Why do YE Creationists insist on a simplistic literal reading of the bible?

Split Rock · Oct 14, 2013

frogman2x said:
Yes

If you can prove it, I will have to accept it. You also must prove that speciation is capable of a spcies becoming a different one and the reason they can no longer mate.

No problem. This list was originally compiled by Lucaspa

Speciation in Insects
1. G Kilias, SN Alahiotis, and M Pelecanos. A multifactorial genetic investigation of speciation theory using drosophila melanogaster Evolution 34:730-737, 1980. Got new species of fruit flies in the lab after 5 years on different diets and temperatures. Also confirmation of natural selection in the process. Lots of references to other studies that saw speciation.
2. JM Thoday, Disruptive selection. Proc. Royal Soc. London B. 182: 109-143, 1972.
Lots of references in this one to other speciation.
3. KF Koopman, Natural selection for reproductive isolation between Drosophila pseudobscura and Drosophila persimilis. Evolution 4: 135-148, 1950. Using artificial mixed poulations of D. pseudoobscura and D. persimilis, it has been possible to show,over a period of several generations, a very rapid increase in the amount of reproductive isolation between the species as a result of natural selection.
4. LE Hurd and RM Eisenberg, Divergent selection for geotactic response and evolution of reproductive isolation in sympatric and allopatric populations of houseflies. American Naturalist 109: 353-358, 1975.
5. Coyne, Jerry A. Orr, H. Allen. Patterns of speciation in Drosophila. Evolution. V43. P362(20) March, 1989.
6. Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky, 1957 An incipient species of Drosophila, Nature 23: 289- 292.
7. Ahearn, J. N. 1980. Evolution of behavioral reproductive isolation in a laboratory stock of Drosophila silvestris. Experientia. 36:63-64.
8. 10. Breeuwer, J. A. J. and J. H. Werren. 1990. Microorganisms associated with chromosome destruction and reproductive isolation between two insect species. Nature. 346:558-560.
9. Powell, J. R. 1978. The founder-flush speciation theory: an experimental approach. Evolution. 32:465-474.
10. Dodd, D. M. B. and J. R. Powell. 1985. Founder-flush speciation: an update of experimental results with Drosophila. Evolution 39:1388-1392. 37. Dobzhansky, T. 1951. Genetics and the origin of species (3rd edition). Columbia University Press, New York.
11. Dobzhansky, T. and O. Pavlovsky. 1971. Experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila. Nature. 230:289-292.
12. Dobzhansky, T. 1972. Species of Drosophila: new excitement in an old field. Science. 177:664-669.
13. Dodd, D. M. B. 1989. Reproductive isolation as a consequence of adaptive divergence in Drosophila melanogaster. Evolution 43:1308-1311.
14. de Oliveira, A. K. and A. R. Cordeiro. 1980. Adaptation of Drosophila willistoni experimental populations to extreme pH medium. II. Development of incipient reproductive isolation. Heredity. 44:123-130.15. 29. Rice, W. R. and G. W. Salt. 1988. Speciation via disruptive selection on habitat preference: experimental evidence. The American Naturalist. 131:911-917.
30. Rice, W. R. and G. W. Salt. 1990. The evolution of reproductive isolation as a correlated character under sympatric conditions: experimental evidence. Evolution. 44:1140-1152.
31. del Solar, E. 1966. Sexual isolation caused by selection for positive and negative phototaxis and geotaxis in Drosophila pseudoobscura. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (US). 56:484-487.
32. Weinberg, J. R., V. R. Starczak and P. Jora. 1992. Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory. Evolution. 46:1214-1220.
33. V Morell, Earth's unbounded beetlemania explained. Science 281:501-503, July 24, 1998. Evolution explains the 330,000 odd beetlespecies. Exploitation of newly evolved flowering plants.
34. B Wuethrich, Speciation: Mexican pairs show geography's role. Science 285: 1190, Aug. 20, 1999. Discusses allopatric speciation. Debate with ecological speciation on which is most prevalent.

Speciation in Plants
1. Speciation in action Science 72:700-701, 1996 A great laboratory study of the evolution of a hybrid plant species. Scientists did it in the lab, but the genetic data says it happened the same way in nature.
2. Hybrid speciation in peonies Speciation through homoploid hybridization between allotetraploids in peonies (Paeonia)
3. Scruffy little weed shows Darwin was right as evolution moves on new species of groundsel by hybridization
4. Butters, F. K. 1941. Hybrid Woodsias in Minnesota. Amer. Fern. J. 31:15-21.
5. Butters, F. K. and R. M. Tryon, jr. 1948. A fertile mutant of a Woodsia hybrid. American Journal of Botany. 35:138.
6. Toxic Tailings and Tolerant Grass by RE Cook in Natural History, 90(3): 28-38, 1981 discusses selection pressure of grasses growing on mine tailings that are rich in toxic heavy metals. "When wind borne pollen carrying nontolerant genes crosses the border [between prairie and tailings] and fertilizes the gametes of tolerant females, the resultant offspring show a range of tolerances. The movement of genes from the pasture to the mine would, therefore, tend to dilute the tolerance level of seedlings. Only fully tolerant individuals survive to reproduce, however. This selective mortality, which eliminates variants, counteracts the dilution and molds a toatally tolerant population. The pasture and mine populations evolve distinctive adaptations because selective factors are dominant over the homogenizing influence of foreign genes."
7. Clausen, J., D. D. Keck and W. M. Hiesey. 1945. Experimental studies on the nature of species. II. Plant evolution through amphiploidy and autoploidy, with examples from the Madiinae. Carnegie Institute Washington Publication, 564:1-174.
8. Cronquist, A. 1988. The evolution and classification of flowering plants (2nd edition). The New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, NY.
9. P. H. Raven, R. F. Evert, S. E. Eichorn, Biology of Plants (Worth, New York,ed. 6, 1999).
10. M. Ownbey, Am. J. Bot. 37, 487 (1950).
11. M. Ownbey and G. D. McCollum, Am. J. Bot. 40, 788 (1953).
12. S. J. Novak, D. E. Soltis, P. S. Soltis, Am. J. Bot. 78, 1586 (1991).
13. P. S. Soltis, G. M. Plunkett, S. J. Novak, D. E. Soltis, Am. J. Bot. 82,1329 (1995).
14. Digby, L. 1912. The cytology of Primula kewensis and of other related Primula hybrids. Ann. Bot. 26:357-388.
15. Owenby, M. 1950. Natural hybridization and amphiploidy in the genus Tragopogon. Am. J. Bot. 37:487-499.
16. Pasterniani, E. 1969. Selection for reproductive isolation between two populations of maize, Zea mays L. Evolution. 23:534-547.

Speciation in microorganisms
1. Canine parovirus, a lethal disease of dogs, evolved from feline parovirus in the 1970s.
2. Budd, A. F. and B. D. Mishler. 1990. Species and evolution in clonal organisms -- a summary and discussion. Systematic Botany 15:166-171.
3. Bullini, L. and G. Nascetti. 1990. Speciation by hybridization in phasmids and other insects. Canadian Journal of Zoology. 68:1747-1760.
4. Boraas, M. E. 1983. Predator induced evolution in chemostat culture. EOS. Transactions of the American Geophysical Union. 64:1102.
5. Brock, T. D. and M. T. Madigan. 1988. Biology of Microorganisms (5th edition). Prentice Hall, Englewood, NJ.
6. Castenholz, R. W. 1992. Species usage, concept, and evolution in the cyanobacteria (blue-green algae). Journal of Phycology 28:737-745.
7. Boraas, M. E. The speciation of algal clusters by flagellate predation. EOS. Transactions of the American Geophysical Union. 64:1102.
8. Castenholz, R. W. 1992. Speciation, usage, concept, and evolution in the cyanobacteria (blue-green algae). Journal of Phycology 28:737-745.
9. Shikano, S., L. S. Luckinbill and Y. Kurihara. 1990. Changes of traits in a bacterial population associated with protozoal predation. Microbial Ecology. 20:75-84.

New Genus
1. Muntzig, A, Triticale Results and Problems, Parey, Berlin, 1979. Describes whole new *genus* of plants, Triticosecale, of several species, formed by artificial selection. These plants are important in agriculture.

Invertebrate not insect
1. ME Heliberg, DP Balch, K Roy, Climate-driven range expansion and morphological evolution in a marine gastropod. Science 292: 1707-1710, June1, 2001. Documents mrorphological change due to disruptive selection over time. Northerna and southern populations of A spirata off California from Pleistocene to present.
2. Weinberg, J. R., V. R. Starczak and P. Jora. 1992. Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event with a polychaete worm. . Evolution. 46:1214-1220.

Vertebrate Speciation
1. N Barton Ecology: the rapid origin of reproductive isolation Science 290:462-463, Oct. 20, 2000. Science Magazine: Sign In Natural selection of reproductive isolation observed in two cases. Full papers are: AP Hendry, JK Wenburg, P Bentzen, EC Volk, TP Quinn, Rapid evolution of reproductive isolation in the wild: evidence from introduced salmon. Science 290: 516-519, Oct. 20, 2000. and M Higgie, S Chenoweth, MWBlows, Natural selection and the reinforcement of mate recognition. Science290: 519-521, Oct. 20, 2000
2. G Vogel, African elephant species splits in two. Science 293: 1414, Aug. 24, 2001. www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/293/5534/1414
3. C Vila` , P Savolainen, JE. Maldonado, IR. Amorim, JE. Rice, RL. Honeycutt, KA. Crandall, JLundeberg, RK. Wayne, Multiple and Ancient Origins of the Domestic Dog Science 276: 1687-1689, 13 JUNE 1997. Dogs no longer one species but 4 according to the genetics. http://www.idir.net/~wolf2dog/wayne1.htm
4. Barrowclough, George F.. Speciation and Geographic Variation in Black-tailed Gnatcatchers. (book reviews) The Condor. V94. P555(2) May, 1992
5. Kluger, Jeffrey. Go fish. Rapid fish speciation in African lakes. Discover. V13. P18(1) March, 1992.
Formation of five new species of cichlid fishes which formed since they were isolated from the parent stock, Lake Nagubago. (These fish have complex mating rituals and different coloration.) See also Mayr, E., 1970. _Populations, Species, and Evolution_, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press. p. 348
6. Genus _Rattus_ currently consists of 137 species [1,2] and is known to have
originally developed in Indonesia and Malaysia during and prior to the Middle
Ages[3].
[1] T. Yosida. Cytogenetics of the Black Rat. University Park Press, Baltimore, 1980.
[2] D. Morris. The Mammals. Hodder and Stoughton, London, 1965.
[3] G. H. H. Tate. "Some Muridae of the Indo-Australian region," Bull. Amer. Museum Nat. Hist. 72: 501-728, 1963.
7. Stanley, S., 1979. _Macroevolution: Pattern and Process_, San Francisco,
W.H. Freeman and Company. p. 41
Rapid speciation of the Faeroe Island house mouse, which occurred in less than 250 years after man brought the creature to the island.

JWGU · Oct 14, 2013

frogman2x said:
They can't mate becasue they are not the same "kind."

This is affirming the consequent and is totally meaningless. Chihuahuas and Great Danes cannot mate but you do not think they are not the same kind, so there must be some other criterion.

A few years back, they tried teo transplant a baboon heart into a human. He laste a few days but eventgually died. Even the parts of unlike kinds will not not work,

I'm sorry, what? That's nonsense. I'm not saying your story is nonsense, but the idea that that means that chimpanzees and humans can't mate is nonsense. Humans will frequently reject human hearts. In any case, I doubt you could transfer the heart of a Chihuahua to a Great Dane and have it survive.

Exactly

Exactly, what? Exactly, there is more to being a kind than not being able to mate? Then tell us why humans and chimps can't mate; otherwise we have absolutely no criteria so you can keep making up excuses why a particular species is not a kind.

It is not about speciation, it is about who can mate and who canot.

No. You are the one talking about kinds, so you have to define them. If you don't define them, I refuse to have a discussion, since you have always maintained that you can easily define kinds and then challenged us to prove it for you. Every time we do, you come up with another (terrible) excuse for why this or that is not really a kind, because you refuse to actually follow your own definition. It's starting to get a little dull, to be honest. So give us a definition, or stop pretending you want to have a real discussion.

Why don't you tell me how speciation is a mechanism for evolution.

Speciation isn't a mechanism for evolution. It's a product of evolution.

P.S. Having read up a bit on the subject, it does not seem to me that scientists have ruled out the possibility of "Humanzees..."

lasthero · Oct 14, 2013

P.S. Having read up a bit on the subject, it does not seem to me that scientists have ruled out the possibility of "Humanzees..."

I seem to recall there was some debate on the subject. The ethics of creating such a thing, though...

JWGU · Oct 14, 2013

lasthero said:
I seem to recall there was some debate on the subject. The ethics of creating such a thing, though...

I think it would be profoundly unethical. But genetically it does not seem like it is necessarily impossible, since hybrids with similar genetic distance exist and human sperm will apparently penetrate a gibbon ovum. This is why I, personally, am awaiting with great interest frogman's definition of kind that excludes humans and chimps from being the same kind, but not Great Danes and Chihuahuas; I suspect it will be one that makes kind-to-kind transitions very easy to demonstrate.

jpcedotal · Oct 14, 2013

Simplicity is the beginning of real truth from a real God.

Oncedeceived · Oct 14, 2013

AV1611VET said:
When you realize that IDIOT anagrams to I DO IT.

I just had to laugh and laugh. Poor soul.

AV1611VET · Oct 14, 2013

Oncedeceived said:
I just had to laugh and laugh. Poor soul.

Thank you!

Oncedeceived · Oct 14, 2013

AV1611VET said:
Thank you!

frogman2x · Oct 14, 2013

OllieFranz said:
A Great Dane and a chihuahua can probably not mate physically, but presumably if you went the in vitro route (mixing egg and sperm in a dish), you could possibly get a viable zygote. Certainly, you could mate a Dane with a St Bernard, and a chihuahua with a toy poodle, and in four or five generations wind up with a dog with both Dane and chihuahua genes. It would be a mongrel, and would look like mongrels from other parentages.

Right but there is no evolution.

Natural selection is not as exclusive as human selection/breeding, and so, as long as the population is both fully connected (no isolated pockets in a hidden valley or on separate islands, etc) and relatively compact (so any two given individuals have at least a chance of finding one another and mating no matter where in the population they come from) any new variation can spread through the entire population and so that, absent an environmental pressure selecting for it, it won't overwhelm the older variations. The population is all mongrelized, and any concentration of one trait over the other variations that does develop only lasts a generation or two.

Right. So natural selection is not a mechanism for evolution.

However, if the population is growing, and spreading out into new territory, there will different environmental pressures in different aread. Traits selected to meet those pressures will persist. Heavier coats will be more prevalent in colder climates, streamlined bodies and more paddle-like limbs in wetlands, etc. And the larger territory will mean it will be harder for individuals at the extreme ends to meet to interbreed. You get a natural equivalent of breeds within the species. If there is a natural barrier, a mountain, a lake, a canyon, etc, spreading out on either side of the barrier is equivalent to spreading out in opposite directions, because it can be just as unlikely that an individual from the northernmost herd to the east of the barrier to find and mate with an individual from the northernmost herd on the western side. (This assumes that the original population came from south of the barrier and is spreading northward. Adjust the directions accordingly for other starting points).

I agree if natural selection is a valid theory, it might make the species not become extinct, but it will never cause an A to become a B.

When the two branches of the population finally clear the northern end of the barrier, and meet again, they might look and act completely differently, the equivalent of a Great Dane vs a chihuahua. They may remain separate herds becuase the can no longer interbreed. In some cases, it may be a physical incompatability, like size, but in other cases it could be biochemical due to the mutations and new traits developed during the separation. It can even be a genetic incompatability.

Ok but stgill no mechanism for evolution.

We wind up with a Ring Species. Every herd can fully breed with the herd immediately to its south, and theoretically, it should even be possible to mongrelize descendents of the two extreme herd given enough generations heading south until the offspring are compatable again. It is still possible to argue that it is still one species, one kind.

Or a sub species and thatg is what some in Caliornia(I think) clasified them as.

But suppose, something happens on the eastern branch to change the environment, wiping out a group of herds, and the last surviving herds at the edges of this new barrier already cannot interbreed, or can only interbreed with difficulty. The herds north of this new barrier are cut off from the rest of the ring species, and will only deviate even further from however the main group develops. Fom that point on, it is, effectively, a different species. Is it also a new kind?

Not the way I see it. They are still lizards and sdome research detemined they could still breed in a limited way.

What I have described, is what happened to the bird called the Greenis Warbler. The new environmental barrier cutting off the Northeastern herds from the main group is the urbanization of Siberia, and it happened in the last fifty years. We have witnessed speciation in our lifetime.<<

I am not saying speciation does not happen. I as sying it is not a mechanism for evolution. The warblers remained warblers and the reason they could not contiue mating is still a mystery.

That question of whether the norteastern branch of the Greenis Warbler is a new kind is essentially the same question as my standing question about panthers. And if you decide that panthers are all one kind, what about those leopards that are not panthers? What about other large cats? At what point do we say we can't make the connection?

Or if the tigers are a separate kind from the lions, what about Bengal tigers vs Siberian tigers? They are separate species, after all.

I dont really know. IMO, if they can mate, they are the same species; if not , they are different. It would surprise me if bengal tigers could not mate with siberian tigers.

OllieFranz · Oct 14, 2013

First, if your references to "California" and "lizards" relate to the example I think they do, they are salamanders, not lizards.

Second, we do know why the northeastern flocks of the Greenish Warbler cannot mate with the northwestern flocks. Their genetics are incompatable. there were too many mutations from the original genetic code in both branches, and the chromosomes no longer match.

Third, although equines and panthers of different types can be made to breed, the offspring are likely to be sterile, and they don't mongrelize like different breeds od a single species do. A mule has certain horse features and certain donkey features, and every mule has the same horse and donkey features. But if you breed the two species the other way, switching which is the stallion and which the mare, you do not get a mule, you get a hinney. Hinneys also get discrete features from their parents instead of mongrelizing, but they get different discrete features. Simlarly, if you mate a lion and a tiger, you get either a tigon or a liger, depending on which is the mother and which is the father.

Ring species shows one form of incomplete speciation, mules and ligers show another. Speciation happens. What else do you think needs to be shown to "prove" evolution?

OllieFranz · Oct 14, 2013

Can you be a little more precise what you mean by a A becoming a B when you talk about evolution?

A dog can become a Great Dane, or a chihuahua, but I gather that is not what you mean.

If dogs formed a Ring species, then Great Danes would not be able mate with chihuahuas, and the intermediate dogs die out, then dogs would become Great Danes and chihuahuas, the same way panthers became lions and tigers. A became B and C. B is not C, but Band C are still A, even though there is no longer a species called A

Amora · Oct 15, 2013

OllieFranz said:
Can you be a little more precise what you mean by a A becoming a B when you talk about evolution?

A dog can become a Great Dane, or a chihuahua, but I gather that is not what you mean.

If dogs formed a Ring species, then Great Danes would not be able mate with chihuahuas, and the intermediate dogs die out, then dogs would become Great Danes and chihuahuas, the same way panthers became lions and tigers. A became B and C. B is not C, but Band C are still A, even though there is no longer a species called A

Ring specation , and evolution in general do not apply to canines because Humans have interfered in the natural process breeding wise, medically and geographically. Same with Humans. We are no longer under evolutionary pressure, at least not under naturalistic pressure. There might be other processes going on I cannot comment on.

Also, Great Danes Chihuahua can certainly mate genetically, species wise, but becasue of their dimorphism, they might not be able to technically perform it.

OllieFranz · Oct 15, 2013

Amora said:
Ring specation , and evolution in general do not apply to canines because Humans have interfered in the natural process breeding wise, medically and geographically. Same with Humans. We are no longer under evolutionary pressure, at least not under naturalistic pressure. There might be other processes going on I cannot comment on.

Also, Great Danes Chihuahua can certainly mate genetically, species wise, but becasue of their dimorphism, they might not be able to technically perform it.

Of course the situation is not the same, I had a much longer post which discussed what parts of the analogy were appropriate and which weren't. This post was just to ask Frogman to be more precise in a phrase he used vaguely. So vaguely that you could not tell the difference between A and B as different species, different "kinds," or A and B as different breeds of one species or kind. He was the one blurring the distinction. If there were no difference between "breed" and "kind," I would not have had to ask the question.

BTW: if we are alive, we are subject to evolutionary pressure. It's just that our environment includes artificial factors like medicine and air conditioning, and dogs' environmental pressures include enforced breeding programs. They are still "pressures" that affect how long we live and who we mate with.

frogman2x · Oct 15, 2013

Split Rock said:
No problem. This list was originally compiled by Lucaspa

Speciation in Insects
1. G Kilias, SN Alahiotis, and M Pelecanos. A multifactorial genetic investigation of speciation theory using drosophila melanogaster Evolution 34:730-737, 1980. Got new species of fruit flies in the lab after 5 years on different diets and temperatures. Also confirmation of natural selection in the process. Lots of references to other studies that saw speciation.
2. JM Thoday, Disruptive selection. Proc. Royal Soc. London B. 182: 109-143, 1972.
Lots of references in this one to other speciation.
3. KF Koopman, Natural selection for reproductive isolation between Drosophila pseudobscura and Drosophila persimilis. Evolution 4: 135-148, 1950. Using artificial mixed poulations of D. pseudoobscura and D. persimilis, it has been possible to show,over a period of several generations, a very rapid increase in the amount of reproductive isolation between the species as a result of natural selection.
4. LE Hurd and RM Eisenberg, Divergent selection for geotactic response and evolution of reproductive isolation in sympatric and allopatric populations of houseflies. American Naturalist 109: 353-358, 1975.
5. Coyne, Jerry A. Orr, H. Allen. Patterns of speciation in Drosophila. Evolution. V43. P362(20) March, 1989.
6. Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky, 1957 An incipient species of Drosophila, Nature 23: 289- 292.
7. Ahearn, J. N. 1980. Evolution of behavioral reproductive isolation in a laboratory stock of Drosophila silvestris. Experientia. 36:63-64.
8. 10. Breeuwer, J. A. J. and J. H. Werren. 1990. Microorganisms associated with chromosome destruction and reproductive isolation between two insect species. Nature. 346:558-560.
9. Powell, J. R. 1978. The founder-flush speciation theory: an experimental approach. Evolution. 32:465-474.
10. Dodd, D. M. B. and J. R. Powell. 1985. Founder-flush speciation: an update of experimental results with Drosophila. Evolution 39:1388-1392. 37. Dobzhansky, T. 1951. Genetics and the origin of species (3rd edition). Columbia University Press, New York.
11. Dobzhansky, T. and O. Pavlovsky. 1971. Experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila. Nature. 230:289-292.
12. Dobzhansky, T. 1972. Species of Drosophila: new excitement in an old field. Science. 177:664-669.
13. Dodd, D. M. B. 1989. Reproductive isolation as a consequence of adaptive divergence in Drosophila melanogaster. Evolution 43:1308-1311.
14. de Oliveira, A. K. and A. R. Cordeiro. 1980. Adaptation of Drosophila willistoni experimental populations to extreme pH medium. II. Development of incipient reproductive isolation. Heredity. 44:123-130.15. 29. Rice, W. R. and G. W. Salt. 1988. Speciation via disruptive selection on habitat preference: experimental evidence. The American Naturalist. 131:911-917.
30. Rice, W. R. and G. W. Salt. 1990. The evolution of reproductive isolation as a correlated character under sympatric conditions: experimental evidence. Evolution. 44:1140-1152.
31. del Solar, E. 1966. Sexual isolation caused by selection for positive and negative phototaxis and geotaxis in Drosophila pseudoobscura. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (US). 56:484-487.
32. Weinberg, J. R., V. R. Starczak and P. Jora. 1992. Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory. Evolution. 46:1214-1220.
33. V Morell, Earth's unbounded beetlemania explained. Science 281:501-503, July 24, 1998. Evolution explains the 330,000 odd beetlespecies. Exploitation of newly evolved flowering plants.
34. B Wuethrich, Speciation: Mexican pairs show geography's role. Science 285: 1190, Aug. 20, 1999. Discusses allopatric speciation. Debate with ecological speciation on which is most prevalent.

Speciation in Plants
1. Speciation in action Science 72:700-701, 1996 A great laboratory study of the evolution of a hybrid plant species. Scientists did it in the lab, but the genetic data says it happened the same way in nature.
2. Hybrid speciation in peonies Speciation through homoploid hybridization between allotetraploids in peonies (Paeonia)
3. Scruffy little weed shows Darwin was right as evolution moves on new species of groundsel by hybridization
4. Butters, F. K. 1941. Hybrid Woodsias in Minnesota. Amer. Fern. J. 31:15-21.
5. Butters, F. K. and R. M. Tryon, jr. 1948. A fertile mutant of a Woodsia hybrid. American Journal of Botany. 35:138.
6. Toxic Tailings and Tolerant Grass by RE Cook in Natural History, 90(3): 28-38, 1981 discusses selection pressure of grasses growing on mine tailings that are rich in toxic heavy metals. "When wind borne pollen carrying nontolerant genes crosses the border [between prairie and tailings] and fertilizes the gametes of tolerant females, the resultant offspring show a range of tolerances. The movement of genes from the pasture to the mine would, therefore, tend to dilute the tolerance level of seedlings. Only fully tolerant individuals survive to reproduce, however. This selective mortality, which eliminates variants, counteracts the dilution and molds a toatally tolerant population. The pasture and mine populations evolve distinctive adaptations because selective factors are dominant over the homogenizing influence of foreign genes."
7. Clausen, J., D. D. Keck and W. M. Hiesey. 1945. Experimental studies on the nature of species. II. Plant evolution through amphiploidy and autoploidy, with examples from the Madiinae. Carnegie Institute Washington Publication, 564:1-174.
8. Cronquist, A. 1988. The evolution and classification of flowering plants (2nd edition). The New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, NY.
9. P. H. Raven, R. F. Evert, S. E. Eichorn, Biology of Plants (Worth, New York,ed. 6, 1999).
10. M. Ownbey, Am. J. Bot. 37, 487 (1950).
11. M. Ownbey and G. D. McCollum, Am. J. Bot. 40, 788 (1953).
12. S. J. Novak, D. E. Soltis, P. S. Soltis, Am. J. Bot. 78, 1586 (1991).
13. P. S. Soltis, G. M. Plunkett, S. J. Novak, D. E. Soltis, Am. J. Bot. 82,1329 (1995).
14. Digby, L. 1912. The cytology of Primula kewensis and of other related Primula hybrids. Ann. Bot. 26:357-388.
15. Owenby, M. 1950. Natural hybridization and amphiploidy in the genus Tragopogon. Am. J. Bot. 37:487-499.
16. Pasterniani, E. 1969. Selection for reproductive isolation between two populations of maize, Zea mays L. Evolution. 23:534-547.

Speciation in microorganisms
1. Canine parovirus, a lethal disease of dogs, evolved from feline parovirus in the 1970s.
2. Budd, A. F. and B. D. Mishler. 1990. Species and evolution in clonal organisms -- a summary and discussion. Systematic Botany 15:166-171.
3. Bullini, L. and G. Nascetti. 1990. Speciation by hybridization in phasmids and other insects. Canadian Journal of Zoology. 68:1747-1760.
4. Boraas, M. E. 1983. Predator induced evolution in chemostat culture. EOS. Transactions of the American Geophysical Union. 64:1102.
5. Brock, T. D. and M. T. Madigan. 1988. Biology of Microorganisms (5th edition). Prentice Hall, Englewood, NJ.
6. Castenholz, R. W. 1992. Species usage, concept, and evolution in the cyanobacteria (blue-green algae). Journal of Phycology 28:737-745.
7. Boraas, M. E. The speciation of algal clusters by flagellate predation. EOS. Transactions of the American Geophysical Union. 64:1102.
8. Castenholz, R. W. 1992. Speciation, usage, concept, and evolution in the cyanobacteria (blue-green algae). Journal of Phycology 28:737-745.
9. Shikano, S., L. S. Luckinbill and Y. Kurihara. 1990. Changes of traits in a bacterial population associated with protozoal predation. Microbial Ecology. 20:75-84.

New Genus
1. Muntzig, A, Triticale Results and Problems, Parey, Berlin, 1979. Describes whole new *genus* of plants, Triticosecale, of several species, formed by artificial selection. These plants are important in agriculture.

Invertebrate not insect
1. ME Heliberg, DP Balch, K Roy, Climate-driven range expansion and morphological evolution in a marine gastropod. Science 292: 1707-1710, June1, 2001. Documents mrorphological change due to disruptive selection over time. Northerna and southern populations of A spirata off California from Pleistocene to present.
2. Weinberg, J. R., V. R. Starczak and P. Jora. 1992. Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event with a polychaete worm. . Evolution. 46:1214-1220.

Vertebrate Speciation
1. N Barton Ecology: the rapid origin of reproductive isolation Science 290:462-463, Oct. 20, 2000. Science Magazine: Sign In Natural selection of reproductive isolation observed in two cases. Full papers are: AP Hendry, JK Wenburg, P Bentzen, EC Volk, TP Quinn, Rapid evolution of reproductive isolation in the wild: evidence from introduced salmon. Science 290: 516-519, Oct. 20, 2000. and M Higgie, S Chenoweth, MWBlows, Natural selection and the reinforcement of mate recognition. Science290: 519-521, Oct. 20, 2000
2. G Vogel, African elephant species splits in two. Science 293: 1414, Aug. 24, 2001. www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/293/5534/1414
3. C Vila` , P Savolainen, JE. Maldonado, IR. Amorim, JE. Rice, RL. Honeycutt, KA. Crandall, JLundeberg, RK. Wayne, Multiple and Ancient Origins of the Domestic Dog Science 276: 1687-1689, 13 JUNE 1997. Dogs no longer one species but 4 according to the genetics. http://www.idir.net/~wolf2dog/wayne1.htm
4. Barrowclough, George F.. Speciation and Geographic Variation in Black-tailed Gnatcatchers. (book reviews) The Condor. V94. P555(2) May, 1992
5. Kluger, Jeffrey. Go fish. Rapid fish speciation in African lakes. Discover. V13. P18(1) March, 1992.
Formation of five new species of cichlid fishes which formed since they were isolated from the parent stock, Lake Nagubago. (These fish have complex mating rituals and different coloration.) See also Mayr, E., 1970. _Populations, Species, and Evolution_, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press. p. 348
6. Genus _Rattus_ currently consists of 137 species [1,2] and is known to have
originally developed in Indonesia and Malaysia during and prior to the Middle
Ages[3].
[1] T. Yosida. Cytogenetics of the Black Rat. University Park Press, Baltimore, 1980.
[2] D. Morris. The Mammals. Hodder and Stoughton, London, 1965.
[3] G. H. H. Tate. "Some Muridae of the Indo-Australian region," Bull. Amer. Museum Nat. Hist. 72: 501-728, 1963.
7. Stanley, S., 1979. _Macroevolution: Pattern and Process_, San Francisco,
W.H. Freeman and Company. p. 41
Rapid speciation of the Faeroe Island house mouse, which occurred in less than 250 years after man brought the creature to the island.

When you can prove it , I will have to accept it.

frogman2x · Oct 15, 2013

OllieFranz said:
Can you be a little more precise what you mean by a A becoming a B when you talk about evolution?

A dog can become a Great Dane, or a chihuahua, but I gather that is not what you mean.

Right.

If dogs formed a Ring species, then Great Danes would not be able mate with chihuahuas, and the intermediate dogs die out, then dogs would become Great Danes and chihuahuas, the same way panthers became lions and tigers. A became B and C. B is not C, but Band C are still A, even though there is no longer a species called A

They do not. Dogs, no matter what vairety, remain dogs, panthers remain panthers, lions remain lions, etc.

If they become a ring species and can no longer mate, they evolve into extinction.

frogman2x · Oct 15, 2013

JWGU said:
This is affirming the consequent and is totally meaningless. Chihuahuas and Great Danes cannot mate but you do not think they are not the same kind, so there must be some other criterion.

They are the same kind. Their inability to mate is not because of genetics, it is because of size.

I'm sorry, what? That's nonsense. I'm not saying your story is nonsense, but the idea that that means that chimpanzees and humans can't mate is nonsense.

It is nonsence to say they can.Ifhey did what would the offspring be>

Humans will frequently reject human hearts.

Not if it is done right. It will always fail try8ing to put an animal heart into a human.

In any case, I doubt you could transfer the heart of a Chihuahua to a Great Dane and have it survive.

But again, not becaue of geneticis, but because of size. Remember case recentily the hospital woul not give a young girs an adult heart because of the size problem>

Exactly, what? Exactly, there is more to being a kind than not being able to mate?

Enlighten me.

Then tell us why humans and chimps can't mate; otherwise we have absolutely no criteria so you can keep making up excuses why a particular species is not a kind.

Because they are not the same kind. It might help if you defined species.

No. You are the one talking about kinds, so you have to define them. If you don't define them, I refuse to have a discussion, since you have always maintained that you can easily define kinds and then challenged us to prove it for you.

I have defind kind. You rejected it, but you have not defined species.

Every time we do, you come up with another (terrible) excuse for why this or that is not really a kind, because you refuse to actually follow your own definition. It's starting to get a little dull, to be honest. So give us a definition, or stop pretending you want to have a real discussion.<<

I have given you mine, give me yours.

Speciation isn't a mechanism for evolution. It's a product of evolution.

P.S. Having read up a bit on the subject, it does not seem to me that scientists have ruled out the possibility of "Humanzees..."

Click to expand...

Hope springs eternal but IMO, most real scientists have ruleld it out. If they are so sure, why not prove it and inseminate one with the sprerm of the other and settle the question?

frogman2x · Oct 15, 2013

JWGU said:
I think it would be profoundly unethical. But genetically it does not seem like it is necessarily impossible, since hybrids with similar genetic distance exist and human sperm will apparently penetrate a gibbon ovum. This is why I, personally, am awaiting with great interest frogman's definition of kind that excludes humans and chimps from being the same kind, but not Great Danes and Chihuahuas; I suspect it will be one that makes kind-to-kind transitions very easy to demonstrate.

If it natures way, why would it be unethical?

frogman2x · Oct 15, 2013

OllieFranz said:
First, if your references to "California" and "lizards" relate to the example I think they do, they are salamanders, not lizards.

Right but the priniple is the same. The salamnders remained salamanders.

Second, we do know why the northeastern flocks of the Greenish Warbler cannot mate with the northwestern flocks. Their genetics are incompatable. there were too many mutations from the original genetic code in both branches, and the chromosomes no longer match.

Okay, but ther still is not evolution.

Third, although equines and panthers of different types can be made to breed, the offspring are likely to be sterile, and they don't mongrelize like different breeds od a single species do. A mule has certain horse features and certain donkey features, and every mule has the same horse and donkey features. But if you breed the two species the other way, switching which is the stallion and which the mare, you do not get a mule, you get a hinney. Hinneys also get discrete features from their parents instead of mongrelizing, but they get different discrete features. Simlarly, if you mate a lion and a tiger, you get either a tigon or a liger, depending on which is the mother and which is the father.

Yes man has learned to tweek what will not happpen naturally.

Ring species shows one form of incomplete speciation, mules and ligers show another. Speciation happens. What else do you think needs to be shown to "prove" evolution?

Okay but how is any of it a mechanism for evolution?

TLK Valentine · Oct 15, 2013

frogman2x said:
When you can prove it , I will have to accept it.

When you read it, you'll accept it.

Split Rock · Oct 15, 2013

frogman2x said:
When you can prove it , I will have to accept it.

I give you a long list of exactly what you asked for, and how do you respond? "Prove it!" LOL! ^_^

Why do YE Creationists insist on a simplistic literal reading of the bible?

Conflation of Blathers

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Old School from the Backwoods - Christian Style

Senior Veteran

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Senior Veteran

frogman2x

Guest

Senior Member

Senior Member

Regular Member

Senior Member

frogman2x

Guest

frogman2x

Guest

frogman2x

Guest

frogman2x

Guest

frogman2x

Guest

I've already read the books you want burned.

Conflation of Blathers

Similar threads