evolution happens

[David Gould]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200412/s1270907.htm

What is this if it is not evolution?

 

[Clem is Me]

Propaganda

 

[FieryBalrog]

but its still a snake! I'll only believe in evolution if the snake lays an egg and out hatches a therapsid!

 

[Talcos Stormweaver]

[/satireon]

Oh, but can't you see, this is perfect evidence for creation! God has created a wonderous mechanism by which species can create more of themselves, natural selection, of course. However, what you fail to see is that that snake will never become a human or even a bird!

Now, once you admit that you are wrong and I am right, we can move on with this. Would you like to risk your soul for an unproven theory that is already a violation of the second law of thermodynamics and created by a man who recanted on his deathbed?

You and your theories, next you will be saying the earth is round or that gravity is not caused by invisible space pixies!

Of course, that's why I hide in my basement reading Hovind and Jack Chick novels while I wrap my head in aluminum foil (its the only way to prevent them from listening in... the walls have ears my friend).


[/satireoff]
​

 

[CypressLB]

[/satireon]

Oh, but can't you see, this is perfect evidence for creation! God has created a wonderous mechanism by which species can create more of themselves, natural selection, of course. However, what you fail to see is that that snake will never become a human or even a bird!

Now, once you admit that you are wrong and I am right, we can move on with this. Would you like to risk your soul for an unproven theory that is already a violation of the second law of thermodynamics and created by a man who recanted on his deathbed?

You and your theories, next you will be saying the earth is round or that gravity is not caused by invisible space pixies!

Of course, that's why I hide in my basement reading Hovind and Jack Chick novels while I wrap my head in aluminum foil (its the only way to prevent them from listening in... the walls have ears my friend).


[/satireoff]
​

HAHAHAHAHA, oh god, there were so many great jokes in there. ^^ Kudos to you man.

 

[Novaknight1]

What about slow Evolution? Would you accept that? I don't, I'm just asking.

 

[Cassandra]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200412/s1270907.htm

What is this if it is not evolution?

Looks like a mere URL to me

 

[Oncedeceived]

Propaganda

FUNNY!! I really laughed when I saw this response.

 

[Oncedeceived]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200412/s1270907.htm

What is this if it is not evolution?

I think this is a very good example of adaptaion.

 

[Dragar]

I think this is a very good example of adaptaion.

Why do you find it so unlikely that two populations of the same species could adapt to their different environments so differently as to make it impossible for them to breed together?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Why do you find it so unlikely that two populations of the same species could adapt to their different environments so differently as to make it impossible for them to breed together?

For instance?

 

[Dragar]

For instance?

I'm afraid I'm not a biologist, so I can't provide an instance. I'll ask Aron-Ra if he has any specific examples of this taking place. Or if anyone else has any examples of speciation they'd care to share. Lucaspa had a whole slew of journal references of this, at one point.

 

[kingreaper]

For instance?

Have you heard about ring species?

Thesse are species which form a ring around some geolgical barrier (iin one case, the earth) and at one point where they form two, non-interbreeding groups, but the rest of the way around the circuit they are only one grou8p, and the two ends are joined through the ring

 

[Oncedeceived]

Have you heard about ring species?

Thesse are species which form a ring around some geolgical barrier (iin one case, the earth) and at one point where they form two, non-interbreeding groups, but the rest of the way around the circuit they are only one grou8p, and the two ends are joined through the ring

I am not familiar with this. If you wouldn't mind giving me a link to look at that would represent this concept and explain the ideaology it is founded upon then i could then give you an opinion...albeit a rather limited informed one.

 

[kingreaper]

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/05/2/l_052_05.html

http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/ridley/tutorials/The_evidence_for_evolution12.asp


http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/ring_species.html




I googled the above with just "ring speices"

I'm seriously not an expert on this particular subject

 

[Dragar]

Aron-Ra helpfully provided me with an example of the mice of Madeira.

You can read about them here:

http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/articles/04_00/island_mice.shtml

Note the journal reference, if you want to check up on the research in more detail.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Okay thank you for the links. For the first one:



Ring Species: Salamanders:


Some critics of the theory of evolution argue that it doesn't convincingly explain the origin of new species. They say that members of one species couldn't become so different from other individuals through natural variation that they would become two separate non-interbreeding species.

Starting off the topic as a defense against anti-evolutionists is in my mind something that sets off a bias alarm.

The next impression that I get from the article is that they are making some assumptions to base their conclusions, i.e. that the story begins which of course they can not know for sure and that the one form is the ancestral population which of course they can't know either.

The next point that I find interesting is that the differences are not (at least not cited in this) are that the differences are in appearence..color. This leaves great amount of questions and is rather vague and general. I don't know what kind of research went into this study and what factors were looked at.

Last as with each of these examples, species is a rather loose classification that has as its base definition being that organisms are of the same species if they can reproduce which to me becomes problematic in defining the premises of a "new" species arising from and splitting from another; which means that they would no longer reproduce. How can we be sure that this "new" species is not just a different species in the first place.

Granted these observations are based on the articles only and since I haven't researched this on my own I can't give a really informed opinion.



Second one.

A supporter of the theory of separate creation might argue that although individuals do vary within a species, nevertheless that variation is too limited ever to give rise to a new species: the origin of new species is then not a magnified extension of the kind of variation we see within a species. But in ring species the extremes meet, and we can see that they form two species. It is then almost impossible to deny that natural variation can be large enough to generate new species.

I have to question why in a scientific article there is mention of falsifing an interpretation (a false one at that) of Creation. It seems to me that this could mean some form of bias exists on behalf of the author. That doesn't mean that the researchers held this same bias but it does tend to lend question to that as well.

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/ring_species.html

Since this is a Creationist site (at least I think it was) it may hold biases too but one page was something that I definately agreed with was this:
Centuries ago, no one thought that there was a problem. To decide what an "antelope" was, you went out and caught a handsome one, and stuffed it. From then on, everything that looked like that was an antelope. If you caught one that looked a bit different, well, you had caught a defective one.

But typology doesn't work for cabbage, Brussels sprouts and kale, all of which can be easily crossbred with each other. These are interfertile because they (and cauliflower and broccoli) were all bred by humans from the weed known as "mustard".

Clearly, we need a definition based on reproduction, not looks. We could say: a species is group of creatures that breed together. But that doesn't deal with creatures that breed unsuccessfully, creatures that breed if painted, and creatures that breed only in zoos.

Another definition is that two groups of creatures are the same species if, in the wild, there is significant gene flow between the two gene pools. This wording pretty well fixes all of problems listed above. But does it address the question of ring species? And let's not even talk about bacteria and viruses.

I'm seriously not an expert on this particular subject

That makes two of us then.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Aron-Ra helpfully provided me with an example of the mice of Madeira.

Aron-ra is helpful like that.

You can read about them here:

http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/articles/04_00/island_mice.shtml

Note the journal reference, if you want to check up on the research in more detail.

Some of the questionable aspects are:

Britton-Davidian, an evolutionary biologist at Université Montpellier II in Montpellier, France, showed that populations of Maderian mice have between 22 and 30 chromosomes, even though their ancestors, who first arrived with the Portugese in the 15th century, had 40.


Here they are claiming they know the ancestral population but then:

Britton-Davidian collected hundreds of mice from about 40 locations around the island and found six distinct populations. The common brown house mouse of Europe, presumably the ancestor of the Madeira mice, has 40 chromosomes, but the six families of Madeiran mice have between 22 and 30.

They are presuming to know the ancestral population .

Britton-Davidian wants to know whether these populations of mice have evolved into different species or whether they are on the cusp of speciation. A species is defined as a group of organisms that can mate and produce fertile offspring.

This tells me that this is an ongoing research project that is in its earliest stages and that there is information that is not conclusive at this point.

One of Britton-Davidian's most surprising findings is that she and her colleagues found no mice that are hybrids among any of the six groups. "This might be because the hybrids are infertile or they may be less fit than the parents and unable to survive," says Britton-Davidian. Other explanations could be that the groups have been geographically isolated and have not had the chance to mate, or that the mice "recognize each other as different and choose not to mate."

This seems to be rather probematic and uncertainty makes it hard to analyze the situation in an informed way.

Worth watching for sure.

 

[Dragar]

They are presuming to know the ancestral population .

It doesn't really matter - whatever species arrived on the island, it certainly didn't have a number of chromosomes that varied between 22 and 30!

This seems to be rather probematic and uncertainty makes it hard to analyze the situation in an informed way.

If they produce infertile hybrids, they're different species.

Regardless, you think that as they continue to adapt to their environment, they will always remain the ability to mate? Even though their chromosome count already differs?

 

[Oncedeceived]

It doesn't really matter - whatever species arrived on the island, it certainly didn't have a number of chromosomes that varied between 22 and 30!

Why not? There are examples of this presently, what would eliminate the possibility that the population always differed in this way?

If they produce infertile hybrids, they're different species.

Your point?

Regardless, you think that as they continue to adapt to their environment, they will always remain the ability to mate? Even though their chromosome count already differs?

IT would be total speculation on my part to determine whether or not this would be possible.