RuneScape Forum Archive | Evolution in RuneScape?

Hguoh

Posts: 7,581 Rune Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile

Jaekob Caed said :
In that way, evolution is true: we are able to adapt to our environments over time, but we never change kinds.

If that's true, could you please define what a 'kind' is? I know someone who tried to do that before, a creationist named Carl Linnaeus.

Now, Mr. Linnaeus knew that animals changed over time, and was trying to group animals by characteristics so he could deduce what the original 'kinds' on Noah's arc were. He started by listing characteristics of animal species and grouped them by how many characteristics they shared. What he ended up with was tiers of similarities that stacked together like Russian Matroishka doll with no clear point that he could deduce entirely separate descents to call 'kinds.' Worse yet for Mr. Linnaeus, he found that humans could just as easily fit within his classification system without error right along side the apes. His answer for this? Make an arbitrary subcategory to separate humans from apes purely on the category of human and not human.

Now, taxonomy has advanced quite a bit from when Mr. Linnaeus first developed it. DNA evidence (ex: similarities in genomes) and further study of species (ex: now we know whales and dolphins are mammals, not fish) have resulted in us shuffling around branches of the tree, but humans have stayed firmly next to apes. If anything, DNA sequencing data has only led us to be even closer to certain ape relatives (chimpanzees and bonobos share 99% of our DNA, and we've gained quite a few extinct relatives).

So I'm afraid that unless you can produce a scientifically verifiable definition for 'kind' that definitively separates humans from the nesting hierarchy of traits (or create an entirely new hierarchy that humans don't fit into), you are fairly out of luck on this front.

25-Feb-2018 21:15:19

Hguoh

Posts: 7,581 Rune Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile

Jaekob Caed said :
Sea creatures have always been sea creatures

We literally have fish that can travel on dry land today. We call them mudskippers. We've also had them in the past. The most famous of these being Tiktaalik. Know how we found it? We used our understanding of evolutionary history to determine in which rock layers we'd expect to find aquatic animals first transitioning to land. That's one example of evolution being tested.

Jaekob Caed said :
mammals have always been mammals

Mammaliaformes first appear in strata dated back to the Triassic period. This group was the first example of a jaw that had deciduous baby teeth that were replaced with a set of permanent adult teeth later in life. There is also evidence to believe that members of this group lactated (based on tooth replacement patterns). They also possess evidence in their skeletons of a harderian gland, a gland that helps keep fur clean which indicates the first appearance of mammals' characteristic fur.

And despite often looking like a shrew and being around the same size as one, these were not yet mammals. They still were reproducing by small eggs that hatched larval young (think monotremes) or just birthing larval young (think marsupials) as they possessed epipubic bones that could not stretch to allow them to have carried their young long enough to be more developed.

Proper mammals (mammalia) do not appear in sediment until the late Triassic. They possess all the traits of the earlier mammaliaformes as well as, and this is a mouthful, 'a dentary-squamosal jaw articulation and occlusion between upper and lower molars with a transverse component to the movement.' In other words, this is the first point that molars can be used to grind side to side in addition to the original back and forth.

25-Feb-2018 21:52:22

Hguoh

Posts: 7,581 Rune Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile

Given the difference between when these groups appear and their similarities, it's pretty clear that mammals were not always mammals, and in fact arose from mammaliaformes some time during the Triassic period. We can then proceed backwards from mammaliaformes if you like, though it will take us a bit of time to reach the point when we separated from reptiles.

Jaekob Caed said :
humans have always been simply human .

I've already traced the taxonomic classification of humans. And the funny thing about that classification is that we see the members of those groups diverge from each other in the fossil record in that order based on the age of the strata the fossils were found in. In every case, the characteristics listed do not appear before the groups before them. For example, there's never been a member of Hominidae found before Hominoidae appears in the fossil record. This stacking order of appearance indicates that each group developed from the one prior, diverging from other species of the earlier group.

Jaekob Caed said :
no, I am not an animal and neither are you. We never have been and never will be.

You know, animal has a proper taxonomic definition: eukaryotic multicellular organisms. I'd say you qualify unless you are an AI or an extraterrestrial.

And the thing about evolution is that you never stop being what your ancestors were. We are still primates. We are still placental mammals. We are still synapsids. We are still animals. We are still eukaryotes. We've just tacked on a number of characteristics.

That's kind of why I've been stressing the point about using monophyletic terms as opposed to paraphyletic terms. That's why I can call us primates and be right, while saying we descended from fish would be very wrong (though I would describe some of our very ancestral species as being aesthetically pretty fishy).

25-Feb-2018 21:54:22 - Last edited on 25-Feb-2018 22:06:56 by Hguoh

Hguoh

Posts: 7,581 Rune Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile

Jaekob Caed said :
And no, I'm not trolling. There has never been one bit of proof. Not one test, no observations of the theory, yet people accept it as true simply because "scientists said so". Every single time I ask an evolutionist to provide proof, it always boils back down to the "scientists said so" thing which is just as faith-based as believing in a God we cannot see.

I already pointed out Tiktaalik, but I'll go with another one. Charles Darwin (yes that guy) noticed that the skeletal structures of birds and reptiles were very similar with a few notable differences (ex: lack of teeth and fused fingers). Darwin predicted that there should exist a protobird that had unfused wing fingers.

Low and behold just two years later, Archaeopteryx was descovered. And while the fossil's head was damaged and lacked teeth, the fossil exhibited evidence (that we've since confirmed with later fossils) of being feathered and, while looking otherwise very similar to a bird, had unfused wing fingers. You know, exactly the trait Darwin predicted based on his theory of evolution. It then doesn't help that later fossils of archaeopteryx were found to have teeth (a trait shared by some ancient bird fossils that disappeared over time in the fossil record and no living bird shares).

The theory made a prediction and was right. That's a test.

There was also the observation that when pig fetuses develop, a portion of their jaw bone detaches and becomes the bones of the middle ear. Once the theory of evolution was developed, it was postulated that there'd be a fossil that shared a number of characteristics of both reptiles and mammals (essentially being an early ancestor of mammals) that basically had two jaws: a larger standard one and a smaller one near the ear. We found such fossils with the cynodonts.

How many predictions made based on the theory do you need?

25-Feb-2018 22:23:44

Hguoh

Posts: 7,581 Rune Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile

I'm also curious. You put so much effort behind explaining you don't believe in evolution due to a lack of proof, yet call belief in a god, 'just as faith-based,' while professing to be a creationist (just not young earth). Surely to be intellectually honest you should discard both options if they are, 'just as faith-based,' as each other and you discard one for that reason.

Jaekob Caed said :
And no, I cannot reproduce the experiments myself because you can neither test nor observe evolution because of its theoretical macro scale that would span more than one lifetime. If something cannot be tested or observed, it is simply unscientific.

We can observe it through the fossil record. We can see that life generally gets less complicated the older the sediment you find fossils in (with the earliest fossils being single-cell microfossils). We can see traits appear in certain layers that never existed in older layers and persist into younger layers accumulating in distinct lineages that diverge, most dying out while some persist to diverge again. We have witnessed speciation events in the modern day, where organisms of one original population are separated geographically for an extended period of time and can no longer breed once brought back together (though not for lack of trying). We've managed to breed a species of fly with no wings (can you really call it a fly at that point).

Is it really that hard to understand that the only difference between supposed macro and micro (terms of distinction used only by or when addressing creationists) evolution is the time for differences to accumulate? If so, you better not go on any hikes. A single step is only a few feet, after all, and a hike can be miles. Those tiny changes in distance that a single step makes couldn't possibly add up to a whole mile let alone the miles you'll need for the hike when given enough time.

25-Feb-2018 22:27:32 - Last edited on 25-Feb-2018 23:04:46 by Hguoh

Hguoh

Posts: 7,581 Rune Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile

Because unless you have evidence that tiny changes can't accumulate over time to make bigger changes, macroevolution is an inevitable outcome of microevolution.

PS: While not an expert on the subject by any means, I am a Biological Sciences Major, so I have a pretty decent understanding of evolution.

25-Feb-2018 22:42:19 - Last edited on 25-Feb-2018 22:44:29 by Hguoh

Oct

2005

Wahisietel

Posts: 3,426 Adamant Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile

Bandos created new races by crossbreeding the original inhabitants of Yu'biusk. From that, we can see that it is possible for species to change over time given the correct conditions, as we have seen on Earth from species such as dogs.

If there are monkeys on Teragard, it's likely that most humanoid races are the result of humans travelling through The Schism. Maybe before Seren found them, the Elves were just humans with pointy ears. You never were our brightest star, Khazard. 'Vermin slaughtered like lambs'? What does that even mean?

25-Feb-2018 22:44:07

Hguoh

Posts: 7,581 Rune Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile

Marine Doge said :
Inque said :
Humans and Icyene can reproduce with each other (think Safalaan), and they're two species that are nothing alike aside from a superficial resemblance. It wouldn't be that much of a stretch to assume that humans can also reproduce with other humanoid races.
That's what I was thinking, yea, and it's the most likely scenario, but you never know, right?
It's safe to assume that humans can hybridize with gnomes, dwarves, and elves; we know they can breed with icyene and werewolves. Thoughts on reproducing with sirens, mermaids, and Auspah?

Humans might be able to conceive offspring with Gnomes and Dwarves, but I'd expect certain 'complications' depending on which parent was what. A female human and a male Gnome/Dwarf would likely have little issue having a child. On the other hand, a male human and female Gnome/Dwarf would likely have potentially fatal complications during pregnancy due to the fetus being larger than what the Gnome/Dwarf would typically carry/deliver.

We see similar issues when a female dog is much larger than it's partner, which is why I bring this up.

A female human carrying an Auspah's child (if it's possible) might have issues as well depending on when an Auspah first manifests it's fire abilities.

Mermaids I'm not sure about since their reproductive bits are on the part that is a fish. If possible, a female mermaid carrying a human's child might have an issue when delivering since the child might not necessarily breath water while the mother is water-bound.

Sirens seem to have the best matchup with humans assuming they can breed.

25-Feb-2018 22:53:48

Nov

2013

Inque

Posts: 548 Steel Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile

Thanks for the prehistory lesson, Hguoh! It's one of my favorite subjects and I wasn't expecting to see one in the RuneScape lore forum, haha.

You can't read this signature. It's written in invisible inque.

25-Feb-2018 23:35:33

Hguoh

Posts: 7,581 Rune Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile

Inque said :
Thanks for the prehistory lesson, Hguoh! It's one of my favorite subjects and I wasn't expecting to see one in the RuneScape lore forum, haha.

If I can on the forums, I'd recommend AronRa's ongoing Systemic Classification of Life series on Youtube. He's tracing the evolutionary development of humanity along taxonomic lines all the way from the appearance of single celled life on the planet to modern day. In 23 ~10 minute episodes, he's now gotten to mammaliaformes (with quite a long while to go of course).

25-Feb-2018 23:42:44 - Last edited on 25-Feb-2018 23:47:15 by Hguoh

Forums

Evolution in RuneScape?