Do you accept the theory of evolution? - Part 1

[Thundercrack85]

So, Evo, what's your PhD in anyhow?

 

[Doctor Evo]

So, Evo, what's your PhD in anyhow?

I'm a PhD student in zoology. I'll be specializing in population genetics and evolutionary biology with a focus on adaptation and speciation, particularly in the marine environment.

Haven't settled on a project just yet. I have a couple of ideas lined up. Just need to work out the kinks.

 

[Edguy]

Then watch out for them dolphins, man.

 

[Doctor Evo]

Then watch out for them dolphins, man.

They can be a bit rapey.

 

[Edguy]

That's what I've heard.

 

[childeroland]

The word "existing" (or "extant").

There are reptiles that are not part of the group?

 

[Doctor Evo]

There are reptiles that are not part of the group?

Now I'm confused. How, exactly, are you defining "reptiles?" Do the synapsids leading to mammals not count as reptiles? What, or where, is the distinction?

 

[childeroland]

I meant members of the class Reptilia. (Amniotes excluding birds and mammals.)

 

[Doctor Evo]

I meant members of the class Reptilia. (Amniotes excluding birds and mammals.)

Right, but extant members only, or both extant AND extinct members?

 

[childeroland]

I thought it was both. Is that wrong?

 

[Doctor Evo]

I thought it was both. Is that wrong?

Not necessarily. That's why I was asking. Reptiles is a paraphyletic group, meaning it doesn't include the common ancestor and all of its descendants. So it can get rather confusing. So what I'm getting at is this:

Was the common ancestor of sauropsids and synapsids a reptile? If not, then technically, mammals didn't descend from reptiles, but a reptile-like ancestor, from which reptiles were derived in the sauropsid lineage. I thought that it was accepted that mammals did evolve from reptiles, however. Hence my confusion.

If it was a reptile, then were those synapsids leading to mammals not also reptiles? I'm talking about the ones you mentioned before ( eupelycosaurs, eupelycosaurs, Sphenacodontians, therapsids, etc.). In other words, were there synapsid reptiles?

 

[Edguy]

Damn zoological etymology; you crazy!

 

[childeroland]

@Doctor Evo. Oh, I have no idea. I thought the common ancestor was a mammal-like reptile that diverged into the two groups and that except for the caseids (sp?) the synapsids eventually went on to become the "modern" mammal.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Well, at what point does it stop being a reptile, I guess would be the question.

They've been arguing about that with dinosaurs and birds forever.

I don't think there's a definitive answer.

 

[Doctor Evo]

Well, at what point does it stop being a reptile, I guess would be the question.

They've been arguing about that with dinosaurs and birds forever.

I don't think there's a definitive answer.

That's why paraphyly is ********.

 

[Hawkingbird]

American ignorance continues to baffle me..

About the "debate" of reptiles evolving into intelligent life; they did, didn't they? They just evolved away from our definition of reptile..

In all fairness I'm British. And yes, they did. But I don't believe we evolved from them.
Edit: Right okay...so every animal on earth did. I'm wrong.

 

[Hawkingbird]

Aminotes split off into sauropsids (dinosaurs, birds, reptiles), and synapsids, (mammals). From synapsids come eupelycosaurs, from eupelycosaurs come Sphenacodontians, from which come therapsids, and from there you get mammals.

You just blew my mind

 

[Thundercrack85]

I do think it's unfair to say Americans know less about science than other nationalities. American are terrible at geography. Comically so. But their science, is for the most part not exceptionally poor.

Some studies have shown that approximately as many British people reject evolution as Americans. 42% of Canadians believe men and dinosaurs coexisted. Another study found that a third of Russians believe that the Sun revolves around the Earth.

So, Americans aren't exceptionally uneducated when it comes to science. Geography on the other hand...

 

[Edguy]

Some studies have shown that approximately as many British people reject evolution as Americans. 42% of Canadians believe men and dinosaurs coexisted. Another study found that a third of Russians believe that the Sun revolves around the Earth.

I.. I refuse to believe this..

 

[Doctor Evo]

Edit: Right okay...so every animal on earth did.

No.

 

[NateHevens]

Are we really debating we descend from reptiles?

Okay, I guess you have to keep your mind...open....?

a) Huh? Where did you get this from the debate?

We started by arguing whether or not spaceflight is achievable by anything other than humanoid bipeds. Both Doctor Evo and myself say no; as long as the alien is able to grasp and manipulate, being roughly humanoid and bipedal is not necessarily required.

The debate took off from there, questioning whether or not, absent an evolved mammalian line that eventually lead to us, intelligence like ours still would have evolved. I say it could have, assuming it would have been a useful adaption. These intelligent creatures may have possibly been direct descendents of the dinosaurs... maybe... or they may be cephalopods and be direct descendants of ancient cephalopods... or something.

At no point did anyone try to argue that we Homo sapiens sapiens are direct descendants of reptiles. We're descendants of an ancient ape. We're mammals.

b)That said, as others have already noted, go back far enough, and yes, our line stems from another line that stems from another line... that stems from a line of reptiles. Go back far away, and we actually descended from a simplistic, single-celled, self-replicating form of life, likely simple RNA chains. But that's where all life (even plants) are descended from...

Oh... yes... you share a very tiny bit of DNA with all the plants, trees, and so on surrounding your home.

 

[Hmarrs]

Enough said.

 

[Destructus86]

I'm a partial evolutionist. I don't believe we evolved from monkies. But I do believe humanity DID envolve to its enviroments.

 

[Dr.]

Enough said.

A satirical cartoon from the 1870s clarifies everything?

 

[Doctor Evo]

I'm a partial evolutionist. I don't believe we evolved from monkies. But I do believe humanity DID envolve to its enviroments.

Care to elaborate?