The horse is still evolving?

[CurtC]

@Ann_Hedonia

I just wanted to get less simplistic for a minute and point out that even random mutations aren’t really all that random.

…Genes that are tightly packaged without a lot of activity don’t mutate as readily as genes with lots of activity.

I think you’re saying that if some genes get mutated more than others, then that’s not really random.

However, that is random, it’s just not a uniform distribution. There’s no inconsistency saying that mutation is random even if one gene got 99% of the mutations. “Random” refers to the stochastic process that causes it, not to the distribution.

For a simple example, the total number you get from rolling a pair of dice is random, even though you’re six times more likely to get a seven than a twelve.

[Voyager]

@Little_Nemo

This argument is true but it will backfire if used against an evolution denier.

“See? You admit nobody can observe evolution happening naturally. The only time your so-called evolution works is when somebody is doing it. We call that intelligent design. And just as human beings are intelligently designing lesser creatures, God intelligently designed human beings.”

Actually we can in some cases. Rats for lab experiments bred by one company on the East Coast and West Coast have speciated. (I’ve tried to find a link but can’t - I remember this because the company was the one my wife got her rats from when she was a grad student.)
There are other examples. Not horses, though.

[purplehorseshoe]

Oh, I’d dearly love to see the cite. (And site! )

[rsat3acr]

@CurtC

If they say that there were a greatly reduced number of animals needed because the “kinds” branched out to the millions and millions of species we have today, they’ve killed their own argument that evolution can’t happen.

Because if one pair of “bear kind” has evolved into black bears, grizzly bears, polar bears, panda bears, koala bears, etc., in just the last 4000 years, then they’re saying that they believe in a super-charged version of evolution where change happens way way way more quickly than what we observe. Ask them for any evidence that evolution can occur that quickly. At that rate, the ancient Israelites could have been australopithecus afarensis (Lucy)!

Of course you know that pandas and koalas aren’t bears and would have to come from other kinds.

Ultimately reason and facts don’t work with someone whose arguments are not based on reason or facts.

[Mahaloth]

Weird that this is the second time a creationist argument about horses has come up in the past couple months.

[Little_Nemo]

@dracoi

The current thinking goes that much of the change in species happens relatively quickly, perhaps in response to changes in selective pressures, such as climate or competing species.

That raises an interesting point. A change in one species could be the factor that triggers a change in a number of other species in the same environment.

[Mijin]

@CurtC

If they say that there were a greatly reduced number of animals needed because the “kinds” branched out to the millions and millions of species we have today, they’ve killed their own argument that evolution can’t happen.

Because if one pair of “bear kind” has evolved into black bears, grizzly bears, polar bears, panda bears, koala bears, etc., in just the last 4000 years, then they’re saying that they believe in a super-charged version of evolution where change happens way way way more quickly than what we observe. Ask them for any evidence that evolution can occur that quickly. At that rate, the ancient Israelites could have been australopithecus afarensis (Lucy)!

Regardless, this is exactly what the main Creationist sites, like Answers in Genesis (warning: big text in link; people will see what nonsense you’re reading) claim.

The reason this isn’t evolution, to them, is that it involves a reduction in information. Of course they never actually define what “information” is in this context.

[Bozuit]

@rsat3acr

Of course you know that pandas and koalas aren’t bears and would have to come from other kinds.

Giant pandas are bears; they’re in the family Ursidae and everything.

[cmyk]

Ursa Major: Surprisingly, not a bear.

[The_Second_Stone]

Evolution doesn’t require believers in order for it to work. It just does. Neither can the law of gravity be repealed by any democratic vote, or even overturned by stupid justices. Natural laws are different from human laws and human theology that way.

[Little_Nemo]

@cmyk

Ursa Major: Surprisingly, not a bear.

Bear Grylls: Surprisingly, not a bear.

[The_Second_Stone]

Bear Bryant. Unsurprisingly, wasn’t a bear.

[rsat3acr]

@Bozuit

Giant pandas are bears; they’re in the family Ursidae and everything.

my error

[Colibri]

@rsat3acr

my error

For a while they supposedly were giant black-and-white raccoons. Currently they’re back to being bears.

[marshmallow]

Animals are under constant selective pressure to fight disease and parasites. Most of this is under the hood, so to speak, and involves boring immune system stuff. This is true of horses and humans.

Under the proper conditions speciation can happen quickly, especially in animals with short reproductive cycles like insects, fish, and small mammals. Google “observed speciation events” and you’ll get loads.

My favorite example of a sudden dramatic shift is nylon-eating bacteria. Nylon was invented in 1935.

It’s curious that artificial selection is so easily hand waved away by creationists, since this is what helped Darwin realize that outside pressures can have profound effects. The only difference between artificial and natural selection is where the pressure comes from.

[rsat3acr]

@Colibri

For a while they supposedly were giant black-and-white raccoons. Currently they’re back to being bears.

it is what I was thinking

[Colibri]

@rsat3acr

it is what I was thinking

The Red Panda, or Lesser Panda, has similarly been batted around between raccoons and bears before being given its own family,

[Little_Nemo]

@Colibri

The Red Panda, or Lesser Panda, has similarly been batted around between raccoons and bears before being given its own family,

I believe at one conference, the argument was put forth that they were an unusually fuzzy species of squid. But the taxonomist who was making the case had been hitting the open bar.

[crowmanyclouds]

@Broomstick

{…} Until the two varieties of moth diverge enough that they can no longer breed with each other and have fertile offspring they’re still the same species. {…}

Depending on exactly which definition of species you’re using.

There are any number of animal species that can breed with each other and have fertile offspring but don’t, they’re still different species.
(For reasons that range from the profound, geographical isolation (they simply can’t interbreed), to the ridiculous, differences in mating rituals (they just won’t interbreed).)

There are any number of animal species that can breed with each other and have fertile offspring and do, and . . . they’re still different species.
(I think this is more of “our definition species just ain’t that well thought out” than anything else.)

It, the species problem, is still, very much, a work in progress.

CMC fnord!