Re: show the math

All-Seeing-I wrote:
On Nov 25, 7:26 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
All-seeing-I wrote:
On Nov 25, 5:52 pm, John Stockwell <john.19071...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Nov 25, 4:45 pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

/ -------- species D
/
species A >--------- species A
\
\--------- species G

Can the evolutionist show How (A) can also become (D) and (G)?

When the only thing actually observed is A---D-----G

Actually, what's observed is: (X is extinction)
C----------------
/
B-----------/---------X
/ \
A-----------------X \D--------
\ F--X
\ /
E------------------------/-----------

A
A

reproductive isolation followed by mutation and natural selection.

So you are saying that a dog will no longer be related to the wolf
and will become something totally unlike the wolf via mutation, NS
and time.

No, he's not saying that. This has been explained to you many times
now. All descendant populations will be related to their ancestral
population. None will become totally unlike thier parent
populations. Dogs, if they don't go extinct, will evolve away from
their common ancestor, but won't ever lose a genetic connection to
the wolf.



What is predicted for the dog to become?

There is no "the dog". There are a great number of discrete
populations of dogs, and what will become of them depends entirely
on human action. If humans go extinct, most likely dogs will go
extinct as well. If humans don't go extinct, then they will keep
breeding dogs for specific purposes. What forms dogs will take is
related to what purposes humans breed them for.

DJT

You do not realize that you just invalidated the fish to man idea when
you calim: "All descendant populations will be related to their
ancestral population."

No, I did no such thing. Humans are related to fish, and if you ask a
cladist, they will tell you that all tetrapods, including mammals like us,
are highly derived fish. What's fustrating about having a discussion with
you, is that you totally ignore points that have been presented to you over
and over.


Maybe fish and men share common elements but they do not share common
ancestry.

Fish and humans do share a common ancestor, which is demonstrated by the
genetic evidence, and the fossil evidence.


Which invalidates evolution.

Actually, the evidence supports evolution. Humans are one branch of the
evolutionary tree that descended from early lobe finned fishes. Please see
Neil Shubin's "Your Inner Fish" for a more indepth discussion.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0307277453/ref=pd_lpo_k2_dp_sr_1?pf_rd_p=486539851&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=0375424474&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=05YRPETWAHE8RQZ7Z51V

DJT


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: show the math
    ... All descendant populations will be related to their ancestral population. ... dogs, and what will become of them depends entirely on human action. ... humans go extinct, most likely dogs will go extinct as well. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: show the math
    ... All descendant populations will be related to their ancestral population. ... dogs, and what will become of them depends entirely on human action. ... humans go extinct, most likely dogs will go extinct as well. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: show the math
    ... dogs, and what will become of them depends entirely on human action. ... humans go extinct, most likely dogs will go extinct as well. ... Fish appeared on this planet well before any other type of vertebrate. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: show the math
    ... All descendant populations will be related to their ancestral population. ... dogs, and what will become of them depends entirely on human action. ... humans go extinct, most likely dogs will go extinct as well. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Absolutely Bonkers
    ... >> where numerous species of the extinct megafauna lived. ... Got it wrong for mastodons (I didn't include the sloths). ... > climate differences, because the climate of Cuba is similar to that on ... This study certainly does suggest that humans were ...
    (talk.origins)