Difference between revisions of "Talk:Homology"
(→Convergent evolution: strike out "to explain how") |
(→Convergent evolution: We seem to be 'diverging' from the subject) |
||
| Line 30: | Line 30: | ||
BTW, im not sure Darwin spoke much of convergence, but dont quote me on that...i think it is a more modern concept.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]]<sup>[[User_talk:palmd001|talk]]</sup> 20:39, 30 March 2007 (EDT) | BTW, im not sure Darwin spoke much of convergence, but dont quote me on that...i think it is a more modern concept.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]]<sup>[[User_talk:palmd001|talk]]</sup> 20:39, 30 March 2007 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :This gets into the question of [[Evidence for macroevolution]], if I may use the term [[Macroevolution]]. By which I mean appearance of new kinds which can't breed with old kinds, i.e., [[species]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 20:44, 30 March 2007 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 00:44, March 31, 2007
Ed, I made some clarifications here. One little problem, perhaps not solvable, is that the reason given ID explaining this is tautologic.--PalMDtalk 19:52, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
- There's also the problem that it uses the term "convergent evolution" without explaining it. Sounds like evolutionists, who already assume evolution must be true, couldn't account for it so they just gave it a name that fits their theory?
- A bit like saying that those size 0 models who keep fainting on runways starve themselves because of anorexia.
Convergent evolution
Convergent evolution is a theory used by scientists to explain how animals that have similar lifestyles, although otherwise unconnected, may develop striking resemblances to one another, by having to adapt to similar environments.
- Where's the explanation? It's like saying my TV picture appears because of TV reception.
What is reception? What is received? How does it get to my TV? What made it? --Ed Poor 20:09, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
- It says that "these structures are useful and appear time and time again int he animal kingdom in ways that help the survivability of that species." --Mtur 20:13, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
That's not a theory. That's merely an observation. Like many mollusks have shells. This makes their soft inner bodies hard for fish to swallow.
An explanation would say (1) why these shells came into being, i.e., how species of mollusks with shells appeared on earth; and (2) why lots of other animals have shells or "bony appendages". Am I missing something too obvious for words here? --Ed Poor 20:27, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
- It is a supporting observation to natural selection. It is not a theory on its own. It is not trying to explain anything. --Mtur 20:29, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
It is not simply a matter of faith. This is not to discount the ID folks, but Evo does have good evidence, both morphological and genetic, and good, testable, falsifiable reasoning (which ID does not...it is tautological). Populations subjected to similar selective pressures sometimes develop similar (very) structures. Ill dig you up some good stuff on that if you wish.--PalMDtalk 20:31, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
Some links that give background, set a basis:
- http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=17316885
- http://www.utexas.edu/opa/news/2006/03/neurobiology02.html
- http://scienceweek.com/2006/sw060512-2.htm
- http://www.genome.org/cgi/content/full/14/8/1555
This is not simply "Evodidit"PalMDtalk 20:37, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
BTW, im not sure Darwin spoke much of convergence, but dont quote me on that...i think it is a more modern concept.--PalMDtalk 20:39, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
- This gets into the question of Evidence for macroevolution, if I may use the term Macroevolution. By which I mean appearance of new kinds which can't breed with old kinds, i.e., species. --Ed Poor 20:44, 30 March 2007 (EDT)