Genus vs. Specie

[GrifTheGreat]

That's not how science works. You can't prove a negative - "there are no white ravens" - except under extremely specific and limited circumstances.

Yes, you have raised potential issues, but that's all they are, potential. Acting as if they're definitive is highly premature. Yes, X or Y or Z could have happened, but without actual data supporting those claims, they're just hypotheses, and science is built on the corpses of dead hypotheses.





Similarly, stating that they are, or could be, also proves nothing.

Just because there are two possibilities does not mean those two possibilities are equally likely. Given that your hypothesis would require the acquisition of ornata from a single location (which may or may not even exist anymore, thanks to deforestation), breeding it, concealing the offspring's nature, *and* offspring that look nothing like one of the parents, while the alternative simply requires that the breeder happened upon a rare genetic mutation (which happens all the time), it's much more likely that "samurai" pacs are simply a mutation.

Consider Bigfoot. What's more likely, that an unknown anthropoid evolved in or migrated to the US leaving no fossil record or evidence for several hundred thousand years in spite of massively growing human populations, or that every so often someone in a gorilla suit plays a hoax?

Given Occam's razor, Bayseian priors, and general logic, the simpler explanations should be preferred until clear evidence of alternatives is found.



While the existence of a 2n ornata population seems odd, there are other possibilities, such as that the 2n specimens were mis-identified cranwelli (especially likely if they were tadpoles) or that something went wrong with the karyotyping. Plus, there's the issue of which the type specimen is - if the type specimen is 8n, then the 8n individuals retain the ornata name, and the 2n population gets a new name.

Remember "species" are only real in a vague and temporary sense - it's an artificial box we construct for human convenience. It's more real than any other taxonomic level, yes, but life is considerabl more complex than the ICZN code can cope with, or ever will.



Not actually. A hypothesis is an educated guess, an idea based on current knowledge. A theory is a hypothesis that has been tested, passed, and now has data supporting it.

That's the key, data.

Sorry, poor wording on my part. I should have said that a Theory starts as a hypothesis, but theory isn't always correct even though evidence is produced. Sometimes I think the scientific community goes fishing for proof so much that they will use any means necissary to prove their theory to be right. Kind of like the theory of evolution(which Darwin on his death bed claimed was false). If this were true than why are there no known missing links in fossile evidence? I believe because there isn't a missing link. It just didn't take place as they claim it did. We did not evolve from apes even though we are closely related you do not still see full grown men coming out of the jungle that just evolved. I know they have several fossilized skuls of Neanderthals, but I don't actually think they were men or a missing link, but just another type of ape that had existed. And became extinct.

Big Bang Theory. Cannot truely be tested because amn cannot construct a large enough piece of matter and then blow it up in a are devoid of air/gravity etc and create a universe or galaxy. Just a guess to me.

To completely change your DNA and or complete body structure is pretty far fetched. Especially with Dinsaurs being supposedly closely related to birds or them stating that birds evolved from them. A cold blooded reptile no matter how many years pass will not become a warm blooded bird. It would not happen. (Sorry just venting a little). To me despite the definition of the word "Theory" defined as having proven data from testing to back it up in my opinion is still a guess. Some theories cannot actually be tested like the 2 I've mentioned. You can not simulate the events oramount of time that was supposed to have taken place due to size of what pieces of matter that were involved and creatures that no longer exist.



Sorry if its a little off topic. Just explaining why I said Theory is just a guess. I find this all facinating, but hard to swallow if you know what I mean.not all theories have all substantial evidence to back them, but most do.

[ViperJr]

Sorry, poor wording on my part. I should have said that a Theory starts as a hypothesis, but theory isn't always correct even though evidence is produced. Sometimes I think the scientific community goes fishing for proof so much that they will use any means necissary to prove their theory to be right. Kind of like the theory of evolution(which Darwin on his death bed claimed was false). If this were true than why are there no known missing links in fossile evidence? I believe because there isn't a missing link. It just didn't take place as they claim it did. We did not evolve from apes even though we are closely related you do not still see full grown men coming out of the jungle that just evolved. I know they have several fossilized skuls of Neanderthals, but I don't actually think they were men or a missing link, but just another type of ape that had existed. And became extinct.

Big Bang Theory. Cannot truely be tested because amn cannot construct a large enough piece of matter and then blow it up in a are devoid of air/gravity etc and create a universe or galaxy. Just a guess to me.

To completely change your DNA and or complete body structure is pretty far fetched. Especially with Dinsaurs being supposedly closely related to birds or them stating that birds evolved from them. A cold blooded reptile no matter how many years pass will not become a warm blooded bird. It would not happen. (Sorry just venting a little). To me despite the definition of the word "Theory" defined as having proven data from testing to back it up in my opinion is still a guess. Some theories cannot actually be tested like the 2 I've mentioned. You can not simulate the events oramount of time that was supposed to have taken place due to size of what pieces of matter that were involved and creatures that no longer exist.



Sorry if its a little off topic. Just explaining why I said Theory is just a guess. I find this all facinating, but hard to swallow if you know what I mean.not all theories have all substantial evidence to back them, but most do.

Oh wow...

[SkeletalFrog]

Kind of like the theory of evolution(which Darwin on his death bed claimed was false).

Actually, this is a myth. The person who claimed it did not actually visit Darwin on his deathbed, and never even met him. It's an urban legend like "Cops undercover have to tell you they're a cop if asked".

If this were true than why are there no known missing links in fossile evidence? I believe because there isn't a missing link. It just didn't take place as they claim it did. We did not evolve from apes even though we are closely related you do not still see full grown men coming out of the jungle that just evolved. I know they have several fossilized skuls of Neanderthals, but I don't actually think they were men or a missing link, but just another type of ape that had existed. And became extinct.

We have tons of missing links, showing a complete gradual transition from modern man all the way back to prosimians. Neanderthals were actually the same species as us, just a different subspecies, and if properly groomed could walk by you on the street without you noticing.

Big Bang Theory. Cannot truely be tested because amn cannot construct a large enough piece of matter and then blow it up in a are devoid of air/gravity etc and create a universe or galaxy. Just a guess to me.

You can test things without directly observing them (either because they're in the past, or because they're subatomic, etc). The explosion of the Big Bang can still be observed, albeit now very old and nowhere near as intense, as the comsic microwave background. We can even reconstruct unevenness in the original explosion based on irregularities in the cosmic microwave background.

To completely change your DNA and or complete body structure is pretty far fetched. Especially with Dinosaurs being supposedly closely related to birds or them stating that birds evolved from them. A cold blooded reptile no matter how many years pass will not become a warm blooded bird. It would not happen. (Sorry just venting a little).

Actually, that's easy. We can actually cause a Xenopus tadpole to show the gut morphology or a Budgets tadpole and vice versa, just by selectively inhibiting or enhancing certain genes. And this isn't unusual, it's the norm.

Think of it like building a house. My apartment and Bill Gates' home are very similar - made of wood, metal, glass, plastic, paint, etc. The difference isn't so much the components, but how they're arranged and in what quantities. Look into Evo-Devo (evolutionary developmental biology), it's got some amazing new advances in the evolution of gross morphological traits.

Endothermy is actually pretty easy, just a few tweaks to the mitochondria. You can turn scales into feathers with just a few shifts in gene expression patterns.

To me despite the definition of the word "Theory" defined as having proven data from testing to back it up in my opinion is still a guess. Some theories cannot actually be tested like the 2 I've mentioned. You can not simulate the events oramount of time that was supposed to have taken place due to size of what pieces of matter that were involved and creatures that no longer exist.

Testing evolution is part of my thesis. It's surprisingly easy. In fact, the biggest difficulty in many biological systems is trying to get the system *not* to evolve while you're in the middle of studying it.

[pyxieBob]

evolution is a proven fact every DAY. Darwin never said something so incredibly stupid .


---
I am here: http://tapatalk.com/map.php?ashhrf

[GrifTheGreat]

Actually, this is a myth. The person who claimed it did not actually visit Darwin on his deathbed, and never even met him. It's an urban legend like "Cops undercover have to tell you they're a cop if asked".



We have tons of missing links, showing a complete gradual transition from modern man all the way back to prosimians. Neanderthals were actually the same species as us, just a different subspecies, and if properly groomed could walk by you on the street without you noticing.



You can test things without directly observing them (either because they're in the past, or because they're subatomic, etc). The explosion of the Big Bang can still be observed, albeit now very old and nowhere near as intense, as the comsic microwave background. We can even reconstruct unevenness in the original explosion based on irregularities in the cosmic microwave background.



Actually, that's easy. We can actually cause a Xenopus tadpole to show the gut morphology or a Budgets tadpole and vice versa, just by selectively inhibiting or enhancing certain genes. And this isn't unusual, it's the norm.

Think of it like building a house. My apartment and Bill Gates' home are very similar - made of wood, metal, glass, plastic, paint, etc. The difference isn't so much the components, but how they're arranged and in what quantities. Look into Evo-Devo (evolutionary developmental biology), it's got some amazing new advances in the evolution of gross morphological traits.

Endothermy is actually pretty easy, just a few tweaks to the mitochondria. You can turn scales into feathers with just a few shifts in gene expression patterns.



Testing evolution is part of my thesis. It's surprisingly easy. In fact, the biggest difficulty in many biological systems is trying to get the system *not* to evolve while you're in the middle of studying it.

Hmmm very good points. I still don't believe all is as they say.

You're right about the myth. Just learned this. There is still so much more that I think that we will never fully understand. And to change parts of DNA ourselves causing a change isn't nature doing it by itself. Scales and feathers being made up of the same material doesn't really exlpain the change in structure by means of us changing so.ething causeing mutation not evolution. In that case how come there is no. Fossile evidence of the much larger dinosaurs having feathers and why they were not covered with them instead of a headress like the Utah Raptor. Some with and some without.

If we alter the DNA to cause a change its unatural so therfore I see it as we are causing a mutation rather than an actual evolutionary change. The only true evolution I believe is adaptation which doent usually involve a change in biological makeup or anatomy. Just the abilituy to cope and thrive in less than ideal conditions or worse.

I see now what you're saying though. I still think the Big Bang Theory is a bunch of nonsence.

[ViperJr]

Hmmm very good points. I still don't believe all is as they say.

You're right about the myth. Just learned this. There is still so much more that I think that we will never fully understand. And to change parts of DNA ourselves causing a change isn't nature doing it by itself. Scales and feathers being made up of the same material doesn't really exlpain the change in structure by means of us changing so.ething causeing mutation not evolution. In that case how come there is no. Fossile evidence of the much larger dinosaurs having feathers and why they were not covered with them instead of a headress like the Utah Raptor. Some with and some without.

If we alter the DNA to cause a change its unatural so therfore I see it as we are causing a mutation rather than an actual evolutionary change. The only true evolution I believe is adaptation which doent usually involve a change in biological makeup or anatomy. Just the abilituy to cope and thrive in less than ideal conditions or worse.

I see now what you're saying though. I still think the Big Bang Theory is a bunch of nonsence.

Seriously? It really isn't matter of what you (or me, or anyone else) beleive or not, it's a matter of what is possible and isn't. You just agreed that life can evolved, and then said that it "just don't" (for some mysterious reason).

All in all, there isn't much to discuss in this particular matter (which is pretty OT already). Everything that needs to be said have been said by Skeletalfrog already, and he have every scientific evidence there is to support it.

Also, I won't write anymore after this single post, I just couldn't hold back. Supprised to see some of the statements here in a forum like this, for some reason I thought people in this hobby was past that.

[GrifTheGreat]

Seriously? It really isn't matter of what you (or me, or anyone else) beleive or not, it's a matter of what is possible and isn't. You just agreed that life can evolved, and then said that it "just don't" (for some mysterious reason).

All in all, there isn't much to discuss in this particular matter (which is pretty OT already). Everything that needs to be said have been said by Skeletalfrog already, and he have every scientific evidence there is to support it.

Also, I won't write anymore after this single post, I just couldn't hold back. Supprised to see some of the statements here in a forum like this, for some reason I thought people in this hobby was past that.

Nevermind. I'm not pushing anything and I'm pretty open to any discussion and or opinion out there. Skeletal has evidence and has stated that without the need for you to interject on anything I've said. Skeletal is by far more intelligent than I and I will not debate that. I feel that evolution while documented and many studies have been done on isn't by any means fully defined. I don't think all creatufes came from a single cell that merged with another or that just all of a sudden one cell just for unknown reasons desided to replicate until jellyfish or actual fish were made.

Nowhere am I trying to argue or anything. Your opinion is welcome as well Martin which I'm surprised that you haven't started earlier like you usually do. If you want to jump in just to bash me and try and make a fool of me by all mean go ahead, but in truth it won't be me that is foolish.

Anyway I am not completely saying that it isn't possible I just haven't seen the evidence with my own 2 eyes. Seeing is believing.

[SkeletalFrog]

And to change parts of DNA ourselves causing a change isn't nature doing it by itself. Scales and feathers being made up of the same material doesn't really exlpain the change in structure by means of us changing so.ething causeing mutation not evolution.

Why would it be different? It doesn't matter if an albino appears via natural breeding or is created via genetic engineering, it's still an albino, and still has the albino allele. Indeed, if anything, Nature is superior to us at creating mutations, as our methods are regrettably rather crude still, and does so with great regularity. Indeed, statistically, every one of us has 10 *new* mutations, not present in either parent, that affect protein coding (and hundreds that are "silent").

In that case how come there is no. Fossile evidence of the much larger dinosaurs having feathers and why they were not covered with them instead of a headress like the Utah Raptor. Some with and some without.

The "feather headress" is Hollywood and art, not science - we have evidence of full, bird-style wing feathers on the arms of Velociraptor and other species, and current evidence suggests that they were fully feathered.

As for the larger ones, there are multiple issues. First and foremost is preservation - feathers preserve very rarely, and there's only a few deposits in the world of high enough quality to retain evidence of them. It's not that other things didn't have feathers, just that the coarse sediment prevented fine details from being preserved. Aside from that, there's the issue of size - feathers may provide valuable insulation for a small animal, but cause a large one to overheat, so large dinosaurs may have lost them, much like why elephants and rhinos are mostly bald. Finally, there's relationships - only one group of dinosaurs, the maniraptorans (including raptors, T. rex, and therizinosaurs), had what we could recognize as feathers. Others, including other predatory dinosaurs like Allosaurus and Spinosaurus, diverged before feathers evolved.

If we alter the DNA to cause a change its unatural so therfore I see it as we are causing a mutation rather than an actual evolutionary change. The only true evolution I believe is adaptation which doent usually involve a change in biological makeup or anatomy. Just the abilituy to cope and thrive in less than ideal conditions or worse.

Actually, adaptation is most often a change in anatomy or biochemistry. Look at the diversity in frog shapes - hoppers, walkers, jumpers, burrowers, swimmers, all with bodies adapted to their mode of locomotion. And no piddly stuff - doubling or halving of leg muscle mass, significant differences in muscle properties, springy tendons.


An excellent primer for this is actually the product of an old newsgroup, talk.origins. Their overall FAQ is here: Frequently Asked Questions About Creationism and Evolution" with links to other FAQs about particular issues (including some you're raised). This other one here Introduction to Evolutionary Biology is a good introduction to evolution, its mechanics, common misconceptions, modern data, etc.

I will warn you that it's a bit dry and tends towards the "wall of text" style of presentation, but it's extremely useful, and should answer most of your questions quite thoroughly.

[GrifTheGreat]

Why would it be different? It doesn't matter if an albino appears via natural breeding or is created via genetic engineering, it's still an albino, and still has the albino allele. Indeed, if anything, Nature is superior to us at creating mutations, as our methods are regrettably rather crude still, and does so with great regularity. Indeed, statistically, every one of us has 10 *new* mutations, not present in either parent, that affect protein coding (and hundreds that are "silent").



The "feather headress" is Hollywood and art, not science - we have evidence of full, bird-style wing feathers on the arms of Velociraptor and other species, and current evidence suggests that they were fully feathered.

As for the larger ones, there are multiple issues. First and foremost is preservation - feathers preserve very rarely, and there's only a few deposits in the world of high enough quality to retain evidence of them. It's not that other things didn't have feathers, just that the coarse sediment prevented fine details from being preserved. Aside from that, there's the issue of size - feathers may provide valuable insulation for a small animal, but cause a large one to overheat, so large dinosaurs may have lost them, much like why elephants and rhinos are mostly bald. Finally, there's relationships - only one group of dinosaurs, the maniraptorans (including raptors, T. rex, and therizinosaurs), had what we could recognize as feathers. Others, including other predatory dinosaurs like Allosaurus and Spinosaurus, diverged before feathers evolved.



Actually, adaptation is most often a change in anatomy or biochemistry. Look at the diversity in frog shapes - hoppers, walkers, jumpers, burrowers, swimmers, all with bodies adapted to their mode of locomotion. And no piddly stuff - doubling or halving of leg muscle mass, significant differences in muscle properties, springy tendons.


An excellent primer for this is actually the product of an old newsgroup, talk.origins. Their overall FAQ is here: Frequently Asked Questions About Creationism and Evolution" with links to other FAQs about particular issues (including some you're raised). This other one here Introduction to Evolutionary Biology is a good introduction to evolution, its mechanics, common misconceptions, modern data, etc.

I will warn you that it's a bit dry and tends towards the "wall of text" style of presentation, but it's extremely useful, and should answer most of your questions quite thoroughly.

Ill give it a look. I'm not completely closed on the idea. I've always wandered if there we're more to what they claim. Like you said about the holly wood bull. I wasn't referring to that ****. I usually watch documentories on dinosaurs and other such prehistoric creatures and I have yet to see one that said that their were large Raptors covered entirely with feathers. Just the headress and yes some on their arms, but not the whole body. The closest to this that I know of is the Archeoptorix or however you spell its name, but it was small. Chicken sized right?

Maybe I need to look over some more documents on Evolution. I can honestly say that my knowledge on this subject has been greatly decreased from not keeping up with it over the years. Used to read a lot about it Dinos, but a lot of archeologists opinions differ and so its hard to say who is right and who is wrong. You've got my attension though.

[GrifTheGreat]

Ok this makes more sence now. Thanks for the link Skeletal. This is different from the Evolution I'm used to. It actually states that ist a change in the gene pool rather than just apearing out of nowhere. It basically states that there already has to bemore than just one of a creature to cause an evolutionary event to take place within that group of creatures braught on by some sort of event. Like with the moths landing on the soot covered Berch trees and thus not being eaten by birds because of camoflage and yet the bright colored ones are eaten so more dark colored moth were allowed to breed. Natural selection being a main part of that evolutionary event. Also with the ones with tails that are bright, but mimic a poisonous moth and the dark without tails being able to hide and yet they are from the same type of moth. It isn't that dry of a read. I've read worse believe me.

[SkeletalFrog]

Ill give it a look. I'm not completely closed on the idea. I've always wandered if there we're more to what they claim. Like you said about the holly wood bull. I wasn't referring to that ****. I usually watch documentories on dinosaurs and other such prehistoric creatures and I have yet to see one that said that their were large Raptors covered entirely with feathers. Just the headress and yes some on their arms, but not the whole body. The closest to this that I know of is the Archeoptorix or however you spell its name, but it was small. Chicken sized right?

Sadly, many of those documentaries are every bit as bad as Hollywood. Multiple times, the two paleontologists in our department have ranted at great length throughout lunch about wild inaccuracies presented as fact even on "respectable" TV documentary channels like Discovery. I even know of one person who threatened to sue them after they edited his words to make it sound like he was saying the exact opposite of the actual data (the channel backed down).

Ok this makes more sence now. Thanks for the link Skeletal. This is different from the Evolution I'm used to. It actually states that ist a change in the gene pool rather than just apearing out of nowhere. It basically states that there already has to bemore than just one of a creature to cause an evolutionary event to take place within that group of creatures braught on by some sort of event. Like with the moths landing on the soot covered Berch trees and thus not being eaten by birds because of camoflage and yet the bright colored ones are eaten so more dark colored moth were allowed to breed. Natural selection being a main part of that evolutionary event. Also with the ones with tails that are bright, but mimic a poisonous moth and the dark without tails being able to hide and yet they are from the same type of moth. It isn't that dry of a read. I've read worse believe me.

Glad to help! Let me know if you have any questions!

[cali]

Ummm.

I think my cat is flirting with my dog. I'll post pics of the kippies later....

[GrifTheGreat]

Ummm.

I think my cat is flirting with my dog. I'll post pics of the kippies later....

I don't know Cali, that might be pushing it a little. Bit Lol!

[SkeletalFrog]

Talk about good timing:

Giant feathered dinosaur found in China was too big to fly | Science | The Guardian

Basically, we now have a fossil of a ~30 foot primitive tyrannosaur that was covered in feathers from head to toe.

[GrifTheGreat]

Talk about good timing:

Giant feathered dinosaur found in China was too big to fly | Science | The Guardian

Basically, we now have a fossil of a ~30 foot primitive tyrannosaur that was covered in feathers from head to toe.

Wow that is good timing. There is no way this could be a coincidence

[cali]

I saw that, haven't had a chance to read anything about it yet, but I instantly wondered if it was archaeopteryx's great, great grandaddy.

[GrifTheGreat]

I saw that, haven't had a chance to read anything about it yet, but I instantly wondered if it was archaeopteryx's great, great grandaddy.

I read the article. Its. 9 Meters long. And looks like T-Rex. Pretty interesting.

[pyxieBob]

are they sure it's not just a really big parakeet?


---
I am here: http://tapatalk.com/map.php?gevqon

[GrifTheGreat]

are they sure it's not just a really big parakeet?


---
I am here: http://tapatalk.com/map.php?gevqon

No, but it might be and Ostritch on Steroids.

[Namio]

Technically, it's always "species", both singular and plural, like "sheep" or "moose".

Also, the definition of "species" doesn't necessarily hinge on total incompatability. Generally speaking, species do not interbreed, but there are numerous exceptions, including species which do interbreed to form "hybrid zones" in certain areas. If they are isolated, this can be through numerous mechanisms, including incompatibilities that don't show up in captivity, such as slightly different breeding seasons, as well as infertile hybrids or even just hybrids that aren't as capable of survival in the wild as the parents.

An extreme example is actually a side-project I have with one of more genetics-oriented evolution faculty here, involving cross-genus hybrids (Lampropeltis getula californiae X Elaphe obsoleta obsoleta) which not only do just fine in captivity, but are fertile as well. The two lineages have been separated for ~18 million years, yet still form fertile hybrids.

Just because two species are capable of interbreeding does not make them the same species. Reproduction compatibility or capability are not the only deciding factors in terms of species definition. There are 500 species of cichlid fishes living in the (same) African Great Lake, all of which are capable of producing viable offspring and yet they don't do it in nature. In coastal northern California (where I live), we have northern red-legged frog (Rana aurora) and California red-legged frog (Rana aurora) who were once considered as one single species but two subspecies until 2004 when Shaffer et al. did a phylogenetic study to show that they are in fact of separate lineages, despite in the overlap zone in Medocino County where the two species meet they do hybridize.

There are many definitions of "species" in the science world and most scientists cannot agree upon on one. That is because evolution is a continuous and dynamic process. What we call a "species" is quite arbitrary.