by H. Humbert

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bill scott
Wrong again. An American Mastiff can not mate with a Toy Poodle, yet they are both still dogs.

---

Actually, I'm pretty sure they can mate. Still, those are different dog breeds, Bill. The discussion is species. Try to keep up.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bill scott
Have you seen an American Mastiff? I guess not. They go 220-230lbs. all day long. Most Toy Poodles come in 5-6lbs. They can not mate.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by H. Humbert

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bill scott
Have you seen an American Mastiff? I guess not. They go 220-230lbs. all day long. Most Toy Poodles come in 5-6lbs. They can not mate.

---

Size has nothing to do with it, Bill. The pups might need to be surgically removed due to size restrictions, but that says nothing about whether or not it is physically possible for a Poodle to conceive by a Mastiff's sperm.

As far as I know, all dogs can interbreed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bill scott

quote:

---

Originally posted by trogdor

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bill scott

quote:

---

Originally posted by trogdor

this is the Culix pipiens I was talking about:


Another issue that is continually brought up by creationists is the fact that no one has ever seen a species evolve. Darwin assumed that because the earth was extraordinarily old, any species would have many, many years to evolve and therefore no human would be alive for long enough to observe evolution in action.(Darwin, 123) Despite this fact, anti-evolutionists continue to use this idea to try to disprove Darwin. Recent evidence from mosquitoes in the London Underground has shown that species can indeed evolve in decades not centuries.
When the London subway system was being built, a small number of mosquitoes, of the species Culex pipiens found their way into the tunnel. Because these mosquitoes normally feed on birds, and because there were no birds in the subway system, new food sources had to be found. After 100 years of natural selection and evolution, now the subway mosquitoes are different. This table shows the differences between the aboveground populations of pipiens and the underground population, dubbed molestus
character molestus Pipiens
breeding site Hypogeous Epigeous
(underground) (above ground)
Mating Stenogamous Eurygamous
(occurs in confined spaces) (cannot occur in confined spaces)
Host preference Mamophilic ornotherophilic
(bites mammals) (bites birds)
Egg production Autogenous anautogenous
(oviposition without a blood meal) (requires oviposition for blood meal)
Life cycle Homodynamic Heterodynamic
(no winter diapause) (Winter diapause)
(Nichols & Byrne, 8).
Two researchers at the University of London, Richard Nichols and Katharine Bryne, studied both populations of pipiens mosquitoes and found that they are very different genetically as well (Nichols & Byrne, 7). The differences within the two populations are minimal, about 2-5%. But on the other hand, when the two populations are compared to each other, the difference is much more apparent, closer to 20% (Nichols & Bryne, 10). This difference is incredible, proof that evolution can happen on short time scales.

---

quote:

---

After 100 years of natural selection and evolution, now the subway mosquitoes are different.

---

(bill) So what? They are still mosquitoes! They did not turn into whales or lizards or anything else. They are still mosquitoes!...

---

ahh but Bill you said very clearly in your last post that no evolution happens between species. You were wrong. don't go changing your mind on me now. that would be dishonest

---

(bill) Dogs with long hair survive better in the bitter cold then do dogs with short hair. The colder the environment the more of chance the long haired dog would survive. Once you are in the bitter cold you will have long hair dogs breeding with long hair dogs to produce a long hair breed of dog adapted to arctic conditions. The dog has evolved to match his environment. However he is still a dog, and not a whale, or bird, or a lizard etc... etc... He is a dog. This is microevolution and I have no problem with this. The fairytale of the dog turning into a whale is known as macroevolution and I have a big problem with it. Is this clear enough?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bill scott
What if the TP is the male and AM is the female? Can the AM female conceive, and birth a dog that is born measured in oz?

---

quote:

---

Beckman:
Species are partly defined by the ability to interbreed. With all the dog breeds in the world, are there any two dog breeds that could be considered different species?

We asked Gregory Acland, of Cornell University's Center for Canine Genetics and Reproduction. He says you're right to use the term "partly."

Acland:
But that rule, even if it was true, isn't a rule that divides species anyway, because there are many species of birds for example, or fish, or lots of organisms, that if you put them in captivity and give them the opportunity to do, they will breed. So that you could cross wolves with dogs. You can certainly cross wolves with coyotes.

That said, he's found that there are certain combinations of dogs that don't cross-breed easily: for example, beagles and Irish setters.

Acland:
These were dogs with family lines, where they routinely produce big litters, and yet when we tried to breed these fertile beagles to fertile setters, we got no pups at all, despite many attempts to do so, and then eventually, we were able to produce one litter with two pups in it.

He says subtle genetic incompatibilities between these breeds may get in the way.

---

quote:

---

We often think of species as reproductively isolated: in other words, you can't cross one species with another and get viable, fertile offspring.

In the wild, most species will not normally interbreed with any other species. But this isn't necessarily because they're genetically incompatible. Wolves and coyotes don't breed in the wild primarily because they antagonize and compete with each other. But throw a male wolf and a female coyote into a zoo cage for a few months, and eventually they just might mate. When they do, their offspring are not only viable but also fertile. Many species of birds or fish that simply don't cross paths in the wild can mate and produce offspring in captivity.

So the fact that most dog breeds can easily interbreed isn't reason enough to consider them all the same species, although that's a large part of it. It comes down to how you define "species." Many scientists use the rule of thumb that if two organisms can interbreed, they are of the same species. But that doesn't apply in every case, to say nothing of species like bacteria that don't "breed" at all, but reproduce asexually. The fact is that there are many definitions of "species" accepted and debated in the scientific community, and each has its exceptions.

---

quote:

---

Stop drawing your imaginary line between evolution and abiogenesis.

---

quote:

---

We are not in your bio 101 class today

---

quote:

---

It makes it sound like you are shielding macroevolution from scrutiny when you refuse to answer any questions about the “primordial entities” that Darwin prophesied about because you claim to only have your evolution hat on.

---

quote:

---

And if I want to talk about abiogenesis for these “simple entities” I have to open a new thread where you have your abiogenesis hat on for that conversation. But under no circumstances can you have your evolution hat on, and your abiogenesis hat on, at the same time. What a cop out and a complete dodge job.

---

quote:

---

You want to begin the ToE with life already in existence, with absolutely no explanation, what so ever, as to where it came from, because you can not even come up with plausible hypothesis for a naturalistic first cause to create life. And you offer up a smoke screen of this made up separation of evolution and its genesis to cover this fact up.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by H. Humbert

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bill scott
Have you seen an American Mastiff? I guess not. They go 220-230lbs. all day long. Most Toy Poodles come in 5-6lbs. They can not mate.

---

Size has nothing to do with it, Bill. The pups might need to be surgically removed due to size restrictions, but that says nothing about whether or not it is physically possible for a Poodle to conceive by a Mastiff's sperm.

As far as I know, all dogs can interbreed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by trogdor

bill scott:

quote:

---

Stop drawing your imaginary line between evolution and abiogenesis.

---

The line is not imaginary. it is real. I would love to talk about abiogenesis. But when you begin to use abiogenesis as a cop-out for answering questions, it begins to get irritating. there is no reason to talk about abiogenesis in a response to a post about theropod evolution. It's as though I made a post in thread saying "that study is bulk! It does not explain where the pulsars came from!!"

quote:

---

We are not in your bio 101 class today

---

maybe some of us should be.

quote:

---

It makes it sound like you are shielding macroevolution from scrutiny when you refuse to answer any questions about the “primordial entities” that Darwin prophesied about because you claim to only have your evolution hat on.

---

firstly, Darwin's Ideas have little to do with modern abiogenesis theory. next, (lastly?) I would love to talk about abiogenesis with you, but not when the conversation is about fish/theropod fossils. that's called changing the subject.

quote:

---

And if I want to talk about abiogenesis for these “simple entities” I have to open a new thread where you have your abiogenesis hat on for that conversation. But under no circumstances can you have your evolution hat on, and your abiogenesis hat on, at the same time. What a cop out and a complete dodge job.

---

not at all. I can talk about the evolution of the first life. I cannot talk simultaniously about the evolution of fish and early life.

quote:

---

You want to begin the ToE with life already in existence, with absolutely no explanation, what so ever, as to where it came from, because you can not even come up with plausible hypothesis for a naturalistic first cause to create life. And you offer up a smoke screen of this made up separation of evolution and its genesis to cover this fact up.

---

I'm not trying to shild evolution from shit. I just want to keep on topic.

---

quote:

---

not at all. I can talk about the evolution of the first life. I cannot talk simultaniously about the evolution of fish and early life.

---