Ignorance and evolution

[The_Barbarian]

(Barbarian points out that hybridization and reproductive isolation are not the same thing)

I know that they are two different things.

If so, why do you continue to conflate the two?

But as I’ve said before,the kind of reproductive isolation that ultimately matters,if you’re going to argue for “common descent”,is the genetic kind,where two species are incompatible with each other,as with humans and apes. And as I said also,we ultimately descend by acts of reproduction,not just through geographic isolation and genetic mutation.

You still aren’t getting it. A geographically-isolated race will often, over time, become sufficiently evolved to become reproductively isolated from the original population. That is speciation, or macroevolution. It’s been directly observed.

You can show me examples of speciation through genetic mutation and geographic isolation – but so what?

New species evolving. That’s how it works.

If the species are still geneticly able to reproduce with each other

That’s the point. They can’t. You see, over time, they evolve sufficiently that individuals from each group are no longer interfertile. In general, this happens gradually, so the first step is simply decreased fertility, before total reproductive isolation occurs.

Humans and chimps are more effectively isolated, because they were made so by a chromosome fusion which almost certainly put an end to any chance of hybridization.

The process of speciation is one thing,but the fact of complete inability to reproduce between two groups is another,and science has not shown,except in theory, that the one fact leads to the to the other fact.

Dobzhansky noted one example, two species of flies which over time became reproductively isolated, and were no longer interfertile.

Descent is vertical,and acts of reproduction,not mutation,are the real connecting links between us and our ancestors.

You’ve confused common descent with speciation.

If the theory is to be convincing,it would have to account for the fact of complete genetic incompatiblity between modern life forms which supposedly were compatible thousands of years ago.

Indeed it has. That is why it is the only one that can explain the evidence.

 

[The_Barbarian]

A note on Darwin’s loss of faith by Ernst Mayr:

"Darwin lost his faith in the years 1836-1839, much of it clearly prior to the reading of Malthus. In order not to hurt the feelings of his friends and of his wife, Darwin often used deistic language in his publications, but much in his notebooks indicates that by this time he had become a “materialist” (more or less equivalent to an atheist; see Chapter 2).

Mayr was, as you know, a rather enthusiastic atheist. He differs from other scholars of Darwin in arguing that Darwin’s expressions of faith were merely to fool his family and associates.

This seems very out of character for Darwin, who realized the bombshell his book was going to be, and yet wrote it anyway.

 

[anthony022071]

(Barbarian points out that hybridization and reproductive isolation are not the same thing)

If so, why do you continue to conflate the two?

I don’t. Humans are not the result of hybridization,and we doesn’t look like humans are the result of a process of reproductive isolation either,because it has never been shown from a modern example that speciation can lead to a complete break in genetic compatibility between two populations.

You still aren’t getting it. A geographically-isolated race will often, over time, become sufficiently evolved to become reproductively isolated from the original population. That is speciation, or macroevolution. It’s been directly observed.

Are you talking about complete reproductive isolation,as with cats and dogs,or are you talking about partial reproductive isolation,as with brown bears and polar bears? If you want to argue for common descent between two populations that definitely cannot reproduce together,you’ll have to show a modern example of the process of speciation that led to complete genetic incompatibility.

New species evolving. That’s how it works.

Evolving into what? two species that are still capable of reproduction,like brown bears and polar bears? That doesn’t help the theory that humans evolved from apes or chimpanzees.

That’s the point. They can’t. You see, over time, they evolve sufficiently that individuals from each group are no longer interfertile. In general, this happens gradually, so the first step is simply decreased fertility, before total reproductive isolation occurs.

Well,then show me documented examples where that process led to total reproductive isolation. If there were such examples,we wouldn’t be having this discussion,because it would be a well-publicized,documented fact.

 

[The_Barbarian]

I don’t. Humans are not the result of hybridization,and we doesn’t look like humans are the result of a process of reproductive isolation either,because it has never been shown from a modern example that speciation can lead to a complete break in genetic compatibility between two populations.

Sure it has. For example, O. gigas is completely infertile with it’s parent species O. lamarkana. It’s the first documented speciation, BTW, about 1904.

You still aren’t getting it. A geographically-isolated race will often, over time, become sufficiently evolved to become reproductively isolated from the original population. That is speciation, or macroevolution. It’s been directly observed.

Are you talking about complete reproductive isolation,as with cats and dogs

First, it’s new species, such as two species of fruit fly. Only later does it continue to new genera and families. That takes longer, of course.

or are you talking about partial reproductive isolation,as with brown bears and polar bears? If you want to argue for common descent between two populations that definitely cannot reproduce together,you’ll have to show a modern example of the process of speciation that led to complete genetic incompatibility.

See above.

Barbarian observes:
New species evolving. That’s how it works.

Evolving into what?

New species. Most often, they are still somewhat interfertile at first, although the primroses I mentioned, and the flies Dobzhansky found were not. As you know, a period of reduced fertility often precedes absolute genetic isolation.

Well,then show me documented examples where that process led to total reproductive isolation.

See above. The very first one recorded, was like that. Would you like some more?

 

[Thing]

Hi, I want to ask a question from the ignorance side; are plants and insects the same as animals like cats and dogs. Insects and mammals are different designs of life-forms and are not related I think, how can we know mammals share this evolutionary property of insects.

 

[steveandersen]

Hi, I want to ask a question from the ignorance side; are plants and insects the same as animals like cats and dogs.

what do you mean “the same”?

Plants are plants,
Insects are animals
Plants and animals are all Eukaryotes
As distinguished from the other 2 domains; the bacteria and the archaea

Do you mean to ask if the evolutionary process is the same?
Yes

Insects and mammals are different designs of life-forms and are not related I think,

They are related but very distantly
The lines the lead to insects and to you and I separated a long time ago (600 million?)

But we share traits such as bilateral symmetry, tube-in-tube digestive tracks, internal body cavities, etc
So we are more closely related to each other than to oak trees, viruses, or star fish

how can we know mammals share this evolutionary property of insects.

We can observe that both mammals and insects have evolved.

All life appears to evolve since it is a phenomenon that happens on a molecular level and we all share the same biochemistry.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Steve, can I nitpick for a moment?

So we are more closely related to each other than to oak trees, viruses, or star fish

A small point; both vertebrates and starfish are deuterostomes, and insects are protostomes. We are, by genes, structure and DNA, more closely related to echinoderms (including starfish) than we are to all other animals, including insects.

(pedantry over)

 

[steveandersen]

Steve, can I nitpick for a moment?

A small point; both vertebrates and starfish are deuterostomes, and insects are protostomes. We are, by genes, structure and DNA, more closely related to echinoderms (including starfish) than we are to all other animals, including insects.

(pedantry over)

doh

I forgot about the bilateral larval stage!

I was trying to quickly come up with a species that had radial symmetry and well you know ……haste makes wrong.

thanks

 

[Thing]

Haste makes waste.

Do you think evolution is random.

 

[steveandersen]

Haste makes waste.

Do you think evolution is random.

while there are random elements to it it is not a truely random process.

 

[Thing]

while there are random elements to it it is not a truely random process.

Thats the rub, is’nt it. A thing is random or not. A random process just might not become organized at all.

 

[steveandersen]

Thats the rub, is’nt it. A thing is random or not. A random process just might not become organized at all.

Things can have both deterministic and random elements in it.
It isn’t an either/or situation.

Both random and deterministic processes may become organized if there is a selection mechanism.

 

[Thing]

I often try to light a fire, I use paper, wood and turf, and sometimes white spirits - and the durned thing still does not light sometimes.
I think there is some randomness in how the fire will burn if it ever gets going, but I’ve selected all the materials and arranged them and I have to ignite it, and nurse it.
Not so sure that the similarly preselected materials of life and laws and environments, not to mention the spark of life - whatever that is, is ever really truely random even in part.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Thats the rub, is’nt it. A thing is random or not.

That puts evolution, geology, ecology, etc. in an odd position. They have random events occur (for example mutations) but at the same time, they have entirely non-random things going on, like natural selection.

From a systems standpoint, a random process plus a non-random is a non-random process. And that’s pretty much what we see in biology.

A random process just might not become organized at all.

It’s true. A lot of phenomena are very ephemeral for that reason. Others are not.

 

[anthony022071]

Sure it has. For example, O. gigas is completely infertile with it’s parent species O. lamarkana. It’s the first documented speciation, BTW, about 1904.

O. gigas are polyploid mutants. And you know that mutants lead to a reproductive dead end.
O. gigas are not a self-perpetuating population. They do not even have new genetic information,they just have more of the same chromosome sets as the parents.
O. gigas are not recognized as a spesies of oenothera.

< Davis, B.M., An amphidiploid in the F1 generation from the cross Oenothera franciscana x Oenothera biennis, and its progeny, Genetics 28(4):275–285, July 1943, www.Genetics.org/cgi/reprint/28/4/275.

“In summary it should be emphasized that this amphidiploid did not present a settled behaviour of all pairing on the part of the chromosomes at diakinesis. On the contrary, there was much irregularity in the process of chromosome segregation during meiosis. Accounts of amphidiploids have frequently assumed that these plants even from hybrids would breed true because the double set of chromosomes would permit a regular pairing between homologues. It will be noted that here is an amphidiploid Oenothera hybrid in which the pairing is far from regular with the result that the plant does not breed true, as will appear in the accounts of later generations.” >

You still aren’t getting it. A geographically-isolated race will often, over time, become sufficiently evolved to become reproductively isolated from the original population. That is speciation, or macroevolution. It’s been directly observed.

It’s been mistakenly observed.

New species. Most often, they are still somewhat interfertile at first, although the primroses I mentioned, and the flies Dobzhansky found were not.

Again,hybrids – a reproductive dead end,not a self-sustaining population.

On the one hand,hybrids. On the other,partial reproductive isolation,where individuals from one population can’t interbreed with another population,but other individuals can.

Neither of those kinds of examples can explain complete reproductive isolation between species.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Sure it has. For example, O. gigas is completely infertile with it’s parent species O. lamarkana. It’s the first documented speciation, BTW, about 1904.

O. gigas are polyploid mutants.

Yes, that’s one of the ways you can get rapid speciation. Polyploid mutants are often immediately and completely isolated from their original population. It’s not very common in mammals, but at least one case of such speciation has been noted in a polyploid rodent species in South America.

And you know that mutants lead to a reproductive dead end.

Those rodents would be surprised to hear that. They are reproducing and doing quite well.

O. gigas are not a self-perpetuating population.

So far, they are. You can get some, if you want.
ibiblio.org/pfaf/cgi-bin/arr_html?Oenothera+glazioviana

They do not even have new genetic information

They look quite different than O. lamarkana. They reproduce true to type. They are reproductively isolate from O. lamarkana. And they’ve had a few mutations since, so they are evolving. They fit the scientific defintion of a new species. Are you telling us that a new species can evolve with no new information?

O. gigas are not recognized as a spesies of oenothera.

Only new species get a new species name. If they were just a variety, they’d have an appended subspecies name. You’ve been badly misled about that.

(sixty-year-old paper predicting the demise of O. gigas.)

The author of that paper is dead, but O. gigas lives on. Imagine that.

Barbarian suggests:
You still aren’t getting it. A geographically-isolated race will often, over time, become sufficiently evolved to become reproductively isolated from the original population. That is speciation, or macroevolution. It’s been directly observed.

It’s been mistakenly observed.

I think I trust Dobzhansky’s understanding of science better than yours. Sorry.

Barbarian observes:
New species. Most often, they are still somewhat interfertile at first, although the primroses I mentioned, and the flies Dobzhansky found were not.

Again,hybrids

Perhaps you don’t know what “hybrid” means. It has nothing whatever to do with these insects.

a reproductive dead end,not a self-sustaining population.

Those flies would be surprised to learn that. They are still there, still reproducing, many generations later.

Would you be offended if I asked you to learn a little about genetics so you could understand what this is about?

 

[garysibio]

The science of origins is too important to be left strictly in the hands of scientists. Of course, there were atheists in the past, evolution is just one more recruitment tool.

There is no ‘science of origins’. Regardless of which camp you are in, you can’t prove your point of view scientifically. Origins is a matter of history. Even if you prove that something could have occurred, you can’t prove scientifically that it did occur.

Gary

 

[garysibio]

Speciation is macroevolution. Microevolution is change within a species.

The concept of species is something anthropologists call a folk classification. It is something a particular culture imposes on the natural world to try and make it more understandable. In the biblical culture they used kinds rather than species. The concept of species was invented by Linaeus in the 18th century and is no more valid than the biblical concept of kind. The fact that the Bible lumps bats together with birds doesnot make it wrong. It only shows that, to the ancient Jews, having wings and flying was more important than having fur, producing milk and giving birth to live young. Both systems are just cultually-determined overlays on the natural world.

Gary

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Speciation is macroevolution. Microevolution is change within a species.

The concept of species is something anthropologists call a folk classification.

Nope. Although (and this is a very important point) many folk cultures can quite accurately define phylogenies of related organisms. It is more evidence that these do have an objective existence, unlike the folk concepts of “birds” being flying animals.

It is something a particular culture imposes on the natural world to try and make it more understandable.

That would be all classifications done by humans, folk or otherwise.

In the biblical culture they used kinds rather than species.

Actually, they didn’t. The modern creationist notion of “kinds” would have been completely alien to the Hebrews.

The concept of species was invented by Linaeus in the 18th century and is no more valid than the biblical concept of kind.

Other than the fact that genetics, molecular biology, anatomy, and the fossil record is in accord with the nested hierarchy of Linnaeus. The difference between folk classifications like “kind” and scientific taxa is evidence.

The fact that the Bible lumps bats together with birds doesnot make it wrong. It only shows that, to the ancient Jews, having wings and flying was more important than having fur, producing milk and giving birth to live young.

It’s not an unreasonable way to do it, but it doesn’t reflect the reality of common descent. And that’s why scientists accept it; it fits reality.

I’m not buying the cultural-relativistic notion of postmodernists that reality is what we make it. They find evolution just icky, but they feel the same way about Christianity. You sure you want to promote their agenda?

 

[garysibio]

The modern creationist notion of “kinds” would have been completely alien to the Hebrews. <<

If you look in Gen 1 you will see that the animals and plants were created after their own kind. Therefore the concept of differing animals or plants being grouped together and referred to as a “kind” was well known to the Jews unless you want to argue that the book of Genesis was foreign to them. (Obviously the word ‘kind’ is the English translation of the Hebrew word used.)

Other than the fact that genetics, molecular biology, anatomy, and the fossil record is in accord with the nested hierarchy of Linnaeus. <<

You would think so considering the fact that the deck is stacked that way. The scientists who work in these fields already accept that as the truth therefore they fit their results into what they already believe to be true. The problem is that, as much as they try to fit their round peg into the square hole, it hasn’t worked well for them. You must not be keeping up with the field of taxonomy. Families, genera and species have been shifted around all over the place based on DNA evidence. Classifications done on the basis of morphology fall apart when the DNA is examined. Even without getting to the level of DNA, the American Ornithological Union usually changes the species of 10-15 American birds each year. If the various species were so self-evident as you say, they wouldn’t have to be making changes.

The difference between folk classifications like “kind” and scientific taxa is evidence. <<

Not at all. The Linnean system is nothing more than the folk classification of the culture of science. The fact that they call bats mammals is not more true or false than calling them birds. It all depends on which criteria are more relevant to a culture’s situation. Scientists are not better than the rest of us. As was pointed out much earlier in this thread, some 70% of them are atheistic. According to Ps 14:1, that makes them fools.

It’s not an unreasonable way to do it, but it doesn’t reflect the reality of common descent. And that’s why scientists accept it; it fits reality. <<

No. It fits how they view the world. Dividing up the animal kingdom by the presence of absence of hair is no more valid or correct than dividing up the animal kingdom based on the presence or absence of wings. They are both equally valid if they meet the needs of the culture.

Also, if evolution were accurate, it should be impossible to divide animals and plants into different taxon. There should be a continuum of forms resulting from the gradual change of one form into another. We don’t see any such continuum in the world.

I’m not buying the cultural-relativistic notion of postmodernists that reality is what we make it. They find evolution just icky, but they feel the same way about Christianity. You sure you want to promote their agenda? <<

I’m not talking about cultural relativism here and you know that. All I said that different cultures divide up and classify their environment differently according to their needs. Whether a bat is a bird or a mammal is morally neutral.

However, if you want an example of gross immorality, look at what happens when the false theory of evolution is applied to human society.

Gary