65
   

Don't tell me there's no proof for evolution

 
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Aug, 2007 07:49 am
naaah, he wouldnt make it past the first pop quiz. Hed be opting out early
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Aug, 2007 08:11 am
a few days ago farmerman wrote:
..... For those whove not recorded the Farmerman species criterion, It Is primarily SEXUAL ISOLATION, got it RL?......


today farmerman wrote:
..... as far as species that arent geographically isolates......


I thought we'd get to this sooner or later. Rolling Eyes

Gotta have it both ways.

'Isolation drives evolution, except when it doesn't. ' Laughing
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Aug, 2007 09:47 am
If you notice RL, we were talking about 2 diferent sources of evolutionary isollation. Plese dont "quoyte mine " me, youll lose big time. Anyone who was following would have caught the differentiation I made, you, howevere, being the two faced type that Creationists are, incapable of cogent thought but merelly capable of trying to foment dicord where none exists. Well.... Im not surprised.

I always wonder why you never quote entitre passages RL, afraid of looking stupid?

I can say the same about you, except from a more secure footing in fact. You are quite fond of saying that
"microevolution can occur between members of a subspecies (my term). However evolution cannot occur at higher taxa".

AND , elsewhere. you acceptthe bio= condition that "Higher taxa are arbitrary in their classification '

Therefore, according to RL's world , evolution IS probable among all levels of taxa and the Bible is not called into question as a mere fairy tale.


See any more flood evidence RL?
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Aug, 2007 10:00 am
farmerman wrote:
You are quite fond of saying that
"microevolution can occur between members of a subspecies (my term).



I have never said anything like this, unless you are trying to characterize the ability of blond parents to have a brunette child as 'microevolution'. Laughing
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Aug, 2007 10:04 am
Yes you have you old coot. Im just too lazy to go hunt up your quotes
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Aug, 2007 10:30 am
farmerman wrote:
Yes you have you old coot. Im just too lazy to go hunt up your quotes


Allow me, my friend. Very Happy

Here are links to all the previous 6 times I have used the term .

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1669618&highlight=microevolution#1669618

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1725926&highlight=microevolution#1725926

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1928849&highlight=microevolution#1928849

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1942459&highlight=microevolution#1942459

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2733512&highlight=microevolution#2733512

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2735247&highlight=microevolution#2735247


Which of these are you referring to?
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Aug, 2007 12:04 pm
New fossils reveal different theory on human ancestors

NAIROBI, Kenya (Reuters) -- The skull of a female Homo erectus -- the first-ever discovery -- suggests the upright ancestors of humans may have been physiologically closer to modern gorillas and chimpanzees.

Homo erectus, long viewed as a crucial evolutionary link between modern humans and their tree-dwelling ancestors, may have been more ape-like than previously thought, scientists said Thursday.

Unveiling newfound fossils, a team of Kenyan scientists said they were surprised to find that early female hominids were much smaller than males. Gorillas and chimpanzees also exhibit big differences in size between males and females.

The fossils, an ancient skull and a jawbone from two early branches of the human family tree -- Homo erectus and Homo habilis, were revealed at Kenya's National Museum.

Both fossils were found in 2000 east of Lake Turkana. But the Homo erectus skull, dating back 1.55 million years, was slightly older than the Homo habilis jawbone, which was found to be 1.44 million years old, the scientists said.

"Prior to the discovery of the new specimens, scientists did not know that Homo erectus males were far larger than the females," said Dr Emma Mbua, one of the team.

"This sexual dimorphism [two forms of the same species] is considered a primitive character because it occurs in other apes," she said, standing in front of the bones at the museum.

She said this could also mean the sexual behavior of Homo erectus was more like that of apes, where individuals, especially males, mate with several partners, sometimes in a few hours, than that of its more monogamous human successors.

The fossils, discovered in east Africa's Rift Valley, regarded as the "cradle of humankind", challenge the idea that human prototypes evolved one after the other in a linear fashion from Homo habilis to Homo erectus, ending with modern humans.

This means they must have co-existed in different habitats at the same time, the scientists added.

"They were kind of sisters, if you like," said Frederick Manthi, the scientist who discovered the fossils. "Homo habilis never gave rise to Homo erectus. These discoveries have completely changed the story."

The research, first published in the journal Nature, was conducted by nine scientists including well-known paleontologist Maeve Leakey and her daughter Louise Leakey.

The scientists think both Homo erectus and Homo habilis must have evolved from a common ancestor 2-3 million years ago.

The most famous such ancestor is Ethiopia's "Lucy," a fossil more than 3 million years old that set off this week for a tour of museums in the United States.

The basic evolutionary story -- that all humans came "out of Africa" after evolving from apes in the Rift Valley around 5 million years ago -- remains unchanged and may even be strengthened, the scientists said.

"The more fossils we find in Kenya, the more we justify the story that east Africa is the cradle of mankind," Manthi said. "These hominids tell us there was a large diversity within this species, which strengthens that convention."

The researchers said Homo habilis was largely a herbivore, likely to have foraged for fruits in greener, more heavily forested areas than Homo erectus, who is thought to have been a hunter who thrived in east Africa's open savannah.


Manthi said the team would have to find more fossils to confirm the findings.

"The story of human evolution has not yet been [told]," said Kenya Museum director Farah Idle. "There are many missing links. The more discoveries you make, the more questions you raise."

CNN
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Aug, 2007 12:44 pm
RL., youve made my point. Distinguishing microevolution as if it were an "allowable" loophole to the process of natural selection.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Aug, 2007 01:23 pm
farmerman wrote:
RL., youve made my point. Distinguishing microevolution as if it were an "allowable" loophole to the process of natural selection.


hi Farmerman,

Not sure why you think I've endorsed the concept of 'microevolution' based on my comments.

Perhaps you misread them.
0 Replies
 
Wilso
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Aug, 2007 03:30 pm
RL, what exactly are you trying to prove? Every comment you've ever made about evolution is WRONG. You've been completely beaten on every point. You've posted endless reams of worthless meandering drivel. And you've continued to refuse to validate with a single shred of evidence your delusional devotion to the cosmic jewish zombie. You are a LOSER.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Aug, 2007 03:40 pm
Wilso wrote:
RL, what exactly are you trying to prove? Every comment you've ever made about evolution is WRONG. You've been completely beaten on every point. You've posted endless reams of worthless meandering drivel. And you've continued to refuse to validate with a single shred of evidence your delusional devotion to the cosmic jewish zombie. You are a LOSER.
Stunning example of rhetorical logic.

"You're wrong, you loser!" . . . ad hominem ad nauseam. . .
0 Replies
 
Pauligirl
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Aug, 2007 08:08 pm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4708459.stm


Butterfly unlocks evolution secret
By Julianna Kettlewell
BBC News science reporter

Why one species branches into two is a question that has haunted evolutionary biologists since Darwin.
Given our planet's rich biodiversity, "speciation" clearly happens regularly, but scientists cannot quite pinpoint the driving forces behind it.
Now, researchers studying a family of butterflies think they have witnessed a subtle process, which could be forcing a wedge between newly formed species.
A Russian-US team discovered that closely related species living in the same geographical space displayed unusually distinct wing markings.
These wing colours apparently evolved as a sort of "team strip", allowing butterflies to easily identify the species of a potential mate.


This process, called "reinforcement", prevents closely related species from interbreeding thus driving them further apart genetically and promoting speciation.
Although scientists have speculated about this mechanism for years, it has rarely been witnessed in nature.
"The phenomenon of reinforcement is one of the very few mechanisms that has natural selection playing a role in speciation," said Nikolai Kandul, who co-authored the Nature paper with Vladimir Lukhtanov and colleagues.
"It might be very widespread but it is hard to find good evidence of it," the Harvard University researcher added.
Geographical isolation
For speciation to occur, two branches of the same species must stop breeding with one another for long enough to grow apart genetically.
The most obvious way this can happen is through geographical isolation.
If a mountain range or river divides a population of animals for hundreds of generations, they might find that if they meet again they are no longer able to breed.
But geographical isolation is not enough to explain all speciation. Clearly, organisms do sometimes speciate even if there is no clear river or mountain separating them.
The other mechanism that can theoretically divide a species is "reproductive isolation". This occurs when organisms are not separated physically, but "choose" not to breed with each other thereby causing genetic isolation, which amounts to the same thing.
Reproductive isolation is much hazier and more difficult to pin down than geographic isolation, which is why biologists are so excited about this family of butterflies.
Butterfly clue
The Harvard team made the discovery while studying the butterfly genus Agrodiaetus , which has a wide ranging habitat in Asia.
The females are brown while the males exhibit a variety of wing colours ranging from silver and blue to brown.
Dr Kandul and his colleagues found that if closely related species of Agrodiaetus are geographically separate, they tend to look quite similar. That is to say, they do not display a distinctive "team strip".
But if similarly closely related species are living side-by-side, the researchers noticed, they frequently look strikingly different - their "teams" are clearly advertised.
This has the effect of discouraging inter-species mating, thus encouraging genetic isolation and species divergence.
"This butterfly study presents evidence that the differences in the male's wing colouration is stronger [when the species share a habitat] than [when they do not]," said the speciation expert Axel Meyer, from Konstanz University in Germany.
"This pattern would therefore support the interpretation that it was brought about by reinforcement, hence natural selection."
The reason evolution favours the emergence of a "team strip" in related species, or sub species, living side-by-side is that hybridisation is not usually a desirable thing.
Although many of the Agrodiaetus species are close enough genetically to breed, their hybrid offspring tend to be rather weedy and less likely to thrive.
Therefore natural selection will favour ways of distinguishing the species, which is why the clear markings exist.
"For me, this is a big discovery just because the system is very beautiful," said Dr Kandul. "As much as we can we are showing that [reinforcement] is the most likely mechanism."
This research was published in the latest edition of Nature magazine.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rapid Evolution of Reproductive Isolation in the Wild: Evidence from Introduced Salmon

Abstract
Colonization of new environments should promote rapid speciation as a by-product of adaptation to divergent selective regimes. Although this process of ecological speciation is known to have occurred over millennia or centuries, nothing is known about how quickly reproductive isolation actually evolves when new environments are first colonized. Using DNA microsatellites, population-specific natural tags, and phenotypic variation, we tested for reproductive isolation between two adjacent salmon populations of a common ancestry that colonized divergent reproductive environments (a river and a lake beach). We found evidence for the evolution of reproductive isolation after fewer than 13 generations.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000Sci...290..516H

"Three species of wildflowers called goatsbeards were introduced to the United States from Europe shortly after the turn of the century. Within a few decades their populations expanded and began to encounter one another in the American West. Whenever mixed populations occurred, the specied interbred (hybridizing) producing sterile hybrid offspring. Suddenly, in the late forties two new species of goatsbeard appeared near Pullman, Washington. Although the new species were similar in appearance to the hybrids, they produced fertile offspring. The evolutionary process had created a separate species that could reproduce but not mate with the goatsbeard plants from which it had evolved."
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
----------------------------------------------------------------

Lessons About Speciation

http://www.evoled.org/lessons/speciation.htm

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Ring species

Ring species provide unusual and valuable situations in which we can observe two species and the intermediate forms connecting them. In a ring species:
· A ring of populations encircles an area of unsuitable habitat.
· At one location in the ring of populations, two distinct forms coexist without interbreeding, and hence are different species.
· Around the rest of the ring, the traits of one of these species change gradually, through intermediate populations, into the traits of the second species.
Ring species:
a ring of populations in which there is only one place where 2 distinct species meet. A ring species, therefore, is a ring of populations in which there is only one place where two distinct species meet. Ernst Mayr4 called ring species "the perfect demonstration of speciation" because they show a range of intermediate forms between two species. They allow us to use variation in space to infer how changes occurred over time. This approach is especially powerful when we can reconstruct the biogeographical history of a ring species, as has been done in two cases.

California salamanders exhibit ring species traits.

Ensatina salamanders

One well-studied ring species consists of salamanders in the Ensatina eschscholtzii group, distributed in mountains along the west coast of North America. In 1949, Robert Stebbins5 described a fascinating pattern of geographical variation in these salamanders:
· Two distinct forms of Ensatina salamanders, differing dramatically in color, coexist in southern California and interbreed there only rarely.
· These two forms are connected by a chain of populations to the north that encircles the Central Valley of California, and through this ring of populations the color patterns of the salamanders change gradually.
DNA analysis supports a common ancestor for these salamanders. Stebbins thought that this situation arose when an ancestral population of salamanders, in northern California, expanded southward along two fronts, one down the Sierra Nevada mountains, and the other down the coastal mountains. The two groups gradually became different as they moved south. When they met again in southern California, the two expanding fronts were so different that they rarely interbred, and were therefore different species. More recently, a team of researchers led by David Wake6-8 has examined genetic relationships among salamander populations using DNA sequences and other molecular traits, and the genetic evidence has supported Stebbins' hypothesis. The geographical variation, when combined with the inferred history revealed by the molecular traits, allows us to envision the small steps by which a single ancestral species in the north gave rise through evolutionary divergence to two species in southern California. Greenish warblers, a ring species, are found in parts of Asia and eastern Europe.

Greenish warblers

Another ring species that has provided valuable insights into speciation consists of the greenish warblers (Phylloscopus trochiloides). These small, insect-eating songbirds breed in the forests of central and northern Asia and eastern Europe. In the center of Asia is a large region of desert, including the Tibetan Plateau and the Taklamakan and Gobi Deserts, where the warblers cannot live. Instead, they inhabit a ring of mountains surrounding this region, as well as the forests of Siberia to the north. The warblers have remarkable geographic variation:9-11
· In Siberia, two distinct forms of greenish warblers coexist, one in the west and one in the east, their distributions narrowly overlapping in central Siberia, where they do not interbreed. These forms differ in color patterns, the songs that males sing to attract mates, and genetic characteristics. Also, males of each form usually do not recognize the song of the other form, but respond strongly to their own.
· The traits that differ between the two Siberian forms change gradually through the chain of populations encircling the Tibetan Plateau to the south.
· Thus two distinct species are connected by gradual variation in morphological, behavioral, and genetic traits..............

http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/irwin.html
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Aug, 2007 09:14 pm
real life wrote:

Well, if the contention is that species Y[/i][/u] evolved from species X[/i][/u], then:

before there can be 1000 members of species Y[/i][/u], there must be 100

and before there can be 100 , there must be 10

and before there can be 10 , there must be 1.

If the first member of species Y[/i][/u] cannot interbreed with any members of species X[/i][/u], then the 'new species' is toast.

If no critter ever 'crosses the line' to the point where they cannot interbreed with members of their 'parent species', then how are 'new species' begun?


That's the RL theory of evolution, and as we might expect, it doesn't work.

Here's how the actual theory of evolution works...

A population of species "X" begins to have a variation in it called "Y". First there is only one "Y", but eventually there are thousands of "Y's", but they can all still interbreed with "X". Because they are still the same species.

Then the population of "Y" begins to produce a variation called "Z". First there are few and then there are many, you get the picture...

"Z" can breed with "Y", but it can't breed with "X" because "X" and "Z" are now different species.

Then "Y" gets hit by a car while crossing the road and suddenly creationists can't figure out how "X" gave rise to "Z" (even though it's pretty friggin obvious).
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Aug, 2007 03:55 am



Pauligirl, good find. The butterfly article explains what I was trying to explain beatifully.

Now, if we can only get RL to stop posting theories that he's made up in his head.....
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Aug, 2007 08:02 am
Actually, real's creationism puts god to shame.
0 Replies
 
Miller
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Aug, 2007 08:05 am
Nothing puts God to shame!
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Aug, 2007 08:23 am
rosborne979 wrote:
real life wrote:

Well, if the contention is that species Y[/i][/u] evolved from species X[/i][/u], then:

before there can be 1000 members of species Y[/i][/u], there must be 100

and before there can be 100 , there must be 10

and before there can be 10 , there must be 1.

If the first member of species Y[/i][/u] cannot interbreed with any members of species X[/i][/u], then the 'new species' is toast.

If no critter ever 'crosses the line' to the point where they cannot interbreed with members of their 'parent species', then how are 'new species' begun?


That's the RL theory of evolution, and as we might expect, it doesn't work.

Here's how the actual theory of evolution works...

A population of species "X" begins to have a variation in it called "Y". First there is only one "Y", but eventually there are thousands of "Y's", but they can all still interbreed with "X". Because they are still the same species.

Then the population of "Y" begins to produce a variation called "Z". First there are few and then there are many, you get the picture...

"Z" can breed with "Y", but it can't breed with "X" because "X" and "Z" are now different species.

Then "Y" gets hit by a car while crossing the road and suddenly creationists can't figure out how "X" gave rise to "Z" (even though it's pretty friggin obvious).


If X and Y are the same species, and you said they are........

and if Y and Z can interbreed , then they are considered the same species as well, right?.......

.......then how is it that X and Z are not the same species?
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Aug, 2007 08:47 am
maporsche wrote:



Pauligirl, good find. The butterfly article explains what I was trying to explain beatifully.



Actually it doesn't.

While teasing us with the headline that 'the mystery of how species branch into two' may have been solved.........

...........the butterfly case is actually about two groups of butterflys that are already[/u][/i] different species.

Kinda deceptively written, isn't it?


--------------------------------------

But for humor it can't be beat.

The example of geographical isolation given:

Quote:
If a mountain range or river divides a population of animals for hundreds of generations...


Well, how did that mountain range just pop up and separate those two groups of critters that used to live side by side? Laughing

Are we really expected to believe that these cataclysmic geographical separations are responsible for much or most of the supposed 'speciation' thru history?

How many hundreds of millions of groups of critters suddenly found themselves separated by a mountain range?

Or by a river that was uncrossable for thousands (or millions) of years? How did the first group get across?

C'mon. Laughing
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Aug, 2007 10:06 am
real life wrote:
maporsche wrote:



Pauligirl, good find. The butterfly article explains what I was trying to explain beatifully.



Actually it doesn't.

While teasing us with the headline that 'the mystery of how species branch into two' may have been solved.........

...........the butterfly case is actually about two groups of butterflys that are already[/u][/i] different species.

Kinda deceptively written, isn't it?


--------------------------------------

But for humor it can't be beat.

The example of geographical isolation given:

Quote:
If a mountain range or river divides a population of animals for hundreds of generations...


Well, how did that mountain range just pop up and separate those two groups of critters that used to live side by side? Laughing

Are we really expected to believe that these cataclysmic geographical separations are responsible for much or most of the supposed 'speciation' thru history?

How many hundreds of millions of groups of critters suddenly found themselves separated by a mountain range?

Or by a river that was uncrossable for thousands (or millions) of years? How did the first group get across?

C'mon. Laughing


This post is kinda deceptively written, isn't it? Laughing
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Aug, 2007 10:20 am
wandeljw wrote:
real life wrote:
maporsche wrote:



Pauligirl, good find. The butterfly article explains what I was trying to explain beatifully.



Actually it doesn't.

While teasing us with the headline that 'the mystery of how species branch into two' may have been solved.........

...........the butterfly case is actually about two groups of butterflys that are already[/u][/i] different species.

Kinda deceptively written, isn't it?


--------------------------------------

But for humor it can't be beat.

The example of geographical isolation given:

Quote:
If a mountain range or river divides a population of animals for hundreds of generations...


Well, how did that mountain range just pop up and separate those two groups of critters that used to live side by side? Laughing

Are we really expected to believe that these cataclysmic geographical separations are responsible for much or most of the supposed 'speciation' thru history?

How many hundreds of millions of groups of critters suddenly found themselves separated by a mountain range?

Or by a river that was uncrossable for thousands (or millions) of years? How did the first group get across?

C'mon. Laughing


This post is kinda deceptively written, isn't it? Laughing


I gave a clear reason for my assertion.

Why don't you?

I would love to hear you address the reason I gave, or explain why these cataclysmic geographic isolation scenarios ( which supposedly account for much or most of the hundreds of millions of 'speciation' occurences in history ) should be considered reasonable.

btw hope you are doing well, wandeljw. Cool
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 05/18/2025 at 03:24:14