Freethought & Rationalism Archive

nobody · 03-10-2003, 03:22 PM

aha...I understand it all soo much better. Thank you.

I'm sure I will have many questions to come.

Duvenoy · 03-10-2003, 03:41 PM

We'll be here, no.

One thing to bear in mind: We don't really have a 'family tree' as such. Rather, our history is a tangled briar patch of species that sort of tried and failed. Evolution is a messy busines, yet there is a sort of perfection about it. Observe the species alive today. Incredable! And each of these have an ancestory at least as remarkable as our own.

Hoping that you enjoy your studies as much as I have mine! And all of mine are strictly out of curosity - I am not an academic. Many of us here are not.

doov

Doubting Didymus · 03-10-2003, 03:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by TealVeal
If a group of a species started becoming nocturnal would this be parapatric speciation?

A good question. I believe that parapatric speciation requires some involvement of geography. Your example, assuming it would ever happen, may very well qualify as sympatric speciation, as the new group inhabits exactly the same geographic area, but is reproductively isolated nonetheless.

Ab_Normal · 03-10-2003, 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Duvenoy
Darwin's finches, too are pretty weird -- one of them is a vampire.

For the benefit of everybody else who went, "WTF?" here is a link.

This public service announcement brought to you courtesy of Google.

Duvenoy · 03-10-2003, 04:12 PM

Quote:

A good question. I believe that parapatric speciation requires some involvement of geography. Your example, assuming it would ever happen, may very well qualify as sympatric speciation, as the new group inhabits exactly the same geographic area, but is reproductively isolated nonetheless.

A good question indeed. I think it's possibly happened. Madagascar, that land of enchantment has dinurnal lemurs and other nocturnal primates such as the aye-aye. Exactly when and how these diverged, I don't know. Further, I don't know if there's enough of a fossil record to give us a hint. Probably not.

Interesting thought.

doov

Duvenoy · 03-10-2003, 04:31 PM

Now here's something interesting on evolution in isolation. Two species with a known, common ancester, that have seperate feeding habits, yet both are vegetarian. Their appearence is also wildly diverse.

Where else but the Glapagos?

Quote:

The fact that there is crossbreeding between the two genera of iguanas, Conolophus and "MarineIguana.html", raises interesting questions about the evolutionary relationship between the two. Standard definitions of the term "species" include the presence of a fertility barrier. Some closely related species can hybridize to form viable, fertile offspring, as is the situation among the "DarwinFinch.html". Less closely related species can interbreed, such as horses and donkeys, but their offspring are infertile. It appears that Ctenosaura, the black or spiny-tailed iguana of Central America, is ancestral to both Galapagos iguanas.

http://www.rit.edu/~rhrsbi/Galapagos...or1832961Given a few more million years, I wonder what they'd be like?

doov

Duvenoy · 03-10-2003, 04:35 PM

Quote:

For the benefit of everybody else who went, "WTF?" here is a link.

This public service announcement brought to you courtesy of Google.

Hehehe. Sometimes, I likes to make ya work for it!

doov

CALDONIA · 03-10-2003, 04:38 PM

The early posts to this thread were lighthearted and witty, but I see that the posts have "evolved" into a serious discourse on Darwin's theory of evolution. My high interest in nature and evolution does not make me qualified to really enter that discussion.

However, I just had to add this. A friend of mine, seeing my T-shirt from Evolvefish.com that shows a pictorial circle of the evolution of Man, asked me, "So, howcum we still have apes?" My reply was, "Well, we have dogs, why do we still have cats?" But the question is nonsensical yet it is a central basis of the creationist theme. Funny how the idea of "cousins" seems so strange to such absolutists.

The "missing link" will never be found. Our talent for labeling will prevent us from ever identifying a fossil as being "between" an ape and man.

In a cultural anthropology class year ago, my instructor said that if you placed all live humans in a line based on skin color, light to dark, you would not be able to distinguish any one person from his immediate neighbor. I look at evolution the same way. Over very very long time periods, changes do occur, but their visual impact is minimal.

Doubting Didymus · 03-10-2003, 04:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by CALDONIA
In a cultural anthropology class year ago, my instructor said that if you placed all live humans in a line based on skin color, light to dark, you would not be able to distinguish any one person from his immediate neighbor. I look at evolution the same way. Over very very long time periods, changes do occur, but their visual impact is minimal. [/B]

That is an excellent analogy. I'm going to have to steal it.

TealVeal · 03-10-2003, 05:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Doubting Didymus
A good question. I believe that parapatric speciation requires some involvement of geography. Your example, assuming it would ever happen, may very well qualify as sympatric speciation, as the new group inhabits exactly the same geographic area, but is reproductively isolated nonetheless.

Cool, I think it's happened with the a few of the lemurs in madagasgar.

Edit: Duvenoy took the words from my mouth

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-10-2003, 03:22 PM	#101
nobody New Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Shawnee, Ok Posts: 4	aha...I understand it all soo much better. Thank you. I'm sure I will have many questions to come.

03-10-2003, 03:41 PM	#102
Duvenoy Veteran Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Just another hick from the sticks. Posts: 1,108	We'll be here, no. One thing to bear in mind: We don't really have a 'family tree' as such. Rather, our history is a tangled briar patch of species that sort of tried and failed. Evolution is a messy busines, yet there is a sort of perfection about it. Observe the species alive today. Incredable! And each of these have an ancestory at least as remarkable as our own. Hoping that you enjoy your studies as much as I have mine! And all of mine are strictly out of curosity - I am not an academic. Many of us here are not. doov

03-10-2003, 04:38 PM	#108
CALDONIA Regular Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Sunnyvale,CA Posts: 371	The early posts to this thread were lighthearted and witty, but I see that the posts have "evolved" into a serious discourse on Darwin's theory of evolution. My high interest in nature and evolution does not make me qualified to really enter that discussion. However, I just had to add this. A friend of mine, seeing my T-shirt from Evolvefish.com that shows a pictorial circle of the evolution of Man, asked me, "So, howcum we still have apes?" My reply was, "Well, we have dogs, why do we still have cats?" But the question is nonsensical yet it is a central basis of the creationist theme. Funny how the idea of "cousins" seems so strange to such absolutists. The "missing link" will never be found. Our talent for labeling will prevent us from ever identifying a fossil as being "between" an ape and man. In a cultural anthropology class year ago, my instructor said that if you placed all live humans in a line based on skin color, light to dark, you would not be able to distinguish any one person from his immediate neighbor. I look at evolution the same way. Over very very long time periods, changes do occur, but their visual impact is minimal.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.