Author Topic: A few questions for devout evolutionists..  (Read 3539 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline ironglow

  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (9)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31268
  • Gender: Male
Re: A few questions for devout evolutionists..
« Reply #60 on: September 27, 2011, 10:49:41 AM »
  Jackruff had some valid views, in that God created the originals..both faiths allow for "adaptation".  You can see adaptation at work in the human species..much depending upon where they spent the last few millennia.
  Frankly, I sometimes believe boths faith lines like to provoke the debate.  We are working with 21st century humans , plant and animal species.
   I often wonder...just how important it is to modern medicine or science, whether that first pair of humans were created upon the spot or came from primordal goo some multi billion years previously..
If you don't want the truth, don't ask me.  If you want something sugar coated...go eat a donut !  (anon)

Offline SHOOTALL

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23836
Re: A few questions for devout evolutionists..
« Reply #61 on: September 27, 2011, 10:58:34 AM »
so who made the goo ?
If ya can see it ya can hit it !

Offline ironglow

  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (9)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31268
  • Gender: Male
Re: A few questions for devout evolutionists..
« Reply #62 on: September 27, 2011, 11:06:20 AM »
Shootall; an old story...
 
  There was an argument between God and an eminent & atheistic scientist...went as follows;
 
 Scientist:
    "God you're not so great..I can create life"
 
  God:
    " OK ...prove it" !
 
  Scientist:
  "Alright"... (as he bends over with a scoop and starts to scoop up some soil)..
 
   God:
    " Whoops ! ... Hold on there.... use your own dirt" !  ;)   ;D 
If you don't want the truth, don't ask me.  If you want something sugar coated...go eat a donut !  (anon)

Offline SHOOTALL

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23836
Re: A few questions for devout evolutionists..
« Reply #63 on: September 27, 2011, 11:10:47 AM »
yes I have seen that.
 
If ya can see it ya can hit it !

Offline XD40SC

  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1042
Re: A few questions for devout evolutionists..
« Reply #64 on: September 27, 2011, 12:30:06 PM »

Offline BUGEYE

  • Trade Count: (3)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10268
  • Gender: Male
Re: A few questions for devout evolutionists..
« Reply #65 on: September 27, 2011, 12:45:00 PM »
science says that the earth was once nothing but a fireball.
so where did all the water come from?
Give me liberty, or give me death
                                     Patrick Henry

Give me liberty, or give me death
                                     bugeye

Offline DDZ

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6145
  • Gender: Male
Re: A few questions for devout evolutionists..
« Reply #66 on: September 27, 2011, 02:05:36 PM »
Here is a couple reads debunking evolution. In the first one you can skip over the humanist manifesto, unless you want to read it. Some may want to read it to understand how a humanist thinks. Basically they don't believe in a higher power. Also the belief in evolution is a key belief for communists. That is the belief that humans and life arose from a mud puddle by chance. Those that believe in evolution do so because they don't want to believe there is a God, that they will one day be accountable to. Kind of like, "I'll live my life the way I want to". I can't see any other explanation, because the idea that man arose without intelligent design is basically impossible. Maybe someone here that believes in the "from muck to man" theory has some other reason for this belief.   

http://www.cuttingedge.org/News/n1471.cfm

http://www.nwcreation.net/articles/howlifebegin.html


Those people who will not be governed by God will be ruled by tyrants.    Wm. Penn

Offline XD40SC

  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1042
Re: A few questions for devout evolutionists..
« Reply #67 on: September 28, 2011, 01:23:51 AM »
Speciation is the evolutionary process by which new biological species arise
CASE HISTORIES OF SPECIATION I&II



Some of the best examples of speciation are examples of diversification on archipelagos. These provide clear contexts of allopatry and hence provide the extrinsic barrier to gene exchange from the source (usually mainland) population.

The most famous are the Galapagos Islands. The islands are young (some ~ 1 million years), have a volcanic origin providing an opportunity for new arrivals to "radiate" into open niches and the islands are quite distant from the mainland. This isolation and context of primary succession (e.g., development of a flora and fauna on a "clean slate") will allow for a random element in community composition. Irrespective of genetic consequences of the founding event, subsequent evolution of species quite likely will be under dramatically different selective regime than those in the source population.

Darwin's Finches. Morphological and genetic studies indicate that they are derived from single ancestral finch, i.e., are monophyletic. There has been dramatic specialization in ecological roles, each species having distinct morphologies and associated food items (beak size and shape associated with seed size, grub feeding, tool use, etc.). Classic examples of different distributions of beak depths: difference between means is greater between species when they occur on the same island than when they occur alone on different islands (see figure below).

Often cited as a clear indication that competition played a role in the adaptive radiation of the finches. There are obvious alternative hypotheses to explain these patterns: populations on different island differ by these amounts as a consequence of drift; different islands have different plants, insects (food items in general) thus the differences are a result of food, not competitors). As P.R. Grant concludes in Ecology and Evolution of Darwin's Finches, Princeton Univ. Press, 1985, patterns of differentiation and speciation are a combined effect of adaptation to different flora/food and adaptive responses to competitors. The issue of different plants/food on different islands just shifts the question to another trophic level: how did the different islands come to be different in these species.

Another evolutionary paradigm: the Hawaiian islands. Again the islands are young (< 5 million years old), have a volcanic origin and an interesting one: convection currents in the earth's mantle generate a "hot spot" where volcanic activity occurs above. The pacific plate moves northwest over this spot so the islands' geographical location is related to their age (Kauai in the north west is ~ 5 million years old; Hawaii [the big island] in the southeast is ~ 500,000 years old and still active).

Hawaiian Drosophila show remarkable patterns of colonization and speciation. At least 700 species of Drosophilids on Hawaiian islands. Not just typical little fruit flies either: large body size, dramatic "picture wing" species, some with "hammer-head" shaped heads. Banding patterns of polytene chromosomes allows phylogeny reconstruction: these and other data show that patterns of colonization are from older to younger islands (flies on Hawaii are derived from ancestors on Maui). Most species are found only on one island (high levels of endemism; more later in Biogeography). This implies that most new colonization events have lead to speciation events! This observation lead Hampton Carson to propose the founder-flush model of speciation.

African cichlid fishes are another remarkable case of "explosive speciation" (the Hawaiian Drosophila of the fish world). Geology and geography again plays an important role. African rift lakes: great fresh-water lakes in east Africa. Formed recently: < 1 million years old. Lake Victoria colonized by one (??) founder 200,000 years ago(??) now has ~ 200 species of fish!. Recent study (Meyer et al. 1990, Nature vol. 347, pg. 550 and see pg. 512) used mitochondrial DNA to show that the species in the lake are indeed monophyletic and that there is very little sequence divergence between species: confirms short time span. But there has been remarkable evolution of morphological, ecological and behavioral variation in these fish: algae grazers, snail crushers, plankton feeders, paedophages (clamp onto the mouth of a fish brooding her young in her mouth and force her to spit out here young into the mouth of the attacker), one fish (in Lake Malawi) plucks the eyes out of other fish as food. All this diversity in 200,000 years with very little genetic differentiation.

Another set of important examples of speciation are those that are believed to have speciated as a result of isolation in Pleistocene refugia. Glacial advances and retreats during the Pleistocene epoch acted as vicariance events in areas where glaciers were present (Wisconsin ice sheet). Dramatic evidence of this is in the North American bird fauna and the clear faunal break between the east and west, e.g., wood warblers; Peterson's field guides have an Eastern and Western edition).

Climatic changes associated with the glacial advances and retreats altered habitats in the tropics resulting in "islands" of habitat that fluctuated in size and geographic location, leading to fragmentation of distributions and contribution to speciation. Believed to one explanation for patterns of speciation in the Amazon. Also a possible explanation for the Larus ring species complex: genus Larus (seagulls) fragmented in Siberia during the Pleistocene. Diverged populations of Larus argentatus (herring gull) colonized eastern Siberia, across the Bering straits, across North America, Iceland and back to Northern Europe becoming increasingly diverged at each step. Hybrid zones exist between successive populations but the ends of the ring are reproductively isolated implying that speciation has gone to completion (an example of geographic speciation)

There have been some controversial examples of sympatric speciation documented in the literature. The apple maggot fly (Rhagoletis pomonela) mates and lays eggs on a specific host, originally Hawthorn. In 1864 Rhagoletis was found on apple trees that had been introduced to regions where hawthorn grew. In early 1960's Rhagoletis was found on cherry. This host race formation has been argued as an incipient stage of sympatric speciation. Advantage of this model is that the temporal framework is reasonably well documented and the species in question is an agricultural pest so it is likely that it will receive further study and the issue can be settled.

Model invoking a survival locus (S) and a host selection locus (H) with each with new mutant alleles that shift survival and selection to the new host (e.g., apple from Hawthorn).

Allochronic speciation was proposed as a model where species differentiated in time. Crickets of the genus Gryllus were taken as an example because species with virtually identical songs and morphology had evolved as spring adults versus fall adults (overwinter as juveniles or eggs, respectively). The model may apply but this particular example was shot down by phylogenetic analysis which showed that the two "allochronic species" (Gryllus veletis and Gryllus pennsylvanicus are actually distantly related in the genus (see figures).

Offline XD40SC

  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1042
Re: A few questions for devout evolutionists..
« Reply #68 on: September 28, 2011, 01:28:41 AM »
Some More Observed Speciation Events
[size=-1]Copyright © 1992-1997 by Chris Stassen [/size]
[size=-1]James Meritt [/size]
[size=-1]Anneliese Lilje [/size]
[size=-1]L. Drew Davis [/size]    By Chris Stassen ere is a short list of referenced speciation events. I picked four relatively well-known examples, from about a dozen that I had documented in materials that I have around my home. These are all common knowledge, and by no means do they encompass all or most of the available examples. Example one: 
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.) Dobzhansky, Th., and O. Pavlovsky, 1971. "An experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila", Nature 23:289-292. Example two: 
Evidence that a species of fireweed formed by doubling of the chromosome count, from the original stock. (Note that polyploids are generally considered to be a separate "race" of the same species as the original stock, but they do meet the criteria which you suggested.) (Test for speciation: cannot produce offspring with the original stock.) Mosquin, T., 1967. "Evidence for autopolyploidy in Epilobium angustifolium (Onaagraceae)", Evolution 21:713-719
Example three: 
Rapid speciation of the Faeroe Island house mouse, which occurred in less than 250 years after man brought the creature to the island. (Test for speciation in this case is based on morphology. It is unlikely that forced breeding experiments have been performed with the parent stock.) Stanley, S., 1979. Macroevolution: Pattern and Process, San Francisco, W.H. Freeman and Company. p. 41
Example four: 
Formation of five new species of cichlid fishes which formed since they were isolated less than 4000 years ago from the parent stock, Lake Nagubago. (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.) Mayr, E., 1970. Populations, Species, and Evolution, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press. p. 348
 

By James MerittSomeone writes: 
I have a friend who says since we have never seen a species actually split into two different species during recorded history that he has trouble believing in the theory of evolution. Is this bogus and have humans seen animals bred into different species? (The various highly bred english dogs come to mind but I suppose this would be easier to find in vegetation. Corn, wheat strains? Donkeys and mules? )
This is bogus. We've seen it happen naturally without our tampering with the process. From the FAQ: 
"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."
The article is on page 22 of the February, 1989 issue of Scientific American. It's called "A Breed Apart." It tells about studies conducted on a fruit fly, Rhagoletis pomonella, that is a parasite of the hawthorn tree and its fruit, which is commonly called the thorn apple. About 150 years ago, some of these flies began infesting apple trees, as well. The flies feed and breed on either apples or thorn apples, but not both. There's enough evidence to convince the scientific investigators that they're witnessing speciation in action. Note that some of the investigators set out to prove that speciation was not happening; the evidence convinced them otherwise.

Offline XD40SC

  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1042
Re: A few questions for devout evolutionists..
« Reply #69 on: September 28, 2011, 01:33:04 AM »
SpeciationFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia               Jump to: navigation,               search
[size=85%]Part of a series on[/size]
[size=175%]Evolutionary Biology[/size]
Evolutionary tree showing the divergence of modern species from their common ancestor[/c][/t]
[size=105%]Key Topics[show][/t][/size]
[size=105%]History of Theory[show][/size]
[/t]
[size=105%]Natural History[show][/size]
[/t]
[size=105%]Processes & Outcomes[show][/size]
[/t]
[size=105%]Social Implications[show][/size]
[/t]
[size=105%]Fields & Applications[show][/size]
[/t]
[/t]
Evolutionary Biology Portal
Category • Related topics • Book
v · d · e
Speciation is the evolutionary process by which new biological species arise. The biologist Orator F. Cook seems to have been the first to coin the term 'speciation' for the splitting of lineages or 'cladogenesis,' as opposed to 'anagenesis' or 'phyletic evolution' occurring within lineages.[1][2] Whether genetic drift is a minor or major contributor to speciation is the subject matter of much ongoing discussion.
There are four geographic modes of speciation in nature, based on the extent to which speciating populations are geographically isolated from one another: allopatric, peripatric, parapatric, and sympatric. Speciation may also be induced artificially, through animal husbandry or laboratory experiments. Observed examples of each kind of speciation are provided throughout.[3]
Contents [hide]
  • 1 Natural speciation
    • 1.1 Speciation Rate
    • 1.2 Allopatric
    • 1.3 Peripatric
    • 1.4 Parapatric
    • 1.5 Sympatric
      • 1.5.1 Example of three-spined sticklebacks
      • 1.5.2 Speciation via polyploidization
    • 1.6 Hawthorn fly
      • 1.6.1 Speciation via hybrid formation
    • 1.7 Reinforcement
  • 2 Artificial speciation
  • 3 Genetics
    • 3.1 Hybrid speciation
    • 3.2 Gene transposition as a cause
    • 3.3 Interspersed repeats
    • 3.4 Human speciation
  • 4 See also
  • 5 References
  • 6 Further reading
  • 7 External links
[edit] Natural speciationComparison of allopatric, peripatric, parapatric and sympatric speciation.All forms of natural speciation have taken place over the course of evolution; however it still remains a subject of debate as to the relative importance of each mechanism in driving biodiversity.[4]
One example of natural speciation is the diversity of the three-spined stickleback, a marine fish that, after the last ice age, has undergone speciation into new freshwater colonies in isolated lakes and streams. Over an estimated 10,000 generations, the sticklebacks show structural differences that are greater than those seen between different genera of fish including variations in fins, changes in the number or size of their bony plates, variable jaw structure, and color differences.[5][edit] Speciation RateThere is debate as to the rate at which speciation events occur over geologic time. While some evolutionary biologists claim that speciation events have remained relatively constant over time, some palaeontologists such as Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould have argued that species usually remain unchanged over long stretches of time, and that speciation occurs only over relatively brief intervals, a view known as punctuated equilibrium.[edit] AllopatricMain article: allopatric speciationDuring allopatric (from the ancient Greek allos, "other" + Greek patrā, "fatherland") speciation, a population splits into two geographically isolated populations (for example, by habitat fragmentation due to geographical change such as mountain building). The isolated populations then undergo genotypic and/or phenotypic divergence as: (a) they become subjected to dissimilar selective pressures; (b) they independently undergo genetic drift; (c) different mutations arise in the two populations. When the populations come back into contact, they have evolved such that they are reproductively isolated and are no longer capable of exchanging genes.Observed instancesIsland genetics, the tendency of small, isolated genetic pools to produce unusual traits, has been observed in many circumstances, including insular dwarfism and the radical changes among certain famous island chains, for example on Komodo. The Galαpagos islands are particularly famous for their influence on Charles Darwin. During his five weeks there he heard that Galαpagos tortoises could be identified by island, and noticed that Mockingbirds differed from one island to another, but it was only nine months later that he reflected that such facts could show that species were changeable. When he returned to England, his speculation on evolution deepened after experts informed him that these were separate species, not just varieties, and famously that other differing Galαpagos birds were all species of finches. Though the finches were less important for Darwin, more recent research has shown the birds now known as Darwin's finches to be a classic case of adaptive evolutionary radiation.[6][edit] PeripatricMain article: Peripatric speciationIn peripatric speciation, a subform of allopatric speciation, new species are formed in isolated, smaller peripheral populations that are prevented from exchanging genes with the main population. It is related to the concept of a founder effect, since small populations often undergo bottlenecks. Genetic drift is often proposed to play a significant role in peripatric speciation.Observed instances
  • Mayr bird fauna[citation needed]
  • The Australian bird Petroica multicolor
  • Reproductive isolation occurs in populations of Drosophila subject to population bottlenecking
[edit] ParapatricMain article: Parapatric speciationIn parapatric speciation, there is only partial separation of the zones of two diverging populations afforded by geography; individuals of each species may come in contact or cross habitats from time to time, but reduced fitness of the heterozygote leads to selection for behaviours or mechanisms that prevent their inter-breeding. Parapatric speciation is modelled on continuous variation within a 'single', connected habitat acting as a source of natural selection rather than the effects of isolation of habitats produced in peripatric and allopatric speciation.
Ecologists refer to parapatric and peripatric speciation in terms of ecological niches. A niche must be available in order for a new species to be successful.Observed instances[edit] Sympatric
This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (March 2008)
Main article: Sympatric speciationSympatric speciation refers to the formation of two or more descendant species from a single ancestral species all occupying the same geographic location.
In sympatric speciation, species diverge while inhabiting the same place. Often-cited examples of sympatric speciation are found in insects that become dependent on different host plants in the same area.[7][8] However, the existence of sympatric speciation as a mechanism of speciation is still hotly contested. People have argued that the evidences of sympatric speciation are in fact examples of micro-allopatric, or heteropatric speciation. The most widely accepted example of sympatric speciation is that of the cichlids of Lake Nabugabo in East Africa, which is thought to be due to sexual selection.
Until recently, there has a been a dearth of strong evidence that supports this form of speciation, with a general feeling that interbreeding would soon eliminate any genetic differences that might appear. But there has been at least one recent study that suggests that sympatric speciation has occurred in Tennessee cave salamanders.[9]
Sympatric speciation driven by ecological factors may also account for the extraordinary diversity of crustaceans living in the depths of Siberia's Lake Baikal.[edit] Example of three-spined sticklebacksThe three-spined stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus)The three-spined sticklebacks, freshwater fishes, that have been studied by Dolph Schluter (who received his Ph.D. for his work on Darwin's finches with Peter J. Grant) and his current colleagues in British Columbia, were once thought to provide an intriguing example best explained by sympatric speciation. Schluter and colleagues found:
  • Two different species of three-spined sticklebacks in each of five different lakes
    • a large benthic species with a large mouth that feeds on large prey in the littoral zone
    • a smaller limnetic species — with a smaller mouth — that feeds on the small plankton in open water
  • DNA analysis indicates that each lake was colonized independently, presumably by a marine ancestor, after the last ice age
  • DNA analysis also shows that the two species in each lake are more closely related to each other than they are to any of the species in the other lakes
  • The two species in each lake are reproductively isolated; neither mates with the other.
  • However, aquarium tests showed:
    • the benthic species from one lake will spawn with the benthic species from the other lakes and
    • likewise the limnetic species from the different lakes will spawn with each other.
    • These benthic and limnetic species even display their mating preferences when presented with sticklebacks from Japanese lakes; that is, a Canadian benthic prefers a Japanese benthic over its close limnetic cousin from its own lake.
  • Their conclusion: in each lake, what began as a single population faced such competition for limited resources that:
    • disruptive selection — competition favoring fishes at either extreme of body size and mouth size over those nearer the mean — coupled with:
    • assortative mating — each size preferred mates like it — favored a divergence into two subpopulations exploiting different food in different parts of the lake.
    • The fact that this pattern of speciation occurred the same way on three separate occasions suggests strongly that ecological factors in a sympatric population can cause speciation.
However, the DNA evidence cited above is from mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), which can often move easily between closely related species ("introgression") when they hybridize. A more recent study,[10] using genetic markers from the nuclear genome, shows that limnetic forms in different lakes are more closely related to each other (and to marine lineages) than to benthic forms in the same lake. The three-spine stickleback is now usually considered an example of "double invasion" (a form of allopatric speciation) in which repeated invasions of marine forms have subsequently differentiated into benthic and limnetic forms. The three-spine stickleback provides an example of how molecular biogeographic studies that rely solely on mtDNA can be misleading, and that consideration of the genealogical history of alleles from multiple unlinked markers (i.e. nuclear genes) is necessary to infer speciation histories.[edit] Speciation via polyploidizationPolyploidy is a mechanism that has caused many rapid speciation events in sympatry because offspring of, for example, tetraploid x diploid matings often result in triploid sterile progeny.[11] However, not all polyploids are reproductively isolated from their parental plants, and gene flow may still occur for example through triploid hybrid x diploid matings that produce tetraploids, or matings between meiotically unreduced gametes from diploids and gametes from tetraploids (see also hybrid speciation).
It has been suggested that many of the existing plant and most animal species have undergone an event of polyploidization in their evolutionary history.[12][13] Reproduction of successful polyploid species is sometimes asexual, by parthenogenesis or apomixis, as for unknown reasons many asexual organisms are polyploid. Rare instances of polyploid mammals are known, but most often result in prenatal death.[edit] Hawthorn flyOne example of evolution at work is the case of the hawthorn fly, Rhagoletis pomonella, also known as the apple maggot fly, which appears to be undergoing sympatric speciation.[14] Different populations of hawthorn fly feed on different fruits. A distinct population emerged in North America in the 19th century some time after apples, a non-native species, were introduced. This apple-feeding population normally feeds only on apples and not on the historically preferred fruit of hawthorns. The current hawthorn feeding population does not normally feed on apples. Some evidence, such as the fact that six out of thirteen allozyme loci are different, that hawthorn flies mature later in the season and take longer to mature than apple flies; and that there is little evidence of interbreeding (researchers have documented a 4-6% hybridization rate) suggests that sympatric speciation is occurring. The emergence of the new hawthorn fly is an example of evolution in progress.[15][edit] Speciation via hybrid formationSee Hybrid speciation section under the Genetics heading beneath.[edit] ReinforcementReinforcement, also called Wallace effect, is the process by which natural selection increases reproductive isolation.[16] It may occur after two populations of the same species are separated and then come back into contact. If their reproductive isolation was complete, then they will have already developed into two separate incompatible species. If their reproductive isolation is incomplete, then further mating between the populations will produce hybrids, which may or may not be fertile. If the hybrids are infertile, or fertile but less fit than their ancestors, then there will be further reproductive isolation and speciation has essentially occurred (e.g., as in horses and donkeys.)
The reasoning behind this is that if the parents of the hybrid offspring each have naturally selected traits for their own certain environments, the hybrid offspring will bear traits from both, therefore would not fit either ecological niche as well as either parent. The low fitness of the hybrids would cause selection to favor assortative mating, which would control hybridization. This is sometimes called the Wallace effect after the evolutionary biologist Alfred Russel Wallace who suggested in the late 19th century that it might be an important factor in speciation.[17]
Conversely, if the hybrid offspring are more fit than their ancestors, then the populations will merge back into the same species within the area they are in contact.
Reinforcement favoring reproductive isolation is required for both parapatric and sympatric speciation. Without reinforcement, the geographic area of contact between different forms of the same species, called their "hybrid zone," will not develop into a boundary between the different species. Hybrid zones are regions where diverged populations meet and interbreed. Hybrid offspring are very common in these regions, which are usually created by diverged species coming into secondary contact. Without reinforcement, the two species would have uncontrollable inbreeding. Reinforcement may be induced in artificial selection experiments as described below.[edit] Artificial speciationNew species have been created by domesticated animal husbandry, but the initial dates and methods of the initiation of such species are not clear. For example, domestic sheep were created by hybridisation, and no longer produce viable offspring with Ovis orientalis, one species from which they are descended.[18] Domestic cattle, on the other hand, can be considered the same species as several varieties of wild ox, gaur, yak, etc., as they readily produce fertile offspring with them.[19]
The best-documented creations of new species in the laboratory were performed in the late 1980s. William Rice and G.W. Salt bred fruit flies, Drosophila melanogaster, using a maze with three different choices of habitat such as light/dark and wet/dry. Each generation was placed into the maze, and the groups of flies that came out of two of the eight exits were set apart to breed with each other in their respective groups. After thirty-five generations, the two groups and their offspring were isolated reproductively because of their strong habitat preferences: they mated only within the areas they preferred, and so did not mate with flies that preferred the other areas.[20] The history of such attempts is described in Rice and Hostert (1993).[21]
Diane Dodd was also able to show how reproductive isolation can develop from mating preferences in Drosophila pseudoobscura fruit flies after only eight generations using different food types, starch and maltose.[22]
Drosophila speciation experiment.svg
Dodd's experiment has been easy for many others to replicate, including with other kinds of fruit flies and foods.[23][edit] GeneticsFew speciation genes have been found. They usually involve the reinforcement process of late stages of speciation. In 2008 a speciation gene causing reproductive isolation was reported.[24] It causes hybrid sterility between related subspecies.[edit] Hybrid speciationMain article: Hybrid speciationHybridization between two different species sometimes leads to a distinct phenotype. This phenotype can also be fitter than the parental lineage and as such natural selection may then favor these individuals. Eventually, if reproductive isolation is achieved, it may lead to a separate species. However, reproductive isolation between hybrids and their parents is particularly difficult to achieve and thus hybrid speciation is considered an extremely rare event. The Mariana Mallard is known to have arisen from hybrid speciation.
Hybridisation is an important means of speciation in plants, since polyploidy (having more than two copies of each chromosome) is tolerated in plants more readily than in animals.[25][26] Polyploidy is important in hybrids as it allows reproduction, with the two different sets of chromosomes each being able to pair with an identical partner during meiosis.[27] Polyploids also have more genetic diversity, which allows them to avoid inbreeding depression in small populations.[28]
Hybridization without change in chromosome number is called homoploid hybrid speciation. It is considered very rare but has been shown in Heliconius butterflies [29] and sunflowers. Polyploid speciation, which involves changes in chromosome number, is a more common phenomenon, especially in plant species.[edit] Gene transposition as a causeTheodosius Dobzhansky, who studied fruit flies in the early days of genetic research in 1930s, speculated that parts of chromosomes that switch from one location to another might cause a species to split into two different species. He mapped out how it might be possible for sections of chromosomes to relocate themselves in a genome. Those mobile sections can cause sterility in inter-species hybrids, which can act as a speciation pressure. In theory, his idea was sound, but scientists long debated whether it actually happened in nature. Eventually a competing theory involving the gradual accumulation of mutations was shown to occur in nature so often that geneticists largely dismissed the moving gene hypothesis.[30]
However, 2006 research shows that jumping of a gene from one chromosome to another can contribute to the birth of new species.[31] This validates the reproductive isolation mechanism, a key component of speciation.[32][edit] Interspersed repeatsMain article: Interspersed repeatInterspersed repetitive DNA sequences function as isolating mechanisms. These repeats protect newly evolving gene sequences from being overwritten by gene conversion, due to the creation of non-homologies between otherwise homologous DNA sequences. The non-homologies create barriers to gene conversion. This barrier allows nascent novel genes to evolve without being overwritten by the progenitors of these genes. This uncoupling allows the evolution of new genes, both within gene families and also allelic forms of a gene. The importance is that this allows the splitting of a gene pool without requiring physical isolation of the organisms harboring those gene sequences.

Offline jackruff

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Avid Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 180
Re: A few questions for devout evolutionists..
« Reply #70 on: September 28, 2011, 04:15:40 AM »
XD is apparently a well-educated biologist, and his lengthy discourse can serve as a good example for the rest of us:  we perhaps shouldn't say much about things of which we know little.  I don't know much about the theory of evolution, so I don't say much about it.  I leave that to the biologists, who find the theory very useful in explaining and predicting.  In fact, physics is the only field about which I know enough to realize how very little of it I know!  I have commented to more than one of the pastors I have known that many people who are disturbed by evolutionary theory, because they think they know something about it, would be even more bothered by relativity theory if they thought they knew something about it.  They are blissfully ignorant (mathematics is involved) so they have nothing to say.  Those pastors, themselves well-educated men, agreed with me.  Do a Bible search for Paul's references to the "mystery" of the faith.  He didn't have all the answers, and neither do we.

Offline XD40SC

  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1042
Re: A few questions for devout evolutionists..
« Reply #71 on: September 28, 2011, 08:27:22 AM »
XD is apparently a well-educated biologist, and his lengthy discourse can serve as a good example for the rest of us:  we perhaps shouldn't say much about things of which we know little.  I don't know much about the theory of evolution, so I don't say much about it.  I leave that to the biologists, who find the theory very useful in explaining and predicting.  In fact, physics is the only field about which I know enough to realize how very little of it I know!  I have commented to more than one of the pastors I have known that many people who are disturbed by evolutionary theory, because they think they know something about it, would be even more bothered by relativity theory if they thought they knew something about it.  They are blissfully ignorant (mathematics is involved) so they have nothing to say.  Those pastors, themselves well-educated men, agreed with me.  Do a Bible search for Paul's references to the "mystery" of the faith.  He didn't have all the answers, and neither do we.
Both relativity theory and astrophysics are wild subjects. Add thermodynamics and quantum physics and you have some very heavy stuff.

Offline blind ear

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4156
  • Gender: Male
    • eddiegjr
Re: A few questions for devout evolutionists..
« Reply #72 on: September 28, 2011, 08:45:12 AM »
Who made god?
 
ear
Oath Keepers: start local
-
“It is no coincidence that the century of total war coincided with the century of central banking.” – Ron Paul, End the Fed
-
An economic crash like the one of the 1920s is the only thing that will get the US off of the road to Socialism that we are on and give our children a chance at a future with freedom and possibility of economic success.
-
everyone hears but very few see. (I can't see either, I'm not on the corporate board making rules that sound exactly the opposite of what they mean, plus loopholes) ear
"I have seen the enemy and I think it's us." POGO
St Judes Childrens Research Hospital

Offline SHOOTALL

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23836
Re: A few questions for devout evolutionists..
« Reply #73 on: September 28, 2011, 09:19:54 AM »
ear , that's the point nither side really has anything other than faith in what they believe.
If ya can see it ya can hit it !

Offline XD40SC

  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1042
Re: A few questions for devout evolutionists..
« Reply #74 on: September 28, 2011, 10:49:09 AM »
Who made god?
 
ear
Depends who you talk to.

Offline BBF

  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10042
  • Gender: Male
  • I feel much better now knowing it will get worse.
Re: A few questions for devout evolutionists..
« Reply #75 on: September 28, 2011, 11:04:49 AM »
 
 
                                                ARRRGH !! ::)
What is the point of Life if you can't have fun.

Offline BUGEYE

  • Trade Count: (3)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10268
  • Gender: Male
Re: A few questions for devout evolutionists..
« Reply #76 on: September 28, 2011, 11:05:32 AM »
Who made god?
 
ear
he was always here, and that's something beyond human comprehension.
Give me liberty, or give me death
                                     Patrick Henry

Give me liberty, or give me death
                                     bugeye

Offline ironglow

  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (9)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31268
  • Gender: Male
Re: A few questions for devout evolutionists..
« Reply #77 on: September 28, 2011, 11:34:14 AM »
XD;
  Good post, but too lengthy to study carefully.  In a "skim-over" it appears to be the usual circumstantial evidences we have always been given.  I didn't see any answers to the basic questions I posted, however..
    No big deal, either way..it's a matter of FAITH..
If you don't want the truth, don't ask me.  If you want something sugar coated...go eat a donut !  (anon)

Offline XD40SC

  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1042
Re: A few questions for devout evolutionists..
« Reply #78 on: September 28, 2011, 12:18:11 PM »
XD;
  Good post, but too lengthy to study carefully.  In a "skim-over" it appears to be the usual circumstantial evidences we have always been given.  I didn't see any answers to the basic questions I posted, however..
    No big deal, either way..it's a matter of FAITH..
If you read it very closely, you will see proof not circumstantial evidence. I admit it is lengthy and very involved. Understanding evolution is much more than say whether or not we evolved from apes. A firm understanding of genetics is also needed to understand the process. At the very least, there is proof that new species evolved from other species. Example one type of fruit fly evolving into a different type of fruit fly. Or the example given earlier where a hillside of red flowers becomes a hill side of white flowers. That is evolution in action.

Offline blind ear

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4156
  • Gender: Male
    • eddiegjr
Re: A few questions for devout evolutionists..
« Reply #79 on: September 28, 2011, 12:27:13 PM »
 

Who made god?
 
ear

he was always here, and that's something beyond human comprehension.

 
True and that statement is beyond comprehension and it is supported only by faith.
 
Evolution is within the realm of human comprehension and is written in the stones of the earth since earth's formation.
 
ear
Oath Keepers: start local
-
“It is no coincidence that the century of total war coincided with the century of central banking.” – Ron Paul, End the Fed
-
An economic crash like the one of the 1920s is the only thing that will get the US off of the road to Socialism that we are on and give our children a chance at a future with freedom and possibility of economic success.
-
everyone hears but very few see. (I can't see either, I'm not on the corporate board making rules that sound exactly the opposite of what they mean, plus loopholes) ear
"I have seen the enemy and I think it's us." POGO
St Judes Childrens Research Hospital

Offline BUGEYE

  • Trade Count: (3)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10268
  • Gender: Male
Re: A few questions for devout evolutionists..
« Reply #80 on: September 28, 2011, 12:29:28 PM »
it was interesting but still didn't answer how life started.  of course there is only one answer, God.
nothing else really matters.
Give me liberty, or give me death
                                     Patrick Henry

Give me liberty, or give me death
                                     bugeye

Offline XD40SC

  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1042
Re: A few questions for devout evolutionists..
« Reply #81 on: September 28, 2011, 01:48:25 PM »
Two theories - with many subtheories - attempt to account for the origin of life on our earth.
  • Spontaneous generation somewhere on the early earth
  • Panspermia: brought to earth from space.
  Stanley Miller, a graduate student in biochemistry, built the apparatus shown here. He filled it with
  • water (H[size=-1]2[/size]O
  • methane (CH[size=-1]4[/size])
  • ammonia (NH[size=-1]3[/size]) and
  • hydrogen (H[size=-1]2[/size])
  • but no oxygen
He hypothesized that this mixture resembled the atmosphere of the early earth. (Some are not so sure.) The mixture was kept circulating by continuously boiling and then condensing the water.
The gases passed through a chamber containing two electrodes with a spark passing between them.
At the end of a week, Miller used paper chromatography to show that the flask now contained several amino acids as well as some other organic molecules.
In the years since Miller's work, many variants of his procedure have been tried. Virtually all the small molecules that are associated with life have been formed:
  • all the amino acids used in protein synthesis
  • all the purines and pyrimidines used in nucleic acid synthesis.
  • But abiotic synthesis of ribose - and thus of nucleosides - has been much more difficult.
One difficulty with the primeval soup theory is how polymers - the basis of life itself - could be assembled.
  • In solution, hydrolysis of a growing polymer would soon limit the size it could reach.
  • Abiotic synthesis produces a mixture of [size=-1]L[/size] and [size=-1]D[/size] enantiomers. Each inhibits the polymerization of the other. (So, for example, the presence of [size=-1]D[/size] amino acids inhibits the polymerization of [size=-1]L[/size] amino acids (the ones that make up proteins here on earth).
Link to a discussion of enantiomers.
This has led to a theory that early polymers were assembled on solid, mineral surfaces that protected them from degradation, and in the laboratory polynucleotides and polypeptides containing about ~50 units have been synthesized on mineral (e.g., clay) surfaces.
 All metabolism depends on enzymes and, until recently, every enzyme has turned out to be a protein. But proteins are synthesized from information encoded in DNA and translated into mRNA. So here is a chicken-and-egg dilemma. The synthesis of DNA and RNA requires proteins. So
  • proteins cannot be made without nucleic acids and
  • nucleic acids cannot be made without proteins.
The discovery that certain RNA molecules have enzymatic activity provides a possible solution. These RNA molecules - called ribozymes - incorporate both the features required of life:
  • storage of information
  • the ability to act as catalysts
Link to a discussion of ribozymes.
While no ribozyme in nature has yet been found that can replicate itself, ribozymes have been synthesized in the laboratory that can catalyze the assembly of short oligonucleotides into exact complements of themselves. The ribozyme serves as both
  • the template on which short lengths of RNA ("oligonucleotides" are assembled following the rules of base pairing and
  • the catalyst for covalently linking these oligonucleotides.
(The figure is based on the work of Green and Szostak, Science 258:1910, 1992.)
In principal, the minimal functions of life might have begun with RNA and only later did
  • proteins take over the catalytic machinery of metabolism and
  • DNA take over as the repository of the genetic code.
Several other bits of evidence support this notion of an original "RNA world":
  • Many of the cofactors that play so many roles in life are based on ribose; for example:
  • In the cell, all deoxyribonucleotides are synthesized from ribonucleotide precursors.
 
 
Representative amino acids found in the Murchison meteorite. Six of the amino acids (blue) are found in all living things, but the others (yellow) are not normally found in living matter here on earth. The same amino acids are produced in discharge experiments like Miller's.
GlycineGlutamic acid
AlanineIsovaline
ValineNorvaline
ProlineN-methylalanine
Aspartic acidN-ethylglycine
This meteorite, that fell near Murchison, Australia on 28 September 1969, turned out to contain a variety of organic molecules including both purines and pyrimidines as well as the amino acids listed here. The amino acids and their relative proportions were quite similar to the products formed in Miller's experiments. The question is: were these molecules simply terrestrial contaminants that got into the meteorite after it fell to earth.
Probably not:
  • Some of the samples were collected on the same day it fell and subsequently handled with great care to avoid contamination.
  • The samples lacked certain amino acids that are found in all earthly proteins.
  • Only [size=-1]L[/size] amino acids occur in earthly proteins, but the amino acids in the meteorite contain both [size=-1]D[/size] and [size=-1]L[/size] forms (although [size=-1]L[/size] forms were slightly more prevalent).
  This meteorite arrived here from Mars. It contained not only a variety of organic molecules, including polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, but - some claim - evidence of microorganisms as well.
Furthermore, there is evidence that its interior never rose about 40° C during its fiery trip through the earth's atmosphere. Live bacteria could easily survive such a trip.
 
Link to a discussion of the possibility of life on Mars and more on the ALH84001 meteorite.
Astronomers, using infrared spectroscopy, have identified a variety of organic molecules in interstellar space, including
  • methane (CH[size=-1]4[/size]),
  • methanol (CH[size=-1]3[/size]OH),
  • formaldehyde (HCHO),
  • cyanoacetylene (HC[size=-1]3[/size]N) (which in spark-discharge experiments is a precursor to the pyrimidine cytosine).
  • polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
  • as well as such inorganic building blocks as carbon dioxide (CO[size=-1]2[/size]), carbon monoxide (CO), ammonia (NH[size=-1]3[/size]), hydrogen sulfide (H[size=-1]2[/size]S), and hydrogen cyanide (HCN).
A recent report (January 2001) describes the results of taking a mixture of molecules known to be present in space:
  • ammonia (NH3)
  • carbon monoxide (CO)
  • methanol (CH3OH) and
  • water (H2O)
and exposing it to
  • a temperature close to that of space (about 15° K; that is within 15° of absolute zero)
  • intense ultraviolet (uv) radiation.
After as little as a week, a complex mixture of organic molecules had formed.

Offline briarpatch

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2053
  • Gender: Male
Re: A few questions for devout evolutionists..
« Reply #82 on: September 28, 2011, 02:31:59 PM »
In all of that I did not see anything that would indicate evaluation. I did see where the genes within us can adapt. Which is not evolution. 
A hill going from red to white is the stronger gene. What was not explained was how a flower could become a rat or a worm become t-rex.
What made the finches beak cross? Why did it not starve?
I cannot remember the mans name as it has been a long time past. He was someone that had spent many years in the field of evolution. He began to apply the mathmatics of change to his field and stated that for evolution to occur the odds were astronomical. The odds would be better for a wind to blow through a junk yard and assemble a complete 747 that could fly with all instruments working. (As I remember it.)
a monkey could not become what we have today in a few million years.
Each piece of the germ/single cell, what have you, would have to be designed by (nature)  to make just an eye by mutations, need, or accident, would be beyond time as we know  it. 
A 400 million year old shark looks like a 1 year old shark.
Its useless to argue. Be glad t-rex is bones and mating is enjoyable.

Offline BUGEYE

  • Trade Count: (3)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10268
  • Gender: Male
Re: A few questions for devout evolutionists..
« Reply #83 on: September 28, 2011, 02:45:01 PM »
Briarpatch, excellent reply and a much better answer than that other stuff that DOESN't prove anything.
Give me liberty, or give me death
                                     Patrick Henry

Give me liberty, or give me death
                                     bugeye

Offline XD40SC

  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1042
Re: A few questions for devout evolutionists..
« Reply #84 on: September 28, 2011, 03:17:14 PM »
Some of you are stuck in the old- how does a monkey turn into a man- way of thinking. As I said earlier , evolution is much more than that. Either you don't know enough to understand what evolution is, or you don't  want to. Either way, I have explained it as best I can.
 

Offline BUGEYE

  • Trade Count: (3)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10268
  • Gender: Male
Re: A few questions for devout evolutionists..
« Reply #85 on: September 28, 2011, 03:56:59 PM »
Some of you are stuck in the old- how does a monkey turn into a man- way of thinking. As I said earlier , evolution is much more than that. Either you don't know enough to understand what evolution is, or you don't  want to. Either way, I have explained it as best I can.
but the origin is still just a W.A.G.
when life is created again, maybe people will listen.  until then it's no better than the world trade center conspiracy.  DANG, am I from Missouri?
Give me liberty, or give me death
                                     Patrick Henry

Give me liberty, or give me death
                                     bugeye

Offline crustylicious

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • A Real Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 697
  • Reading is fundamental, comprehension optional!
Re: A few questions for devout evolutionists..
« Reply #86 on: September 28, 2011, 06:54:42 PM »
Why did God make mosquitoes?
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so sure of themselves, and the wiser people so full of doubts." Bertrand Russell
"The speaking in perpetual hyperbole is comely in nothing but love" Francis Bacon, Sr.
Voting is like driving a car- choose (D) to go forward- choose (R) to go backwards!
When all think alike, no one thinks very much. Albert Einstein

Offline Cabin4

  • Avery H. Wallace
  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (2)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4938
  • Gender: Male
  • Out West
Re: A few questions for devout evolutionists..
« Reply #87 on: September 28, 2011, 07:50:34 PM »
Ask Him yourself and then you can tell us what he said.
Avery Hayden Wallace
Obama Administration: A corrupt criminal enterprise of bold face liars.
The States formed the Union. The Union did not form the States. States Rights!
GET US OUT OF THE UN. NO ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT!
S.A.S.S/NRA Life Member/2nd Amendment Foundation
CCRKBA/Gun Owners of America
California Rifle & Pistol Association
Ron Paul Was Right!
Long Live the King! #3

Offline ironglow

  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (9)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31268
  • Gender: Male
Re: A few questions for devout evolutionists..
« Reply #88 on: September 29, 2011, 02:12:59 AM »
Some of you are stuck in the old- how does a monkey turn into a man- way of thinking. As I said earlier , evolution is much more than that. Either you don't know enough to understand what evolution is, or you don't  want to. Either way, I have explained it as best I can.
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""''
     XD40;
         There are many here including myself, who shouild perhaps apologize for being so intellectually deprived. Naturally all of us who attended public school are well steeped in the evolutionist's cause, but how many have given anywhere near as much time to the counterpoint, which is Intelligent design ?  When a student already has had 12 years of one-dimensional propaganda shoveled into their heads, they are highly unlikely to even entertain the thought of any other view. 
    At least my grandaughter's Christian school is enlightened enough to present BOTH theories.
   Unbeknownst to many is the fact that there is a sizeable body of scientists who disagree with the prevailing attitudes.  Until recently they have perhaps been swimming against the popular current, but perhaps the tide is changing.  It seems that after a couple centuries of Darwinian propaganda without the expected "proof", the high tide of "evolution", may be slipping into an ebb. 
      Here are a group of eminent scientists who refuse to simply "swim with the popular school of fish"..
    http://www.icr.org/articles/type/9/
     
    Even the much used (and abused) monkey-to-man chart we all saw in grade school is and should be, taken into question.  There are  simply too many holes in that supposition.  There are not nearly enough bridging evidences to honestly create that picture.  It is just a great deal of speculation and acceptance of "what ifs" that went into that picture.
   A discussion of that along with other constructs, is discussed by more scientists here;
         http://www.wasdarwinright.com/earlyman.htm
 
   For further reading on the subject, I will recommend the following website, from where I pulled the questions at the lead of this thread.   http://www.conservapedia.com/Question_evolution!_campaign
 
    I do appreciate the tenor of Conservapedia's campaign.  Instead of claiming that those of the Darwinist faith are stupid, Neanderthals or grossly uninformed, they simply suggest.."question evolution"..
 
   BTW:  CONSERVAPEDIA is an excellent source of information on current events..no liberal drivel..
If you don't want the truth, don't ask me.  If you want something sugar coated...go eat a donut !  (anon)

Offline crustylicious

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • A Real Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 697
  • Reading is fundamental, comprehension optional!
Re: A few questions for devout evolutionists..
« Reply #89 on: September 29, 2011, 04:41:35 AM »
Ask Him yourself and then you can tell us what he said.
Thanks, excellent suggestion resulting in an excellent conversation!
Basically God said it's evolution and that the Bible was never meant to be a science book.
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so sure of themselves, and the wiser people so full of doubts." Bertrand Russell
"The speaking in perpetual hyperbole is comely in nothing but love" Francis Bacon, Sr.
Voting is like driving a car- choose (D) to go forward- choose (R) to go backwards!
When all think alike, no one thinks very much. Albert Einstein