Darwin's Apparatchiks

[Smilodonfatalis]

No it isn't.

It is philosophy rather than science.


Work this idea through those congealed cogs in your brain: Darwin claimed that the accumulation of mutations would result in one species evolving into another.

"And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field." Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.



BTW.....'scientists' have proposed numerous bird-brained theories that would be acceptable to bird-brains like yourself.

Here's one:

Dr. Francis Crick of DNA fame suggested that life was 'dropped' here by aliens from another planet......

Directed Panspermia - postulates that the roots of our form of life go back to another place in the universe, almost certainly another planet; that it had reached a very advanced form there before anything much had started here; and that life here was seeded by microorganisms sent on some form of spaceship by an advanced civilization. Crick, Francis 'Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature', p.141


According to Crick, this is the only alternative that satisfactorily explains what Darwinism and punctuated equilibria do not - this planet's absence of transitional forms; transitional forms being the evidence for evolution which, "would only have existed on the sender planet, not on Earth," p.144



Stupid enough for you to accept?

You just got burned by your own ignorance.

Kenyon was wrong.

Speciation has been observed on numerous occasions.

Check this link. Observed Instances of Speciation

It's also simply untrue that there is an absence of transitional forms. There are literally thousands of transitional forms in both the living and fossil record.

From the article:

5.4 Housefly Speciation Experiments



5.4.1 A Test of the Founder-flush Hypothesis Using Houseflies

Meffert and Bryant (1991) used houseflies to test whether bottlenecks in populations can cause permanent alterations in courtship behavior that lead to premating isolation. They collected over 100 flies of each sex from a landfill near Alvin, Texas. These were used to initiate an ancestral population. From this ancestral population they established six lines. Two of these lines were started with one pair of flies, two lines were started with four pairs of flies and two lines were started with sixteen pairs of flies. These populations were flushed to about 2,000 flies each. They then went through five bottlenecks followed by flushes. This took 35 generations. Mate choice tests were performed. One case of positive assortative mating was found. One case of negative assortative mating was also found.

5.4.2 Selection for Geotaxis with and without Gene Flow

Soans, et al. (1974) used houseflies to test Pimentel's model of speciation. This model posits that speciation requires two steps. The first is the formation of races in subpopulations. This is followed by the establishment of reproductive isolation. Houseflies were subjected to intense divergent selection on the basis of positive and negative geotaxis. In some treatments no gene flow was allowed, while in others there was 30% gene flow. Selection was imposed by placing 1000 flies into the center of a 108 cm vertical tube. The first 50 flies that reached the top and the first 50 flies that reached the bottom were used to found positively and negatively geotactic populations. Four populations were established:

Population A + geotaxis, no gene flow
Population B - geotaxis, no gene flow
Population C + geotaxis, 30% gene flow
Population D - geotaxis, 30% gene flow

Selection was repeated within these populations each generations. After 38 generations the time to collect 50 flies had dropped from 6 hours to 2 hours in Pop A, from 4 hours to 4 minutes in Pop B, from 6 hours to 2 hours in Pop C and from 4 hours to 45 minutes in Pop D. Mate choice tests were performed. Positive assortative mating was found in all crosses. They concluded that reproductive isolation occurred under both allopatric and sympatric conditions when very strong selection was present.

Hurd and Eisenberg (1975) performed a similar experiment on houseflies using 50% gene flow and got the same results.

5.5 Speciation Through Host Race Differentiation

Recently there has been a lot of interest in whether the differentiation of an herbivorous or parasitic species into races living on different hosts can lead to sympatric speciation. It has been argued that in animals that mate on (or in) their preferred hosts, positive assortative mating is an inevitable byproduct of habitat selection (Rice 1985; Barton, et al. 1988). This would suggest that differentiated host races may represent incipient species.

5.5.1 Apple Maggot Fly (Rhagoletis pomonella)

Rhagoletis pomonella is a fly that is native to North America. Its normal host is the hawthorn tree. Sometime during the nineteenth century it began to infest apple trees. Since then it has begun to infest cherries, roses, pears and possibly other members of the rosaceae. Quite a bit of work has been done on the differences between flies infesting hawthorn and flies infesting apple. There appear to be differences in host preferences among populations. Offspring of females collected from on of these two hosts are more likely to select that host for oviposition (Prokopy et al. 1988). Genetic differences between flies on these two hosts have been found at 6 out of 13 allozyme loci (Feder et al. 1988, see also McPheron et al. 1988). Laboratory studies have shown an asynchrony in emergence time of adults between these two host races (Smith 1988). Flies from apple trees take about 40 days to mature, whereas flies from hawthorn trees take 54-60 days to mature. This makes sense when we consider that hawthorn fruit tends to mature later in the season that apples. Hybridization studies show that host preferences are inherited, but give no evidence of barriers to mating. This is a very exciting case. It may represent the early stages of a sympatric speciation event (considering the dispersal of R. pomonella to other plants it may even represent the beginning of an adaptive radiation). It is important to note that some of the leading researchers on this question are urging caution in interpreting it. Feder and Bush (1989) stated:


"Hawthorn and apple "host races" of R. pomonella may therefore represent incipient species. However, it remains to be seen whether host-associated traits can evolve into effective enough barriers to gene flow to result eventually in the complete reproductive isolation of R. pomonella populations."

5.5.2 Gall Former Fly (Eurosta solidaginis)

Eurosta solidaginis is a gall forming fly that is associated with goldenrod plants. It has two hosts: over most of its range it lays its eggs in Solidago altissima, but in some areas it uses S. gigantea as its host. Recent electrophoretic work has shown that the genetic distances among flies from different sympatric hosts species are greater than the distances among flies on the same host in different geographic areas (Waring et al. 1990). This same study also found reduced variability in flies on S. gigantea. This suggests that some E. solidaginis have recently shifted hosts to this species. A recent study has compared reproductive behavior of the flies associated with the two hosts (Craig et al. 1993). They found that flies associated with S. gigantea emerge earlier in the season than flies associated with S. altissima. In host choice experiments, each fly strain ovipunctured its own host much more frequently than the other host. Craig et al. (1993) also performed several mating experiments. When no host was present and females mated with males from either strain, if males from only one strain were present. When males of both strains were present, statistically significant positive assortative mating was seen. In the presence of a host, assortative mating was also seen. When both hosts and flies from both populations were present, females waited on the buds of the host that they are normally associated with. The males fly to the host to mate. Like the Rhagoletis case above, this may represent the beginning of a sympatric speciation.

5.6 Flour Beetles (Tribolium castaneum)

Halliburton and Gall (1981) established a population of flour beetles collected in Davis, California. In each generation they selected the 8 lightest and the 8 heaviest pupae of each sex. When these 32 beetles had emerged, they were placed together and allowed to mate for 24 hours. Eggs were collected for 48 hours. The pupae that developed from these eggs were weighed at 19 days. This was repeated for 15 generations. The results of mate choice tests between heavy and light beetles was compared to tests among control lines derived from randomly chosen pupae. Positive assortative mating on the basis of size was found in 2 out of 4 experimental lines.

5.7 Speciation in a Lab Rat Worm, Nereis acuminata

In 1964 five or six individuals of the polychaete worm, Nereis acuminata, were collected in Long Beach Harbor, California. These were allowed to grow into a population of thousands of individuals. Four pairs from this population were transferred to the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute. For over 20 years these worms were used as test organisms in environmental toxicology. From 1986 to 1991 the Long Beach area was searched for populations of the worm. Two populations, P1 and P2, were found. Weinberg, et al. (1992) performed tests on these two populations and the Woods Hole population (WH) for both postmating and premating isolation. To test for postmating isolation, they looked at whether broods from crosses were successfully reared. The results below give the percentage of successful rearings for each group of crosses.

WH × WH - 75%
P1 × P1 - 95%
P2 × P2 - 80%
P1 × P2 - 77%
WH × P1 - 0%
WH × P2 - 0%

They also found statistically significant premating isolation between the WH population and the field populations. Finally, the Woods Hole population showed slightly different karyotypes from the field populations.

You can't be serious.

None of those instances resulted in a new species.

Try reading it again. The new species were incapable of mating with the parent species, resulting in speciation.

 

[Smilodonfatalis]

You know, when I was 18 and decided to go to college (the first time), I sat down and thought about what I wanted to become. I was so intrigued by Anthropologists. You know, the Louis Leakey type of doctor that went into remote Africa and unearthed Austrolopithicus. I wanted to be one of those. So I took classes in Anthropology and the sciences. And I believe what I was taught and what I learned about early man and the development of Homo Sapiens as a species. I didn't get to go to Africa, instead opting for the police department and another type of de-evolution of the species.

I saw men, women and children die in my arms. I saw that it wasn't so black and white. When I held my son and saw him take his last breath I felt his very soul slip away. I am an Evangelical Christian and I believe that the bible is the very word of God Himself. That Jesus Christ is His son and that He rose from the dead after three days. And that through Him, we shall have eternal life. I have had pastors ask me how I reconcile the two worlds. To me, they are not mutually exclusive but actually compliment each other.

Darwin said that through mutations new species, adapted better to coping with the environment, thrived and replaced older species along with cataclysmic events. The Bible says that God created the heavens and the earth in six days. And a day to God is what? And a day for God began when and ended when? God is all powerful. It is what He makes it to be. Day one may have begun and may not have completely ended yet as well as Day two, or Day Three.

Man is so insignificant and so prone to ignorance that it defies comprehension. Those who tell me that you must accept Darwin's theories to the exclusion of others are as willfully rigid as those who tell me that God is bound by a 24 hour day. How can such a "flawed" organism such as ourselves, "KNOW" anything at this time for sure about this matter? I submit that this is still over our heads. We can contemplate, but to believe that our theory is the only correct answer is ridiculous.

Good thread Political Chic...

There are NO alternate scientific theories.

The Theory of Evolution is the fundamental basis of all biological science.

So when you say some say we must accept Darwin's theories to the exclusion of others, you wrongly assume there are other scientific theories. There are NONE.

The alternate theories are Intelligent Design and Theoretical Physics.

Intelligent design is not a acientific theory.

Theoretical physics is not a biological theory and does not conflict with the theory of evolution, despite what Creationists mistakenly claim.

 

[Smilodonfatalis]

I destroyed that link earlier....as follows:




The example you provide is exactly the bogus double talk that convince the uninformed....

....that would be you.

In this case, there is no disrespect involved....simply that you are uninformed, and therefore easily convinced.



From your link:

"A discussion of speciation requires a definition of what constitutes a species. This is a topic of considerable debate within the biological community."

This alone should warn you that the rest will be double talk.


Then, there's this:
"What a biologist will consider as a speciation event is, in part, dependent on which species definition that biologist accepts."


Do you have a definition of 'species'?


This is it:
spe·cies
ˈspēsēz,-SHēz/Submit
noun
1.
BIOLOGY
a group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding.



Science is based on evidence, not polls.

"...the literature contains many instances where a speciation event has been inferred."

Do you know what 'inferred' means?


And, the uninformed accept things like this:
"Most biologists are convinced that speciation occurs."

If you accept this as science, you probably accept 'global warming,' too.



Again....no speciation has been been observed.


"NOT ONE of the examples studied documents the origin of large-scale biological change. The vast majority of the examples do NOT even show the production of new species, where a "species" is defined by the standard definition of a "reproductively isolated population."
Thus, not a single bona fide example of speciation in animals -- e.g. the establishment of a completely reproductively isolated population -- was found. - Specious Speciation: The Myth of Observed Large-Scale Evolutionary Change - Evolution News & Views

Try reading the link again.

Scientists documented at least 26 instances of observed speciation in both the wild and the lab. Everything from evening primroses to fruit flies.

Try understanding the link.

It is bogus....as you are.


In your posts one sees an example of the old saying, one that you so aptly demonstrate: “He knew his way out of the harbor, but after that, everything was open sea.”

Oh I understand it. And I was able to sum it up in 1 sentence (see also above) that even you should be able to understand. The new species were incapable of mating with the parent species, resulting in speciation.

Thus debunking your ignorant claim that speciation had never been observed.

 

[Smilodonfatalis]

Hey Sunshine,

Here's a study that validates Evolution.

http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/23/8/1574.full.pdf

That's just 1 of hundreds of thousands of scientific studies that validate evolution.

It was so easy to make you look foolish.

In the future I suggest you don't make such blanket statements that are so easily destroyed.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Hey Sunshine,

Here's a study that validates Evolution.

http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/23/8/1574.full.pdf

That's just 1 of hundreds of thousands of scientific studies that validate evolution.

It was so easy to make you look foolish.

In the future I suggest you don't make such blanket statements that are so easily destroyed.

I've posted a dozen OP's explaining that evolution is neither proven, nor scientific.
You will have no trouble finding same....and, based on the elisions in your education, you shouldn't waste any time in getting to them.

Today's OP is about the connection of the 'theory' to Marxism, as demonstrated by Darwin's acolytes.



So....clean off your specs, borrow a dictionary....and sit down and try to understand the OP.

I fully understand the difficulties that will present for a person of your limitations....but it will be worth it.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Can't find one study where the theory of evolution has been shown to be scientifically valid?

How about a whole basic college biology textbook?

Would a 600 page biology textbook be enough for you?

Try reading one before spouting your total ignorance.

LOL. A biology text is not a study. Name one scientific study which validates evolution. And for your information, I have more than a few college hours in science - biology, chemistry, organic and inorganic, (strange how they separate those two isn't it), microbiology, anatomy, physiology, advanced pharmacology, advanced psychopharmacology, and advanced pathophysiology, as well as algebra and statistics.

Good luck on your Biology 101 class. Your text will be outdated in just a few years. Might want to just sell it when you are done.

There are literally tens of thousands of studies that validate Evolution.

That you don't understand this proves you are not paying attention in your science classes.

A biology textbook consists of a body of knowledge based on thousands of studies.

The science of genetics alone validates the theory of evolution.

You left yourself wide open. All I have to do is find just 1 study to make you look like a fool. That will be a piece of cake.

Stay tuned.

Communism.

Marxism.

Darwin.



That's the subject for today.


Hopefully there is medication for your A.D.D.

 

[Sunshine]

Hey Sunshine,

Here's a study that validates Evolution.

http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/23/8/1574.full.pdf

That's just 1 of hundreds of thousands of scientific studies that validate evolution.

It was so easy to make you look foolish.

In the future I suggest you don't make such blanket statements that are so easily destroyed.

From the article:

To understand the evolution of male ejaculates, it is essential
to know how natural and sexual selection determine
characteristics of these complex mixtures and of their individual
components.

Although such models of seminal protein evolution
are reasonable and appear to explain patterns of evolution
for at least one specific Acp locus (Wigby and Chapman
2005), our results suggest that observed patterns of divergence
and nonsynonymous substitutions in seminal proteins
in polyandrous species are not exclusively
a consequence of conflict. The comparison between Drosophila
Acps and Gryllus seminal proteins reveals that,
in spite of the contrasting characteristics of their mating systems,
the mean selection parameter x and the proportion of
loci assumed to be affected by positive selection are very
similar in these 2 polyandrous taxa. In field crickets, experimental
evidence suggest that seminal proteins have a positive
rather than a negative effect on female fitness. In fact,
during copulation, Gryllus males transfer seminal fluid
products to females that increase female life span and lifetime
fecundity (Wagner et al. 2001). So, postmating sexual
selection driven by sperm competition and/or by a process
of cryptic female choice analogous to conventional female
choice (Eberhard 1996) are likely candidates responsible
for the pattern of rapid evolution of seminal proteins in
these taxa. However, other deterministic evolutionary
forces such as natural selection cannot yet be ruled out. Further
comparisons including both monandrous and polyandrous
lineages would help to clarify the role of the different
types of selection in the evolution of seminal proteins, the
major component of seminal fluids.

You don't even know what this study is about. I suggest you get a degree and take research and statistics. This study does not explain speciation, and it doesn't even address natural selection.

This study is about protein synthesis of male ejaculates in two different insects. It in no way seeks to explain natural selection, nor does it even address natural selection.

 

[Hollie]

Hey Sunshine,

Here's a study that validates Evolution.

http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/23/8/1574.full.pdf

That's just 1 of hundreds of thousands of scientific studies that validate evolution.

It was so easy to make you look foolish.

In the future I suggest you don't make such blanket statements that are so easily destroyed.

I've posted a dozen OP's explaining that evolution is neither proven, nor scientific.
You will have no trouble finding same....and, based on the elisions in your education, you shouldn't waste any time in getting to them.

Today's OP is about the connection of the 'theory' to Marxism, as demonstrated by Darwin's acolytes.



So....clean off your specs, borrow a dictionary....and sit down and try to understand the OP.

I fully understand the difficulties that will present for a person of your limitations....but it will be worth it.

Lets be honest. What you post are "quote mines" you copy and paste from Harun Yahya.

How it is that you are clueless to the fact of evolution is truly remarkable. It can only be willful ignorance that enables you to ignore the relevant science community and its position regarding biological evolution.

 

[Hollie]

LOL. A biology text is not a study. Name one scientific study which validates evolution. And for your information, I have more than a few college hours in science - biology, chemistry, organic and inorganic, (strange how they separate those two isn't it), microbiology, anatomy, physiology, advanced pharmacology, advanced psychopharmacology, and advanced pathophysiology, as well as algebra and statistics.

Good luck on your Biology 101 class. Your text will be outdated in just a few years. Might want to just sell it when you are done.

There are literally tens of thousands of studies that validate Evolution.

That you don't understand this proves you are not paying attention in your science classes.

A biology textbook consists of a body of knowledge based on thousands of studies.

The science of genetics alone validates the theory of evolution.

You left yourself wide open. All I have to do is find just 1 study to make you look like a fool. That will be a piece of cake.

Stay tuned.

Communism.

Marxism.

Darwin.



That's the subject for today.


Hopefully there is medication for your A.D.D.

This is your typical pattern of behavior. You cut and paste relentlessly from Harun Yahya and when you're challenged to support any of that nonsense, you retreat to your snide remarks and run for the exits.

Glad to see you're following your usual pattern of bailing out before being embarassed yet again.

 

[Peterf]

LOL. A biology text is not a study. Name one scientific study which validates evolution. And for your information, I have more than a few college hours in science - biology, chemistry, organic and inorganic, (strange how they separate those two isn't it), microbiology, anatomy, physiology, advanced pharmacology, advanced psychopharmacology, and advanced pathophysiology, as well as algebra and statistics.

Good luck on your Biology 101 class. Your text will be outdated in just a few years. Might want to just sell it when you are done.

There are literally tens of thousands of studies that validate Evolution.

That you don't understand this proves you are not paying attention in your science classes.

A biology textbook consists of a body of knowledge based on thousands of studies.

The science of genetics alone validates the theory of evolution.

You left yourself wide open. All I have to do is find just 1 study to make you look like a fool. That will be a piece of cake.

Stay tuned.

Communism.

Marxism.

Darwin.



That's the subject for today.


Hopefully there is medication for your A.D.D.

Come to Sweden PC. People will flock to listen to you. You see no one here has ever met anyone who actually denies evolution. You would win first prize in the freak show.

The only thing that worries me is that your visit would comfort the America Haters, who, I'm sorry to say, would jump up and down with glee.

 

[Steven_R]

You just got burned by your own ignorance.

Kenyon was wrong.

Speciation has been observed on numerous occasions.

Check this link. Observed Instances of Speciation

It's also simply untrue that there is an absence of transitional forms. There are literally thousands of transitional forms in both the living and fossil record.

From the article:

5.4 Housefly Speciation Experiments



5.4.1 A Test of the Founder-flush Hypothesis Using Houseflies

Meffert and Bryant (1991) used houseflies to test whether bottlenecks in populations can cause permanent alterations in courtship behavior that lead to premating isolation. They collected over 100 flies of each sex from a landfill near Alvin, Texas. These were used to initiate an ancestral population. From this ancestral population they established six lines. Two of these lines were started with one pair of flies, two lines were started with four pairs of flies and two lines were started with sixteen pairs of flies. These populations were flushed to about 2,000 flies each. They then went through five bottlenecks followed by flushes. This took 35 generations. Mate choice tests were performed. One case of positive assortative mating was found. One case of negative assortative mating was also found.

5.4.2 Selection for Geotaxis with and without Gene Flow

Soans, et al. (1974) used houseflies to test Pimentel's model of speciation. This model posits that speciation requires two steps. The first is the formation of races in subpopulations. This is followed by the establishment of reproductive isolation. Houseflies were subjected to intense divergent selection on the basis of positive and negative geotaxis. In some treatments no gene flow was allowed, while in others there was 30% gene flow. Selection was imposed by placing 1000 flies into the center of a 108 cm vertical tube. The first 50 flies that reached the top and the first 50 flies that reached the bottom were used to found positively and negatively geotactic populations. Four populations were established:

Population A + geotaxis, no gene flow
Population B - geotaxis, no gene flow
Population C + geotaxis, 30% gene flow
Population D - geotaxis, 30% gene flow

Selection was repeated within these populations each generations. After 38 generations the time to collect 50 flies had dropped from 6 hours to 2 hours in Pop A, from 4 hours to 4 minutes in Pop B, from 6 hours to 2 hours in Pop C and from 4 hours to 45 minutes in Pop D. Mate choice tests were performed. Positive assortative mating was found in all crosses. They concluded that reproductive isolation occurred under both allopatric and sympatric conditions when very strong selection was present.

Hurd and Eisenberg (1975) performed a similar experiment on houseflies using 50% gene flow and got the same results.

5.5 Speciation Through Host Race Differentiation

Recently there has been a lot of interest in whether the differentiation of an herbivorous or parasitic species into races living on different hosts can lead to sympatric speciation. It has been argued that in animals that mate on (or in) their preferred hosts, positive assortative mating is an inevitable byproduct of habitat selection (Rice 1985; Barton, et al. 1988). This would suggest that differentiated host races may represent incipient species.

5.5.1 Apple Maggot Fly (Rhagoletis pomonella)

Rhagoletis pomonella is a fly that is native to North America. Its normal host is the hawthorn tree. Sometime during the nineteenth century it began to infest apple trees. Since then it has begun to infest cherries, roses, pears and possibly other members of the rosaceae. Quite a bit of work has been done on the differences between flies infesting hawthorn and flies infesting apple. There appear to be differences in host preferences among populations. Offspring of females collected from on of these two hosts are more likely to select that host for oviposition (Prokopy et al. 1988). Genetic differences between flies on these two hosts have been found at 6 out of 13 allozyme loci (Feder et al. 1988, see also McPheron et al. 1988). Laboratory studies have shown an asynchrony in emergence time of adults between these two host races (Smith 1988). Flies from apple trees take about 40 days to mature, whereas flies from hawthorn trees take 54-60 days to mature. This makes sense when we consider that hawthorn fruit tends to mature later in the season that apples. Hybridization studies show that host preferences are inherited, but give no evidence of barriers to mating. This is a very exciting case. It may represent the early stages of a sympatric speciation event (considering the dispersal of R. pomonella to other plants it may even represent the beginning of an adaptive radiation). It is important to note that some of the leading researchers on this question are urging caution in interpreting it. Feder and Bush (1989) stated:


"Hawthorn and apple "host races" of R. pomonella may therefore represent incipient species. However, it remains to be seen whether host-associated traits can evolve into effective enough barriers to gene flow to result eventually in the complete reproductive isolation of R. pomonella populations."

5.5.2 Gall Former Fly (Eurosta solidaginis)

Eurosta solidaginis is a gall forming fly that is associated with goldenrod plants. It has two hosts: over most of its range it lays its eggs in Solidago altissima, but in some areas it uses S. gigantea as its host. Recent electrophoretic work has shown that the genetic distances among flies from different sympatric hosts species are greater than the distances among flies on the same host in different geographic areas (Waring et al. 1990). This same study also found reduced variability in flies on S. gigantea. This suggests that some E. solidaginis have recently shifted hosts to this species. A recent study has compared reproductive behavior of the flies associated with the two hosts (Craig et al. 1993). They found that flies associated with S. gigantea emerge earlier in the season than flies associated with S. altissima. In host choice experiments, each fly strain ovipunctured its own host much more frequently than the other host. Craig et al. (1993) also performed several mating experiments. When no host was present and females mated with males from either strain, if males from only one strain were present. When males of both strains were present, statistically significant positive assortative mating was seen. In the presence of a host, assortative mating was also seen. When both hosts and flies from both populations were present, females waited on the buds of the host that they are normally associated with. The males fly to the host to mate. Like the Rhagoletis case above, this may represent the beginning of a sympatric speciation.

5.6 Flour Beetles (Tribolium castaneum)

Halliburton and Gall (1981) established a population of flour beetles collected in Davis, California. In each generation they selected the 8 lightest and the 8 heaviest pupae of each sex. When these 32 beetles had emerged, they were placed together and allowed to mate for 24 hours. Eggs were collected for 48 hours. The pupae that developed from these eggs were weighed at 19 days. This was repeated for 15 generations. The results of mate choice tests between heavy and light beetles was compared to tests among control lines derived from randomly chosen pupae. Positive assortative mating on the basis of size was found in 2 out of 4 experimental lines.

5.7 Speciation in a Lab Rat Worm, Nereis acuminata

In 1964 five or six individuals of the polychaete worm, Nereis acuminata, were collected in Long Beach Harbor, California. These were allowed to grow into a population of thousands of individuals. Four pairs from this population were transferred to the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute. For over 20 years these worms were used as test organisms in environmental toxicology. From 1986 to 1991 the Long Beach area was searched for populations of the worm. Two populations, P1 and P2, were found. Weinberg, et al. (1992) performed tests on these two populations and the Woods Hole population (WH) for both postmating and premating isolation. To test for postmating isolation, they looked at whether broods from crosses were successfully reared. The results below give the percentage of successful rearings for each group of crosses.

WH × WH - 75%
P1 × P1 - 95%
P2 × P2 - 80%
P1 × P2 - 77%
WH × P1 - 0%
WH × P2 - 0%

They also found statistically significant premating isolation between the WH population and the field populations. Finally, the Woods Hole population showed slightly different karyotypes from the field populations.

You can't be serious.

None of those instances resulted in a new species.

Try reading it again. The new species were incapable of mating with the parent species, resulting in speciation.

Biologists have a hard time defining what actually constitutes a species, the same way geologists haven't every been able to define a continent and astronomers can't agree on what defines a planet. All that uncertainty does is allow the God Squad types to constantly move the goalposts. Even if one is able to demonstrate evolutionary change resulting in a new species, the ambiguity allows the argument to be shifted so that the demonstration is doesn't apply.

 

[PoliticalChic]

There are literally tens of thousands of studies that validate Evolution.

That you don't understand this proves you are not paying attention in your science classes.

A biology textbook consists of a body of knowledge based on thousands of studies.

The science of genetics alone validates the theory of evolution.

You left yourself wide open. All I have to do is find just 1 study to make you look like a fool. That will be a piece of cake.

Stay tuned.

Communism.

Marxism.

Darwin.



That's the subject for today.


Hopefully there is medication for your A.D.D.

Come to Sweden PC. People will flock to listen to you. You see no one here has ever met anyone who actually denies evolution. You would win first prize in the freak show.

The only thing that worries me is that your visit would comfort the America Haters, who, I'm sorry to say, would jump up and down with glee.

It seems that I have been eminently successful.....

The OP was aimed at establishing the importance of Darwin's theory, not to science, but to Marxism....

...and showing the ties of 'evolutionary biologists' to Marxism and atheism.




The dissociation that is shown by folks like you, who cannot dispute the ties I've documented, yet claim not be be able to connect the dots with the attempts to advance the theory, is truly astounding.


I believe it is referred to as 'vincible ignorance.'

 

[freedombecki]

Hey Sunshine,

Here's a study that validates Evolution.

http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/23/8/1574.full.pdf

That's just 1 of hundreds of thousands of scientific studies that validate evolution.

It was so easy to make you look foolish.

In the future I suggest you don't make such blanket statements that are so easily destroyed.

You did not make Dr. Sunshine look foolish to anyone who knows how careful her words are parsed before she prints them out.

In fact, one of the worst debating techniques one can use in the constant basis is by a continual barrage of character assassination. It makes you look like the assassin, and relieves your smears of any credibility whatever.

Just sayin'.

 

[Hollie]

Communism.

Marxism.

Darwin.



That's the subject for today.


Hopefully there is medication for your A.D.D.

Come to Sweden PC. People will flock to listen to you. You see no one here has ever met anyone who actually denies evolution. You would win first prize in the freak show.

The only thing that worries me is that your visit would comfort the America Haters, who, I'm sorry to say, would jump up and down with glee.

It seems that I have been eminently successful.....

The OP was aimed at establishing the importance of Darwin's theory, not to science, but to Marxism....

...and showing the ties of 'evolutionary biologists' to Marxism and atheism.




The dissociation that is shown by folks like you, who cannot dispute the ties I've documented, yet claim not be be able to connect the dots with the attempts to advance the theory, is truly astounding.


I believe it is referred to as 'vincible ignorance.'

What you actually did was make no connection at all between "Darwinism" and atheism, Marxism.

It was another ill conceived thread you dumped into this forum and included o.ly your usual staple of cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya.


I believe it is referred to as 'fundamentalist desperation'.

 

[Foxfyre]

Communism.

Marxism.

Darwin.



That's the subject for today.


Hopefully there is medication for your A.D.D.

Come to Sweden PC. People will flock to listen to you. You see no one here has ever met anyone who actually denies evolution. You would win first prize in the freak show.

The only thing that worries me is that your visit would comfort the America Haters, who, I'm sorry to say, would jump up and down with glee.

It seems that I have been eminently successful.....

The OP was aimed at establishing the importance of Darwin's theory, not to science, but to Marxism....

...and showing the ties of 'evolutionary biologists' to Marxism and atheism.

The dissociation that is shown by folks like you, who cannot dispute the ties I've documented, yet claim not be be able to connect the dots with the attempts to advance the theory, is truly astounding.

I believe it is referred to as 'vincible ignorance.'

And further, why it was so important to further the doctrine of evolution, with our without scientific testability of all its components, in a way that discredits religion. The idea that both evoutionary theory and religious faith could coexist peacefully side by side is not acceptable to those with Marxist goals. The State--the vision of Utopian society itself--must be the god of all lest anybody be encouraged to think for themselves or take the initiative to test the concepts and/or theories preached as gospel.

So the evolutionary religionists go out of their way to denigrate, accuse, belittle, ridicule, and/or diminish all people of faith, call them all sorts of names, accuse them of all manner of sins, while protesting any question of any kind of the adopted evolutionary doctrine of the day.

And certainly they do not wish to see how much their point of view coincides with the Marxist vision.

 

[Hollie]

Come to Sweden PC. People will flock to listen to you. You see no one here has ever met anyone who actually denies evolution. You would win first prize in the freak show.

The only thing that worries me is that your visit would comfort the America Haters, who, I'm sorry to say, would jump up and down with glee.

It seems that I have been eminently successful.....

The OP was aimed at establishing the importance of Darwin's theory, not to science, but to Marxism....

...and showing the ties of 'evolutionary biologists' to Marxism and atheism.

The dissociation that is shown by folks like you, who cannot dispute the ties I've documented, yet claim not be be able to connect the dots with the attempts to advance the theory, is truly astounding.

I believe it is referred to as 'vincible ignorance.'

And further, why it was so important to further the doctrine of evolution, with our without scientific testability of all its components, in a way that discredits religion. The idea that both evoutionary theory and religious faith could coexist peacefully side by side is not acceptable to those with Marxist goals. The State--the vision of Utopian society itself--must be the god of all lest anybody be encouraged to think for themselves or take the initiative to test the concepts and/or theories preached as gospel.

So the evolutionary religionists go out of their way to denigrate, accuse, belittle, ridicule, and/or diminish all people of faith, call them all sorts of names, accuse them of all manner of sins, while protesting any question of any kind of the adopted evolutionary doctrine of the day.

And certainly they do not wish to see how much their point of view coincides with the Marxist vision.

There are quite a number of fallacies and outright falsehoods in the above. "Evolutionary religionists" is a boilerplate term furthered by fundamentalists who are threatened by science and the consensus it brings. That is why the christain fundamentalists have become increasingly more desperate in their efforts to force ID creationism into the public school system. And let's be honest. It's Christian creationists who want their religious beliefs forced upon school children.

It should be pointed out that "Origin of Species" accomplished two very different things.

First:, it demonstrated through a catalog of scientific detail the historical fact of evolution (assuming an understanding of the difference between levels of scientific certainty and the theories that explain them. Using fields as diverse as biology, comparative anatomy,selective breeding, geography and animal behavior, Darwin laid out the evidence and formed a working theory that evolution (descent with modification) had actually occurred.

His evidence was overwhelming. Within little more than a decade after his theory was published, most of the leading biologists of his day were convinced that evolution (descent with modification) was true.

Secondly, Darwin proposed a theory for explaining what we would learn to be fact: "Natural Selection." Contrary to the claim by IDiots that "the gods did it" by magical means as a way to explain the diversity of life on the planet, (completely unsupported and it assumes the requirement for supernaturalism), Natural Selection makes no such requirement and makes no requirement for coincidence or supermagicalism. Evolution instead defines the objective criterion of "reproductive fitness" as the completely natural mechanism for driving biological change.

What many people (especially IDiots, creationists, or whatever invented term is used to describe their supernaturalism) do not understand is that during Darwin's lifetime, the young and growing scientific community (growing in sophistication and testing methods), did not embrace all of his theory. However, they were convinced by "Origin of Species" that the fact of evolution was true. It was only during the decades after his death that his basic theory was combined with the new science of population genetics that convinced biologists that Natural Selection provides the best answers toward explaining the biological diversity on the planet. The principle of the scientific method and process is that such theories are tested and open to peer review. Exceeding what Darwin could have hoped for, the testing that continues even now, and the continued scientific verification of theory, has only strengthened the support for biological evolution.

The bottom line is very simple. Evolution is completely silent regarding supernatural events. Your need to introduce your owns fears, paranoia and conspiracy theories aimed at "evilutionists" is really childish and naive.

Show us a workable mechanism for peer reviewed testing of your gods, as opposed to the Hindu gods. Demonstrate for us the real gods and how science can investigate the supernatural.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Come to Sweden PC. People will flock to listen to you. You see no one here has ever met anyone who actually denies evolution. You would win first prize in the freak show.

The only thing that worries me is that your visit would comfort the America Haters, who, I'm sorry to say, would jump up and down with glee.

It seems that I have been eminently successful.....

The OP was aimed at establishing the importance of Darwin's theory, not to science, but to Marxism....

...and showing the ties of 'evolutionary biologists' to Marxism and atheism.

The dissociation that is shown by folks like you, who cannot dispute the ties I've documented, yet claim not be be able to connect the dots with the attempts to advance the theory, is truly astounding.

I believe it is referred to as 'vincible ignorance.'

And further, why it was so important to further the doctrine of evolution, with our without scientific testability of all its components, in a way that discredits religion. The idea that both evoutionary theory and religious faith could coexist peacefully side by side is not acceptable to those with Marxist goals. The State--the vision of Utopian society itself--must be the god of all lest anybody be encouraged to think for themselves or take the initiative to test the concepts and/or theories preached as gospel.

So the evolutionary religionists go out of their way to denigrate, accuse, belittle, ridicule, and/or diminish all people of faith, call them all sorts of names, accuse them of all manner of sins, while protesting any question of any kind of the adopted evolutionary doctrine of the day.

And certainly they do not wish to see how much their point of view coincides with the Marxist vision.

Excellent point...


1. Kenneth Miller, professor of biology at Brown, has written in “Finding Darwin's God,” that a belief in evolution is compatible with a belief in God. Francis Sellers Collins , physician-geneticist, noted for his discoveries of disease genes and his leadership of the Human Genome Project (HG) has written a book about his Christian faith. Then there was Stephen Jay Gould, paleontologist, evolutionary biologist, and historian of science, who said that "science and religion do not glower at each other…” but, rather, represent Non-overlapping magisteria. (above from Wikipedia).

And yet, they become enraged at either the criticism of Darwin's theory, or the possibility that religion might offer an answer.


Further, the importance to define the relationship the Darwinists have with the Marxists:

2. "The Left says of the Right, “You fools, it is demonstrable that dinosaurs lived one hundred million years ago, I can prove it to you, how can you say the earth was created in 4000BCE?”

But this supposed intransigence on the part of the Religious Right is far less detrimental to the health of the body politic than the Left’s love affair with Marxism, Socialism, Racialism, the Command Economy, all of which have been proven via one hundred years of evidence shows only shortages, despotism and murder."
David Mamet, "The Secret Knowledge."

 

[Sunshine]

From the article:



You can't be serious.

None of those instances resulted in a new species.

Try reading it again. The new species were incapable of mating with the parent species, resulting in speciation.

Biologists have a hard time defining what actually constitutes a species, the same way geologists haven't every been able to define a continent and astronomers can't agree on what defines a planet. All that uncertainty does is allow the God Squad types to constantly move the goalposts. Even if one is able to demonstrate evolutionary change resulting in a new species, the ambiguity allows the argument to be shifted so that the demonstration is doesn't apply.

Case in point: What constitutes a different species? Different DNA, definitely. But within the human race there are several distinctly different phenotypes. Skin color, predisposition to certain illnesses, body build, and the list could go on. So, by his logic and based on those so called 'studies' blacks, whites, Asians, Indian would all be different species.

What species is a virus? I wonder if he can get his head around THAT one. Is a virus even a living organism? What even constitutes a living organism? DNA? A carbon based body? Respiration? Procreatiion? Food consumption? Having gender? If science can't agree on exactly what a virus is, how can they claim to know the origins of man! They really shouldn't. Because they don't know.

 

[Sallow]

The only thing that is settled is your inability to comprehend.

If it was raining soup you'd be standing outside with a fork.

Ah so it rains soup now?

Which Christian Scientist told ya that?

Here's a hint.

(It doesn't)

Now....don't tell me you've caught the 'Hollie disease'....stupidity?

Where is your attempt to speak to the OP?

Any errors in it?

Would you admit that you were unaware of the links of the proponents to communism, Marxism?

And....admit that these details reinforce my contentions?



Well?

The whole OP is one big error.

There's nothing to discuss.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Ah so it rains soup now?

Which Christian Scientist told ya that?

Here's a hint.

(It doesn't)

Now....don't tell me you've caught the 'Hollie disease'....stupidity?

Where is your attempt to speak to the OP?

Any errors in it?

Would you admit that you were unaware of the links of the proponents to communism, Marxism?

And....admit that these details reinforce my contentions?



Well?

The whole OP is one big error.

There's nothing to discuss.

It is so utterly disappointing to find this low caliber of opposition.

All you've done is verify the OP.

Based on how vapid your post is.....why'd you even bother.
It's not as though this post made you seem any smarter than had you not posted.


If there is an idea in your head, it's in solitary confinement.