ArmChair General
Well-Known Member
Evolution is a Fact, just like Gravity is a Fact.
-
Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum
Do you believe in evolution?
- Thread starter God
- Start date
Evolution is a Fact, just like Gravity is a Fact.
Werbung:
Castle
Well-Known Member
I believe that God set in motion all of the conditions necessary for evolution to take place.
Coyote
Well-Known Member
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
I don't understand what you are trying to say here....
Not really. Theories are subject to change as more facts become available, but that does not mean there are no scientific facts. It's a fact that the earth revolves around the sun for example.
invest07
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 7, 2007
- Messages
- 550
Coyote
I still don't believe speciation is practically possible, in the real world. The logistics are overwhelmingly stacked against it and the probability is incredibly miniscule.
Probabilty of speciation
Genetic mutations, which are the driving force behind evolution theory, are a copying error. During division of the DNA, the two opposing strands are split apart. After a normal split there should be one half of each base pair attached to each strand at it’s same position. Sometimes during this split, an error occurs. One half of a base pair may be detached entirely from the strand or the entire base pair may remain attached to one strand. This is a copying error and is a mutation.
Geneticists have measured the frequency of mutations and found that one mutation occurs about every 10,000 generations.
Now let’s look at what happens, according to macroevolution theory, when speciation is theorized to occur. My wife’s loves any dish made with red snapper so let’s use this tasty fish as our example.
According to macroevolution theory, the first red snapper had to be a mutation of some existing species of fish. By definition, Mr. First Red Snapper will be infertile with his parent species. He will only be fertile with a compatible female member of his new species. So for the next generation of the new species to exist, there must be a mutation in the male and a compatible mutation in the female reproductive system. They must be fertile with each other and no other fish.
We know that a mutation occurs about every 10,000 generations. So the odds of a male and a female from the parent species having a mutation, in the same generation are 1/10,000 x 1/10,000 or 1/100,000,000.
And remember that the mutation (mistake) that occurred in male must be matched by a compatible mutation (mistake) in the female for speciation to occur. Just any old mistake in the female will not work. It must be a very specific mistake, such that she becomes fertile with the male.
I don’t know how many base pairs in Red Snapper DNA. I do know that Ecoli, which is one of the simplest one celled organisms, has 4 million base pairs in each DNA strand. And homo sapiens has 3 billion base pairs in each DNA strand. Red Snapper is far more complex than Ecoli but probably less complex than humans, so let’s assume 2 billion base pairs in each DNA strand.
Now the male has a mutation (mistake) in one of his 2 billion base pairs. The female, to be sexually compatible with the male, must have a specific mutation (mistake) in her DNA. The odds of her mistake occurring in precisely the right location are 1 in 2 billion. And there are 4 possible chemical compounds (A,T,C or G) that must be present at the mistake location. So the odds of the female mistake occurring at the precise location necessary with the right compound present (to insure sexual compatibility with the male) are [1 in 2 billion] x [4] or 1 in 8 billion.
So what are the odds of the male and female having a mutation in the same generation and the female’s mutation resulting in sexual compatibility with the male?
1/8,000,000,000 x 1/100,000,000 or 1/800,000,000,000,000,000.
Hold onto your hats. This is 1 chance out of 8 x 10 to the 17th power. Not a real big number. In fact, downright tiny. If your horse had odds like this stacked against him, you would never bet him to win, place or show.
Now let’s look at a few other factors that must happen before speciation can occur.
1. The male and female must find each other.
2. The male and female must recognize each other as being of the same species.
3. The male and female must desire to mate with each other and do so.
Number 1 above is a serious logistical problem. Oceans cover 70.8% of the earth’s surface and Mr. First may have been born in the Gulf of Mexico and Mrs. First born off the coast of Australia. They have to find each other, recognize each other and mate before the next generation can exist. How do they manage to cover that much distance within their short lifespans? Do they even survive their natural predators in the ocean? Remember, if either Mr. or Mrs. dies before finding the other, the macro evolution tree does not branch and no speciation occurs.
Red Snappers are not found in colder waters so the area of the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian Oceans cuts down the search for each other to 117 million square miles. The average ocean depth is 2.4 miles so Mr. And Mrs. First “only” have to search 280 million cubic miles of ocean to find each other.
And don’t numbers 2 and 3 above require separate mutations? And how would a fish know whether or not he/she is infertile? Females lay hundreds of eggs and abandon them. The males ejaculates in the vicinity of the eggs and then also abandons them. So if the male or female are unaware of their infertility, how would they know to look for each other. Is all this also left to chance?
Add a long string of zeros to the calculation above for the additional mutations required for numbers 2 and 3 above. And then add a bunch more zeros to allow for the improbability of Mr. And Mrs. finding each other.
Bottom Line
The mathematics of probability make speciation numerically so improbable so as to warrant no serious consideration by anyone who is knowledgeable in this area. While true scientists will never say any given event is impossible, it is accepted as virtually impossible if the odds are 1 out of 1,000,000 or less. The odds of speciation occurring are far smaller than that (much less than 80 trillion times smaller than 1 in a million).
And supporters of macroevolution would have you believe that this highly improbable scenario has been repeated millions and even billions of times during the earth’s history. At least once for every living (and extinct) species on this planet. Remember that speciation requires a mutated male and a female with a compatible mutation who are alive during the same generation and for them to find each other and mate.
They must survive predators, draught, hunger and extreme temperature changes. They most likely have to traverse long distances across unfamiliar and hostile terrain to find each other. And when they are finally eye to eye, they must recognize each other as sexually compatible and have the desire and the ability to successfully mate.
When you also consider the embarrassing shortage of undisputed fossilized transitional forms, the entire foundation upon which macroevolution is based appears to be nothing but speculation, assumptions and conjecture. The search for the “Missing Link” is still in process, even 150 years after Darwin. True, undisputed transitional fossils are scarcer than hen’s teeth, even though evolution theory predicts virtually every fossil should exhibit some form of transition. Throughout modern history the frauds perpetrated by scientists in this area has been massive. And the fraud is still going on today.
True science does not deal in absolutes or even in facts. Everything is on the table for revision should future studies indicate a flaw in the previously accepted dogma. Science can’t make statements such as “that will never happen”. Science can make statements such as “the odds of that happening are small” and then calculate those odds. Unlike science, which has no absolutes, mathematics does have absolutes. Whereas science can never be perfectly precise, mathematics can and is often perfectly precise.
As far as speciation goes, the facts don’t add up. The logic doesn’t add up. And the math, which is a precise discipline, does not add up.
I invite knowledgeable and dispassionate responses.
I still don't believe speciation is practically possible, in the real world. The logistics are overwhelmingly stacked against it and the probability is incredibly miniscule.
Probabilty of speciation
Genetic mutations, which are the driving force behind evolution theory, are a copying error. During division of the DNA, the two opposing strands are split apart. After a normal split there should be one half of each base pair attached to each strand at it’s same position. Sometimes during this split, an error occurs. One half of a base pair may be detached entirely from the strand or the entire base pair may remain attached to one strand. This is a copying error and is a mutation.
Geneticists have measured the frequency of mutations and found that one mutation occurs about every 10,000 generations.
Now let’s look at what happens, according to macroevolution theory, when speciation is theorized to occur. My wife’s loves any dish made with red snapper so let’s use this tasty fish as our example.
According to macroevolution theory, the first red snapper had to be a mutation of some existing species of fish. By definition, Mr. First Red Snapper will be infertile with his parent species. He will only be fertile with a compatible female member of his new species. So for the next generation of the new species to exist, there must be a mutation in the male and a compatible mutation in the female reproductive system. They must be fertile with each other and no other fish.
We know that a mutation occurs about every 10,000 generations. So the odds of a male and a female from the parent species having a mutation, in the same generation are 1/10,000 x 1/10,000 or 1/100,000,000.
And remember that the mutation (mistake) that occurred in male must be matched by a compatible mutation (mistake) in the female for speciation to occur. Just any old mistake in the female will not work. It must be a very specific mistake, such that she becomes fertile with the male.
I don’t know how many base pairs in Red Snapper DNA. I do know that Ecoli, which is one of the simplest one celled organisms, has 4 million base pairs in each DNA strand. And homo sapiens has 3 billion base pairs in each DNA strand. Red Snapper is far more complex than Ecoli but probably less complex than humans, so let’s assume 2 billion base pairs in each DNA strand.
Now the male has a mutation (mistake) in one of his 2 billion base pairs. The female, to be sexually compatible with the male, must have a specific mutation (mistake) in her DNA. The odds of her mistake occurring in precisely the right location are 1 in 2 billion. And there are 4 possible chemical compounds (A,T,C or G) that must be present at the mistake location. So the odds of the female mistake occurring at the precise location necessary with the right compound present (to insure sexual compatibility with the male) are [1 in 2 billion] x [4] or 1 in 8 billion.
So what are the odds of the male and female having a mutation in the same generation and the female’s mutation resulting in sexual compatibility with the male?
1/8,000,000,000 x 1/100,000,000 or 1/800,000,000,000,000,000.
Hold onto your hats. This is 1 chance out of 8 x 10 to the 17th power. Not a real big number. In fact, downright tiny. If your horse had odds like this stacked against him, you would never bet him to win, place or show.
Now let’s look at a few other factors that must happen before speciation can occur.
1. The male and female must find each other.
2. The male and female must recognize each other as being of the same species.
3. The male and female must desire to mate with each other and do so.
Number 1 above is a serious logistical problem. Oceans cover 70.8% of the earth’s surface and Mr. First may have been born in the Gulf of Mexico and Mrs. First born off the coast of Australia. They have to find each other, recognize each other and mate before the next generation can exist. How do they manage to cover that much distance within their short lifespans? Do they even survive their natural predators in the ocean? Remember, if either Mr. or Mrs. dies before finding the other, the macro evolution tree does not branch and no speciation occurs.
Red Snappers are not found in colder waters so the area of the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian Oceans cuts down the search for each other to 117 million square miles. The average ocean depth is 2.4 miles so Mr. And Mrs. First “only” have to search 280 million cubic miles of ocean to find each other.
And don’t numbers 2 and 3 above require separate mutations? And how would a fish know whether or not he/she is infertile? Females lay hundreds of eggs and abandon them. The males ejaculates in the vicinity of the eggs and then also abandons them. So if the male or female are unaware of their infertility, how would they know to look for each other. Is all this also left to chance?
Add a long string of zeros to the calculation above for the additional mutations required for numbers 2 and 3 above. And then add a bunch more zeros to allow for the improbability of Mr. And Mrs. finding each other.
Bottom Line
The mathematics of probability make speciation numerically so improbable so as to warrant no serious consideration by anyone who is knowledgeable in this area. While true scientists will never say any given event is impossible, it is accepted as virtually impossible if the odds are 1 out of 1,000,000 or less. The odds of speciation occurring are far smaller than that (much less than 80 trillion times smaller than 1 in a million).
And supporters of macroevolution would have you believe that this highly improbable scenario has been repeated millions and even billions of times during the earth’s history. At least once for every living (and extinct) species on this planet. Remember that speciation requires a mutated male and a female with a compatible mutation who are alive during the same generation and for them to find each other and mate.
They must survive predators, draught, hunger and extreme temperature changes. They most likely have to traverse long distances across unfamiliar and hostile terrain to find each other. And when they are finally eye to eye, they must recognize each other as sexually compatible and have the desire and the ability to successfully mate.
When you also consider the embarrassing shortage of undisputed fossilized transitional forms, the entire foundation upon which macroevolution is based appears to be nothing but speculation, assumptions and conjecture. The search for the “Missing Link” is still in process, even 150 years after Darwin. True, undisputed transitional fossils are scarcer than hen’s teeth, even though evolution theory predicts virtually every fossil should exhibit some form of transition. Throughout modern history the frauds perpetrated by scientists in this area has been massive. And the fraud is still going on today.
True science does not deal in absolutes or even in facts. Everything is on the table for revision should future studies indicate a flaw in the previously accepted dogma. Science can’t make statements such as “that will never happen”. Science can make statements such as “the odds of that happening are small” and then calculate those odds. Unlike science, which has no absolutes, mathematics does have absolutes. Whereas science can never be perfectly precise, mathematics can and is often perfectly precise.
As far as speciation goes, the facts don’t add up. The logic doesn’t add up. And the math, which is a precise discipline, does not add up.
I invite knowledgeable and dispassionate responses.
invest07
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 7, 2007
- Messages
- 550
Coyote
In my reference to the amount of time humans have been on the earth, I compared the drysophila generation to human equivalent and found that drysophila have been studded for at least the human equivalent of 150K years. I understand your vision of evolution requires millions of years. But if homo sapiens has not been here for millions of years then the changes must be visible at a shorter frequency. And since 150K years is about 10% (or greater) of the time homo sapiens have been around, shouldn’t some little indications of evolution be visible? Doesn’t punctuated equilibrium propose a reduced time frame for macro evolution?
This whole crap about millions of years is used as an excuse too often. When the data doesn’t support evolution, hide behind millions of years.
In future posts I’ll explain more of the mathematical probability of macroevolution. My guess is you may have never examined your belief in macroevolution with the microscope of probability. For the most part, supporters of macroevolution have ignored probability because the numbers don’t add up, regardless of how many million or billion years you assume. This may be an eye opener for you.
I stand behind my statement that there is no such thing as a scientific fact. If everything is on the table for future revision, nothing is a fact. An assumption may be well supported and you may be able to confidently say there is a very high probability the assumption is correct. But you can’t rule out the possibility that the assumption may be demonstrated as likely false by a future study.
Strictly speaking, there is no such thing as a scientific fact. There are high probabilities of correctness but there are no facts. Science does not deal in absolutes. Mathematics is a precise discipline and can deal in absolutes. Religion deals in absolutes. In science, everything is on the table for revision and, as such, science can never deal in absolutes.
And by the way, I am not ruling out the possibility that a satisfactory scientific explanation for origins is not waiting to be discovered. I am saying that this belief in the Darwin stuff is thinly supported crap and has lead many people of science down a dead end street. Right now, this Darwinian stuff and all its derivatives is heading for a serious collapse and many will have egg on their faces. If you don’t accept the possibility of design, then you need to propose another theory that actually works.
In the typical scientific process, a hypothesis is proposed which seems to explain known data. Then the hypothesis is tested and refined and if it doesn’t hold water it is discarded. If it explains some data but not all, it should be refined to explain all the data. The usual scientific process has been short circuited by a fanatical devotion to Darwinism and it’s derivatives. There has been no meaningful revision to plug up the growing number of holes. Darwinism is a boat, a 148 year old wooden boat, that has so many leaks in the hull that the passengers on board the boat are spending way too much time plugging holes. The boat needs to be drydocked and overhauled instead of adding more patches.
This is what I mean about Swiss Cheese science. Question everything or question nothing. Questioning just some things is not scientifically defensible.
In my reference to the amount of time humans have been on the earth, I compared the drysophila generation to human equivalent and found that drysophila have been studded for at least the human equivalent of 150K years. I understand your vision of evolution requires millions of years. But if homo sapiens has not been here for millions of years then the changes must be visible at a shorter frequency. And since 150K years is about 10% (or greater) of the time homo sapiens have been around, shouldn’t some little indications of evolution be visible? Doesn’t punctuated equilibrium propose a reduced time frame for macro evolution?
This whole crap about millions of years is used as an excuse too often. When the data doesn’t support evolution, hide behind millions of years.
In future posts I’ll explain more of the mathematical probability of macroevolution. My guess is you may have never examined your belief in macroevolution with the microscope of probability. For the most part, supporters of macroevolution have ignored probability because the numbers don’t add up, regardless of how many million or billion years you assume. This may be an eye opener for you.
I stand behind my statement that there is no such thing as a scientific fact. If everything is on the table for future revision, nothing is a fact. An assumption may be well supported and you may be able to confidently say there is a very high probability the assumption is correct. But you can’t rule out the possibility that the assumption may be demonstrated as likely false by a future study.
Strictly speaking, there is no such thing as a scientific fact. There are high probabilities of correctness but there are no facts. Science does not deal in absolutes. Mathematics is a precise discipline and can deal in absolutes. Religion deals in absolutes. In science, everything is on the table for revision and, as such, science can never deal in absolutes.
And by the way, I am not ruling out the possibility that a satisfactory scientific explanation for origins is not waiting to be discovered. I am saying that this belief in the Darwin stuff is thinly supported crap and has lead many people of science down a dead end street. Right now, this Darwinian stuff and all its derivatives is heading for a serious collapse and many will have egg on their faces. If you don’t accept the possibility of design, then you need to propose another theory that actually works.
In the typical scientific process, a hypothesis is proposed which seems to explain known data. Then the hypothesis is tested and refined and if it doesn’t hold water it is discarded. If it explains some data but not all, it should be refined to explain all the data. The usual scientific process has been short circuited by a fanatical devotion to Darwinism and it’s derivatives. There has been no meaningful revision to plug up the growing number of holes. Darwinism is a boat, a 148 year old wooden boat, that has so many leaks in the hull that the passengers on board the boat are spending way too much time plugging holes. The boat needs to be drydocked and overhauled instead of adding more patches.
This is what I mean about Swiss Cheese science. Question everything or question nothing. Questioning just some things is not scientifically defensible.
invest07
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 7, 2007
- Messages
- 550
Arm Chair General
So my statements are deceptive?
Perhaps you can enlighten us as to the specific statements that are deceptive.
Just because a statement runs counter to your belief does not make the statement deceptive or false. That statement may very well be true and your belief system may be in error.
The blindest are not those who can’t see but those who chose, for whatever reason, not to see.
So my statements are deceptive?
Perhaps you can enlighten us as to the specific statements that are deceptive.
Just because a statement runs counter to your belief does not make the statement deceptive or false. That statement may very well be true and your belief system may be in error.
The blindest are not those who can’t see but those who chose, for whatever reason, not to see.
Kelly
Well-Known Member
"I believe that God set in motion all of the conditions necessary for evolution to take place."
--Exactamundo!!!! Why is it some people make the outrageous claim that: "You can't believe in God and Evolution at the same time???"
--Exactamundo!!!! Why is it some people make the outrageous claim that: "You can't believe in God and Evolution at the same time???"
invest07
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 7, 2007
- Messages
- 550
Coyote
Drysophila
“Two strains of Drosophila paulistorum developed hybrid sterility of male offspring between 1958 and 1963. Artificial selection induced strong intra-strain mating preferences.
(Test for speciation: sterile offspring and lack of interbreeding affinity.) “
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
If I am reading this correctly, only the males are infertile to the parent species. Are the females still fertile to the parent species? This sounds like an infertility problem and not true speciation to me.
Faeroe Island Mouse
“The Faeroe mouse has been successfully crossed with the English house mouse“.
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0021-8790(193811)7:2<290:NOTBOT>2.0.CO;2-H
The Faeroe Island Mouse can’t be a new species if it can mate with an existing species.
Lake Nagubago ciclids“(Test for speciation in this case is by morphology and lack of natural interbreeding. These fish have complex mating rituals and different coloration. While it might be possible that different species are inter-fertile, they cannot be convinced to mate.)”
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
Based on the above, it appears to me the jury is still out on the Lake Nagubago ciclids. No speciation has been observed here, to date.
Still no verified, undisputed speciation here in any of the examples you cited. Would you like to try again?
Drysophila
“Two strains of Drosophila paulistorum developed hybrid sterility of male offspring between 1958 and 1963. Artificial selection induced strong intra-strain mating preferences.
(Test for speciation: sterile offspring and lack of interbreeding affinity.) “
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
If I am reading this correctly, only the males are infertile to the parent species. Are the females still fertile to the parent species? This sounds like an infertility problem and not true speciation to me.
Faeroe Island Mouse
“The Faeroe mouse has been successfully crossed with the English house mouse“.
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0021-8790(193811)7:2<290:NOTBOT>2.0.CO;2-H
The Faeroe Island Mouse can’t be a new species if it can mate with an existing species.
Lake Nagubago ciclids“(Test for speciation in this case is by morphology and lack of natural interbreeding. These fish have complex mating rituals and different coloration. While it might be possible that different species are inter-fertile, they cannot be convinced to mate.)”
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
Based on the above, it appears to me the jury is still out on the Lake Nagubago ciclids. No speciation has been observed here, to date.
Still no verified, undisputed speciation here in any of the examples you cited. Would you like to try again?
Coyote
Well-Known Member
I don't think speciation quite works like that - it works with populations rather than individuals. For example a population may become isolated say, by geography - continental drift, or a new mountain range. Changes that occur are minor to begin with in individuals but cumulate until they are significant enough to change the whole population so it can no longer mate with the original population and a new species is formed. You factor in such things as genetic drift, population bottlenecks and founders effect that all play on population genetics and work in tandem with natural selection to create speciation.
Not really. There are many transitional fossils. The only way that the claim of their absence can be remotely justified (aside from ignoring the evidence completely), is to redefine "transitional" as referring to a fossil that is a direct ancestor of one organism and a direct descendant of another.
However, direct lineages are not required and even then - they could not be verified even if found. The paleontological definition of a transitional fossil is in keeping with what the theory of evolution predicts: a fossil that shows a mosaic of features from an older and more recent organism.
When you consider that fossilization in general is extremely rare, and even more rare are conditions conducive to us finding them - there is a good record of various transitional fossils. For example look at the fossils record from fish to amphibian.
There is no one "missing link" - there is however a vast array of transitional linking forms. They are certainly not scarce, as I indicated above. Do you have any credible scientific evidence to support your claim?
To say true science does not deal in absolutes or even facts is erroneious. True science deals in facts. Scientific theories are theories put together that best explain patterns found in the available facts. As more facts become available - theories change to take them into account. Science does in addition deal with probabilities.
The facts do add up, as does the logic - if you understand population genetics.
Coyote
Well-Known Member
Not really - from what I understand, it's a form of mechanical isolation that forms one of the mechanisms for speciation to occur.
For example: this is from an abstract describing it describing speciation in another varient of drosophila (and I won't pretend I understand all the science here):
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=42249
It is generally believed that Drosophila melanogaster has no closely related species with which it can produce the viable and fertile hybrids that are essential for the genetic analysis of speciation. Following the recent report of molecular differentiation between a Zimbabwe, Africa, population and two United States populations, we provide evidence that strong sexual isolation exists between the D. melanogaster population in Zimbabwe and populations of other continents. In the presence of males of their own kind, females from most isofemale lines of Zimbabwe would not mate with males from elsewhere; the reciprocal mating is also significantly reduced, but to a lesser degree. The genes for sexual behaviors are apparently polymorphic in Zimbabwe and postmating reproductive isolation between this and other populations has not yet evolved. Whole chromosome substitutions indicate significant genetic contributions to male mating success by both major autosomes, whereas the X chromosome effect is too weak to measure. In addition, the relative mating success between hybrid and pure line males supports the interpretation of strong female choice. These observations suggest that we are seeing the early stages of speciation in this group and that it is driven by sexual selection. The genetic and molecular tractability of D. melanogaster offers great promise for the detailed analysis of this apparent case of incipient speciation.
True.
Incorrect. Mating behavior in fish and insects is genetically determined and complex - if they can not be convinced to mate, they are likely if not all ready there then well on their way to being different species.
Sure - there quite a few listed here: mostly plants and insects.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
In addition, from the same source:
# New species have arisen in historical times. For example:
* A new species of mosquito, the molestus form isolated in London's Underground, has speciated from Culex pipiens (Byrne and Nichols 1999; Nuttall 1998).
* Helacyton gartleri is the HeLa cell culture, which evolved from a human cervical carcinoma in 1951. The culture grows indefinitely and has become widespread (Van Valen and Maiorana 1991).
A similar event appears to have happened with dogs relatively recently. Sticker's sarcoma, or canine transmissible venereal tumor, is caused by an organism genetically independent from its hosts but derived from a wolf or dog tumor (Zimmer 2006; Murgia et al. 2006).
* Several new species of plants have arisen via polyploidy (when the chromosome count multiplies by two or more) (de Wet 1971). One example is Primula kewensis (Newton and Pellew 1929).
# Incipient speciation, where two subspecies interbreed rarely or with only little success, is common. Here are just a few examples:
* Rhagoletis pomonella, the apple maggot fly, is undergoing sympatric speciation. Its native host in North America is Hawthorn (Crataegus spp.), but in the mid-1800s, a new population formed on introduced domestic apples (Malus pumila). The two races are kept partially isolated by natural selection (Filchak et al. 2000).
* The mosquito Anopheles gambiae shows incipient speciation between its populations in northwestern and southeastern Africa (Fanello et al. 2003; Lehmann et al. 2003).
* Silverside fish show incipient speciation between marine and estuarine populations (Beheregaray and Sunnucks 2001).
Anyway - we really would not expect to observe large changes directly. Evolution consists mainly of the accumulation of small changes over large periods of time - very large. We simply havent' been around (and aware) for long enough.
Coyote
Well-Known Member
The thing is - visable volution HAS occurred in the fruit fly.
http://www.scienceblog.com/community/older/2000/F/200005169.html
http://depts.washington.edu/uweek/archives/2000.01.JAN_20/_article10.html
The theory of punctuated equilibria is more complex then just a reduced time frame - this explains it fairly well.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/punc-eq.html
The problem is - I think - you are still stuck in combatting a strictly Darwin model of evolution when science has already gone beyond it. Darwin's theories were correct given the data he had to work with and many of them are still correct. To use your boat analogy - the framework is still sound and the fact that we are finding new sub-theories to explain certain aspects simply means science is doing it's job. Nothing yet suggests that the theory of evolution, overall, is unsound.
Swiss cheese science is really more applicable to something like ID.
Do you continually question whether the earth is round?
invest07
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 7, 2007
- Messages
- 550
Coyote
Drysophila
This still doesn’t sound like a very convincing case for speciation. It appears that 3 isolated populations have been studied and that the females don’t want to mate with other fruit flies from another population. Doesn’t necessarily mean they are infertile with the other populations just that they don’t mate for one reason or another. I wonder if this is anything like human behavior? I’m Caucasian and I have no desire to couple with certain Africans or South Americans. I don’t find piercings through the lips and distorted heads sexy. Nothing racial about this, just no desire on my part.
I’m not so certain that fish mating habits are all genetic. Are you absolutely certain the ritual dances and courting behaviors aren’t learned behaviors? Maybe the isolated populations develop new dances and rituals which are no longer effective with the foreign populations. And when you throw the previously isolated populations together, they no longer know how to arouse the foreign population.
What I’m pointing out here is that what has been labeled as speciation may not be. It may be a learned behavior pattern or it may another as yet unexplained cause.
Isolated populations often develop unique characteristics that were present in their genes all along but the isolation and environmental conditions may have brought certain recessive genes to the surface as primary genes. This may be a form of micro evolution but it is not macro. My relatives of long ago were from northern Europe and skins developed lighter and noses smaller than Europeans from the Mediteranean. No speciation or macroevolution here, just a reshuffling of existing genes that are present in all humans.
The other examples you quoted are fodder for future web searches. Right now I am fairly busy at work and probably can’t get back to HOP before the weekend. I will investigate each of the speciation example you cited.
Scientific Facts
I guess we can agree to disagree about the existence scientific facts. Would you agree with this statement: “Theories are always subject to change and, as such, cannot be facts. The evidence may strongly support the correctness of the theory but theories are not facts”.
Probability of speciation
My example of the red snapper is reasonably accurate. Genetic mutation MUST begin with a change to one individual. And unless there is some mechanism to pass that mutation on to the next generation, the mutation will die out with the individual. For a mutation to be transmitted to the next generation, in a species which reproduces sexually, there must be a male and female who are sexually compatible. THERE IS NO OTHER WAY. Every change in a species MUST begin with a change to one individual according to evolution theory. And, somehow, that change must be passed on the succeeding generations. There is no other way, within the framework of evolution theory, that you accept. After the initial mutation is passed on the next generation, then stuff like genetic drift and natural selection take over. But there has to be an initial mutation to one individual and through some mechanism, it must be passed on to succeeding generations.
Entire populations do not change en masse. The change MUST begin with one or two individuals and then spread to the rest of the population. If the population is isolated and under stress, punctuated equilibrium may speed up the process but it MUST begin the same way.
You may disagree with my odds. If punctuated equilibrium is true, and I seriously doubt that it is, a mutation may occur in less time, say 5,000 generations instead of every 10,000. And if the population is isolated and the female who experiences the compatible mutation is in the same immediate population as the male, the logistical problem is minimized. But the odds are still overwhelmingly against speciation.
Lets use one mutation in 5,000 generations and recalculate the odds.
5,000 x 5,000 x 8,000,000,000 = 200,000,000,000,000,000.
One chance out of 2 x 10 to the 16th power.
I’m still not betting on these odds.
Even with millions and hundreds of millions and even a few billion years. How long have red snappers been around?
If you have a problem with my calculations, let me know and we can review them.
It’s no secret that I have serious problems with all this evolution crap. What is often presented as solidly documented is often nothing more than wishful speculation.
What is presented as fact has never been proven and, in fact, can’t be proven. There is as much data reported as is not reported, because the unreported data doesn’t support the desired conclusion. Because evolution is assumed to be accurate, careers in academia are not made by disputing the entrenched ideas. The incredible frauds that have been perpetrated to explain the “missing links” is just one example of what fanatical allegiance to a flawed theory can result in.
One way of looking at a theory is as a framework by which to interpret data. If the theory is based on reality, the results of analysis are much more likely to reflect reality. If the theory is seriously flawed, the results of any data analysis are also likely to be flawed. I think that is exactly the case with evolution. So seriously flawed that no bandaid modifications are going to correct the problems, which are at the core.
And yes, I do accept Intelligent Design as scientific. But my arguments with you and others in HOP will be based solely on the flaws in evolution theory and not on my personal beliefs.
I look forward to presenting the problems with evolution for your consideration (and there are many). If you truly have a scientific mind, you will give consideration to my analysis. If you have already made up your mind, and I’m not convinced your mind is open to a challenge to your beliefs, the analysis I present will be logical, supported by hard mathematical probability where possible, and not based on anything that requires a leap of faith.
And I do believe the earth is spherical, not round. And feel free to take cheap shots like this at me. I have little ego to damage. And I won't take cheap shots like this back at you.
And I understand that science has modifed Darwin's original theory many times and in many ways. Example, Darwin didn't know enough about genetics to propose that his changes were the result of mutations. It was the Neo-Darwinists in the 1930's that modified Darwin original hypothesis to plug up a few of the holes that modern genetics had created. Plugging holes doesn't cure a problem when the central core is inaccurate.
See you later, maybe this weekend.
Drysophila
This still doesn’t sound like a very convincing case for speciation. It appears that 3 isolated populations have been studied and that the females don’t want to mate with other fruit flies from another population. Doesn’t necessarily mean they are infertile with the other populations just that they don’t mate for one reason or another. I wonder if this is anything like human behavior? I’m Caucasian and I have no desire to couple with certain Africans or South Americans. I don’t find piercings through the lips and distorted heads sexy. Nothing racial about this, just no desire on my part.
I’m not so certain that fish mating habits are all genetic. Are you absolutely certain the ritual dances and courting behaviors aren’t learned behaviors? Maybe the isolated populations develop new dances and rituals which are no longer effective with the foreign populations. And when you throw the previously isolated populations together, they no longer know how to arouse the foreign population.
What I’m pointing out here is that what has been labeled as speciation may not be. It may be a learned behavior pattern or it may another as yet unexplained cause.
Isolated populations often develop unique characteristics that were present in their genes all along but the isolation and environmental conditions may have brought certain recessive genes to the surface as primary genes. This may be a form of micro evolution but it is not macro. My relatives of long ago were from northern Europe and skins developed lighter and noses smaller than Europeans from the Mediteranean. No speciation or macroevolution here, just a reshuffling of existing genes that are present in all humans.
The other examples you quoted are fodder for future web searches. Right now I am fairly busy at work and probably can’t get back to HOP before the weekend. I will investigate each of the speciation example you cited.
Scientific Facts
I guess we can agree to disagree about the existence scientific facts. Would you agree with this statement: “Theories are always subject to change and, as such, cannot be facts. The evidence may strongly support the correctness of the theory but theories are not facts”.
Probability of speciation
My example of the red snapper is reasonably accurate. Genetic mutation MUST begin with a change to one individual. And unless there is some mechanism to pass that mutation on to the next generation, the mutation will die out with the individual. For a mutation to be transmitted to the next generation, in a species which reproduces sexually, there must be a male and female who are sexually compatible. THERE IS NO OTHER WAY. Every change in a species MUST begin with a change to one individual according to evolution theory. And, somehow, that change must be passed on the succeeding generations. There is no other way, within the framework of evolution theory, that you accept. After the initial mutation is passed on the next generation, then stuff like genetic drift and natural selection take over. But there has to be an initial mutation to one individual and through some mechanism, it must be passed on to succeeding generations.
Entire populations do not change en masse. The change MUST begin with one or two individuals and then spread to the rest of the population. If the population is isolated and under stress, punctuated equilibrium may speed up the process but it MUST begin the same way.
You may disagree with my odds. If punctuated equilibrium is true, and I seriously doubt that it is, a mutation may occur in less time, say 5,000 generations instead of every 10,000. And if the population is isolated and the female who experiences the compatible mutation is in the same immediate population as the male, the logistical problem is minimized. But the odds are still overwhelmingly against speciation.
Lets use one mutation in 5,000 generations and recalculate the odds.
5,000 x 5,000 x 8,000,000,000 = 200,000,000,000,000,000.
One chance out of 2 x 10 to the 16th power.
I’m still not betting on these odds.
Even with millions and hundreds of millions and even a few billion years. How long have red snappers been around?
If you have a problem with my calculations, let me know and we can review them.
It’s no secret that I have serious problems with all this evolution crap. What is often presented as solidly documented is often nothing more than wishful speculation.
What is presented as fact has never been proven and, in fact, can’t be proven. There is as much data reported as is not reported, because the unreported data doesn’t support the desired conclusion. Because evolution is assumed to be accurate, careers in academia are not made by disputing the entrenched ideas. The incredible frauds that have been perpetrated to explain the “missing links” is just one example of what fanatical allegiance to a flawed theory can result in.
One way of looking at a theory is as a framework by which to interpret data. If the theory is based on reality, the results of analysis are much more likely to reflect reality. If the theory is seriously flawed, the results of any data analysis are also likely to be flawed. I think that is exactly the case with evolution. So seriously flawed that no bandaid modifications are going to correct the problems, which are at the core.
And yes, I do accept Intelligent Design as scientific. But my arguments with you and others in HOP will be based solely on the flaws in evolution theory and not on my personal beliefs.
I look forward to presenting the problems with evolution for your consideration (and there are many). If you truly have a scientific mind, you will give consideration to my analysis. If you have already made up your mind, and I’m not convinced your mind is open to a challenge to your beliefs, the analysis I present will be logical, supported by hard mathematical probability where possible, and not based on anything that requires a leap of faith.
And I do believe the earth is spherical, not round. And feel free to take cheap shots like this at me. I have little ego to damage. And I won't take cheap shots like this back at you.
And I understand that science has modifed Darwin's original theory many times and in many ways. Example, Darwin didn't know enough about genetics to propose that his changes were the result of mutations. It was the Neo-Darwinists in the 1930's that modified Darwin original hypothesis to plug up a few of the holes that modern genetics had created. Plugging holes doesn't cure a problem when the central core is inaccurate.
See you later, maybe this weekend.
Coyote
Well-Known Member
Drysophila is nowhere near as sophisticated as mammels, much less humans. Their mating behavior is hardwired genetically. The females don't mate - not because they "don't want to" but rather because they are genetically programmed to a different dance. Each species apparently has it's own variations. They apparently meet the scientific criteria for a new species - they produce sterile hybrids and they can no longer mate with their founder population.
Positive - at least in cichlids which have been extensively studied. They've even found genetic markers for some behaviors.
Fish don't rear their young or teach them behaviors - how would new dances get passed on? It's much more logical to consider them in light of minute genetic differences in a population that cumulate until that population's behavior is different enough that it can no longer mate with the original population.
Cichlids and Fruitflies are simple enough that it's unlikely we're talking learned behavior here.
If that were the case the isolated populations would still be able to mate with the orginal populations - but they can't because the acretion of small mutations has finally changed them enough to speciate.
Ok
Yes - theories are subject to change when more facts become available. But - by the nature of it's development, a scientific theory is not "just a theory" - it's pretty darn close to fact. It's supported by a substantial body of evidence and it's run through a peer review process. After all, gravity is still a theory but I don't think there is much dispute on it's existance.
Evolution occurs through population genetics. Think of it this way. An individual has a small mutation that is beneficial but not so drastic as to prevent mating so it is passed on in the regional population and becomes common. Later on, another individual has another small mutation and the same thing happens. Keep adding on more and more small changes and the effect is cumulative. Eventually all those small changes are enough to prevent that population from being able to mate with it's former species.
Castle
Well-Known Member
Not sure. It seems that many believe if one is true, the other must be false.
Unfortunate.
-Castle
Werbung:
Justinian
Well-Known Member
Uhuh
That is if it was ever concluded that these evolutionary bones they found were of the same evolving animal and not of different presently extinct ones. I saw a program on Human evolution which was the state-of-the-art explanation of it. The people who were talking about their finds were just absolute morons. They found some archaelogical tools at a dig site and then were pleased to find on the same level of earth, an apelike creature's bones. They said, "When we discovered it, we said, 'This must be the tool master.'"I don't know whether they're that stupid or they think we are. No, I don't believe in evolution. One reason is all the people involved in it are a bunch of queers and freaks that will do anything to prove Religion, more specifically, christianity wrong. Such research was never started for actual fact-finding and study but on a blatant agenda to drive religion from the hearts and minds of people, especially in the west.
That is if it was ever concluded that these evolutionary bones they found were of the same evolving animal and not of different presently extinct ones. I saw a program on Human evolution which was the state-of-the-art explanation of it. The people who were talking about their finds were just absolute morons. They found some archaelogical tools at a dig site and then were pleased to find on the same level of earth, an apelike creature's bones. They said, "When we discovered it, we said, 'This must be the tool master.'"I don't know whether they're that stupid or they think we are. No, I don't believe in evolution. One reason is all the people involved in it are a bunch of queers and freaks that will do anything to prove Religion, more specifically, christianity wrong. Such research was never started for actual fact-finding and study but on a blatant agenda to drive religion from the hearts and minds of people, especially in the west.
Similar threads
