|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
Posted - 10/04/2004 : 12:33:17 [Permalink]
|
Welcome Peptide. I must first say, very originial arguments, I for one haven't heard of either. On your suggestion for the third:
From http://www.skeptictank.org/hs/factfaq.htm :
quote: 9. has been observed,
* 9a. in the field
In the genus Tragopogon (a plant genus consisting mostly of diploids), two new species (T. mirus and T. miscellus) have evolved within the past 50-60 years. The new species are allopolyploid descendants of two separate diploid parent species.
Here is how this speciation occurred. The new species were formed when one diploid species fertilised a different diploid species and produced a tetraploid offspring. This tetraploid offspring could not fertilize or be fertilised by either of its two parent species types. It is reproductively isolated, the very definition of a species.
Mammals:
Rapid speciation of the Faeroe Island house mouse occurred less than 250 years after humans brought it to the island. Species identification in this case was based on morphology, since breeding experiments could not be performed with the parent stock . (S. Stanley, Macroevolution: Pattern and Process, San Francisco: W. H. Freeman & Company, 1979, p. 41)
Birds:
During a series of natural catastrophes, the Galapagos island finch- species Geospitza fortis developed a larger beak, necessary for consuming a variety of seed unaffected by the ravages. This was a new phenotype never observed before, made manifest i n just a few years time.
* 9b. in the laboratory
Plants:
In 1905, while studying the genetics of the evening primrose, Oenothera lamarckiana, H. De Vries discovered among his plants a variant having a different chromosome number. He was unable to breed this variant with O. lamarckiana. He named the new species O. gigas. (De Vries, Species and Varieties, Their Origin By Mutation, 1905)
In 1973, L. D. Gottlieb documented the speciation of Stephanomeira malheurensis from a large population of S. exigua in Harney County, Oregon. He was able to document morphological differences in five characteristics plus chromosomal differences. Attempts at crossbreeding these plants produced hybrids having either scant seeds and pollen, or developmental abnormalities. (American Journal of Botany 60, pp. 545-553)
After five years of selective crossbreeding, E. Pasterniani in 1969 produced almost complete reproductive isolation between two varieties of corn. The species were distinguishable by seed color, white versus yellow. Other genetic markers allowed him to identify hybrids, which were not used for future breeding. (Zea mays L. Evolution 23, pp. 534547)
Insects:
There is a lot of literature about speciation in fruit flies and house flies. Different experiments have been carried out to examine separately the effects of natural selection and genetic drift. See, for example, J. Ringo, et. al, "An experiment testing two hypotheses of speciation," The American Naturalist (1989) 126, pp. 642661, or A. B. Soans, et. al, "Evolution of reproductive isolation in allopatric and sympatric populations," The American Naturalist (1974) 108, pp. 117- 124.
Tropical fish:
The question can be asked, is the sex ratio then just a non-adaptive consequence of the independent assortment of X and Y chromosomes in male sperm? Or, is the ratio adaptive and Mendelian assortment an adaptive trait that has evolved?
The authors of a recent paper put this to the test by studying the Atlantic silverside fish Menidia menidia . This fish has an unusual life cycle in that, during the early months of the year mostly female offspring are produced. In the summer months mostly males are produced. The bias in the sex of the offspring is induced by the water temperature. Female offspring are produced while the water is cold, males while it is warm. The sex ratio across the whole year balances out to 0.5. This sex bias is caused by temperature dependent sex determination, not temperature dependent sex mortality. In other words cold water makes baby female fish form, it doesn't kill male baby fish. The same embryo could be male or female depending on the temperature it is raised at (i.e. Mendelian segregation does not influence the sex ratio in this species.)
The authors captured hundreds of these fish and maintained them in aquaria for five to six years. Some aquaria were maintained at low temperatures, others at high temperatures. In the low temp aquaria, the populations began with mostly females. The sex ratio, for example, in one low temp tank was 0.70 (70% female) In the high temperature aquaria, the populations began with mostly males. In one of the low tanks the sex ratio was 0.18. Both of these, given the population sizes, are significantly different than 0.50.
As the experiment progressed, the sex ratios changed from the highly skewed initial conditions. In all the populations the sex ratios converged on 0.5. The trajectory of the sex ratios converging on 0.5 differed between many of the tanks. In one tank, the next and all subsequent generations were at an 0.5 sex ration. In another, it slowly converged upon 0.5. In yet another it reached 0.5, then overshot slightly, then returned. This indicates that a sex ratio of 0.5 is somehow adaptive be cause the fish evolved from a skewed ratio to a balanced ratio. Since chromosome assortment does not determine sex in these fish (temperature does), the only explanation for their convergence to 0.5 is natural selection favoured fish that produced an abnormal amount of the minority sex. (If males are lacking, any fish that produces male fish will contribute more than average to the gene pool).
This is a frequency-dependent kind of selection. As the sex ratio approaches 0.5, fish who produce a disproportionate amount of either sex will contribute less than average to the gene pool.
Finally, notice that evolution has occurred. The experiment started with populations of fish that produced skewed sex ratios and ended with populations that produced balanced sex ratios. Since the environment was held constant, the change in the populations was therefore genetic. In other words, the gene pool changed over time. This is the definition of evolution.
Conover and Voorhees, 1990, Evolution of a Balanced Sex Ratio by Frequency-Dependent Selection in a Fish, Science 250: p.1556-1558
However you must be careful, out of this will surely come the, "Thats microevolution, not macroevolution" argument which I think we are all too familiar with. |
Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 10/04/2004 : 13:30:49 [Permalink]
|
Yes: welcome, Peptide!
You've apparently seen my most-dire predictions about what will happen with this "debate," based upon what I can see of the person running it, and yet you choose to enter it anyway. So, seeing that you're wholly and unwaveringly masochistic, I have no choice but to try to support your effort.
Along those lines, I have a feeling that any discussion of observed instances of speciation should be left until it's a subject brought up by the "other side." In other words, it'll be dismissed, no matter how compelling, if tossed in pre-eptively. Instead, hang on to it as an answer to any pat "we can't observe evolution happening" claims which might come up, if they come up.
On the other hand, the Nylon Bug is really cool, and there's really no bad time to publicize a nifty bacterium. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail) Evidently, I rock! Why not question something for a change? Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
Peptide
Skeptic Friend
USA
69 Posts |
Posted - 10/04/2004 : 13:40:34 [Permalink]
|
quote: Originally posted by Ricky Welcome Peptide. I must first say, very originial arguments, I for one haven't heard of either.
Actuall, I have decided to drop the second argument (cladistics and stratigraphy). The ideas behind the paper are to cumbersome and the data isn't spectacular (but what we would expect from an incomplete fossil record). Instead, perhaps I will focus on how well the fossil record is sorted, using grass and grass pollen as an example. Since the blades of grass and the actual grass pollen are separate entities they should have been in different places in the fossil record if they were around since the beginning (or redistributed by a flood). No one has ever found a dinosaur and a blade of grass, nor grass pollen, in the same geologic strata.
Speaking of which, will I be arguing against young earthers or old earthers? It will make a difference.
quote: However you must be careful, out of this will surely come the, "Thats microevolution, not macroevolution" argument which I think we are all too familiar with.
What I would rather do is show a beneficial mutation come about and then observe that beneficial mutation move through the population. This would be direct observation of evolutionary mechanisms. Thus, science is not taking evolution "on faith" but applying mechanisms we see today and applying them to things in the past, just as other branches of science behave. You are right, examples of speciation will only be characterized as "within kind" even though kind is never defined. This is the power of the retroviral argument since it ties two "kinds" together in a way that supports evolution. |
Edited by - Peptide on 10/04/2004 14:55:11 |
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 10/04/2004 : 13:42:03 [Permalink]
|
tk and his retarded creationist friends have no interest in a debate.....
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong. -- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n. The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 10/04/2004 : 14:02:47 [Permalink]
|
Howdy Peptide!
Great to see ya here; great to have a zoologist among us!
If you wish to do a little on the fossil record, I'll certainly provide what poor assistance I can. It'll be fun.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
Edited by - filthy on 10/04/2004 14:12:15 |
|
|
Siberia
SFN Addict
Brazil
2322 Posts |
Posted - 10/04/2004 : 14:17:29 [Permalink]
|
Welcome indeed!
Oh yes; don't forget to sever Evolution from Abiogenesis and the Big Bang. Point out Physics is not Biology. They keep bringing up this nonsensical blather. |
"Why are you afraid of something you're not even sure exists?" - The Kovenant, Via Negativa
"People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs." -- unknown
|
|
|
Peptide
Skeptic Friend
USA
69 Posts |
Posted - 10/04/2004 : 15:04:49 [Permalink]
|
Thank you all for the welcome!!
Filthy: I would appreciate any fossils that you find important. I would like to stress the sorting involved since this removes radiometric dating (not that it is a problem anyway).
Dude: They are going to get a debate whether they want to or not. I am guessing that their rebuttals will be the normal "party line" so I have requested a second round of rebuttals. Hopefully that will limit the amount of avoidance and misrepresentation.
Siberia: I will also have to stress that geology and the age of the earth are also not part of the theory of evolution. However, the conclusions of geology are used in evolution as it pertains to fossil sorting, so this may be a problem. I am familiar with the most common, and most of the uncommon, YEC and OEC arguments so I really shouldn't hae a problem if the argument ventures into those areas. Hopefully by stressing biology I can show that creationists can not argue in that realm.
To all: I have settled on ERV patterns as one of my topics. Anyone else have any other specific topics that might work? So far I have fossil sorting and the nylon bug as strong possibilities. |
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 10/04/2004 : 15:06:25 [Permalink]
|
Just in case you get a chance to use it, here's Dr. Marty Leipzig's Flood Math. This has never been refuted and to my knowledge, none have even tried. I laid it on Dr. Jonathon Sarfati a year of so back, and he went straight to ad hom. A most unpleasant individual.
http://www.holysmoke.org/cretins/fludmath.htm
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 10/04/2004 : 16:11:24 [Permalink]
|
Here's the Cuffy. It's an excellent, well supported piece showing transition from reptile to mammal.
http://www.gcssepm.org/special/cuffey_05.htm
As for fossil sorting, lessee:
Damn. Couldn't find the link I want. I'll keep looking. In the meantime:
quote: 4. Phanerozoic extinctions
4.1. The Big Five Analyses of past extinctions rely upon the fossil record to provide information on the appearance of new species (speciation) and their decline towards extinction. At a species level the fossil record is fragmentary and thus only higher taxa such as families can be used for analytical purposes. The fossil record left by terrestrial species is less complete than for marine because terrestrial environments are more destructive, and those marine species with hard shells have left the most complete record of all. It is these abundant, widespread shelly invertebrates, for example Ammonites (Figure 2), which provide palaeontologists with the data used to investigate past extinction rates.
http://member.biodiversity.org.uk/teddy/projecta/4.1PhanerozoicExtinctions.htm
Go to the table of contents for more on extinctions. The argument is that none of the species intermingle with others from different events.
quote: Fossils are not sorted according to hydrodynamic principles. Ammonites, which are buoyant organisms similar to the chambered nautilus, are found only in deep strata. Turtles, which are rather dense, are found in middle and upper strata. Brachiopods are very similar to clams in size and shape, but brachiopods are found mostly in lower strata than clams. Most fossil-bearing strata contain fossils of various sizes and shapes. Some species are found in wide ranges, while others are found only in thin layers within those ranges. Hydrologic sorting can explain none of this.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH561_2.html
What it boils down to is the Devonian Bunny argument. There has never been the remains of a mammal associated with nor in the same strata with, oh, say, Dimetrodon or Dunkleosteus. And never have these nor a lagomorph been found in strata with dinosaurs.
Fossil sorting can be seen in brief microcosm in varves:
http://www.adias-uae.com/fossils/TWN/Twnpeakes%20varves%20full.html
All conversations with working zoologists sooner or later turn to shit:
quote: The Real Poop on the Global Flood by Glenn R. Morton copyright G. R. Morton 2002
This may be freely reproduced so long as no changes to the text are made nor any monetary charges required. One may freely link to this page. Young-earth creationism is faced with many difficulties in explaining the real world. One more item which it can't explain is the existence of dried and petrified turtle poop (coprolite, in scientific terms). Young-earth creationists believe that the geologic record is the result of a major catastrophe in which everything (or nearly everything) was deposited within a single year. That leaves certain difficulties.
Consider the turtle coprolite shown below which is from Betsiboka, Madagascar. #65532; This coprolite, from my personal fossil collection, was deposited by a turtle in Eocene rocks. Geology says these rocks are 38-55 million years old. The coprolite today is rock-hard and has no smell. It is the mineralized poop from an Eocene turtle. How do we know it is turtle poop? Because even today, in Betsiboka, Madagascar where this was found, turtles come ashore to lay their eggs, they leave such |
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 10/04/2004 : 16:45:04 [Permalink]
|
quote: Originally posted by Ricky
From the Flood Math link:
quote: Finally, at 1800 K water would not exist as liquid.
I could just see the argument, "God raised the boiling point of water."
To which I would reply: where in the bible, or any other text, religious or otherwise, does it state this? If you cannot come up with supporting evidence, your argument is no more than a mere statment and therefore invalid. Go suck a buzzard egg.
I love that sort of thing!
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 10/04/2004 : 17:16:58 [Permalink]
|
Hi Peptide, and welcome. At this point I don't have much to add. I'm still thinking about a third topic. On endogenous retrovirusses. Very cool topic. I love 'em! Now, if I recall correctly I came across a nice paper when looking for my own research a while ago, which talks about different forms of alkaline phosphatase in monkeys and humans. It (of course) gives about the same conclusions as conclusions shown by ERV's. Maybe you could conclude that the same kind of differences as laid out by you are also found when you use proteins or genes. If you want I can look up the article.
I'd say that the fossil sorting is a good idea. The beneficial mutation with evolution will probably be dismissed as 'micro evolution' or such, but it is a worthy topic nonetheless.
By the way, as far as I got your opponents are going to be young earthers. |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.' -Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 10/04/2004 : 19:11:52 [Permalink]
|
Well, how strange. tksgurl is absolutely correct when she says "this debate is over before it starts," as she wants to debate jimi (another creationist) in a "Punctuated Equilibrium vs. Creation Theory" debate. She specifically says that she wants to take him on. Go figure that one. If they want to debate amongst themselves, it'll be even less meaningful, and they're free to do so.
Of course, she brings up "ccdi9" again, and calls it "a biomechanic mechanism that totally would prevent gradualistic evolution," which doesn't actually say what it is in any useful way. I've written a post to talk.origins asking for help in identifying this mysterious and unique (to tksgurl) "mechanism."
Anyway, Peptide, were I you, I would gracefully depart the field to jimi and tksgurl, and tell them to have fun debating each other. Remind her that she said "i want to be the one who takes on Jimi," and that "takes on" is a standard idiom for "challenges" (or for "hires," but that doesn't make contextual sense).
Perhaps that might cue tk into the fact that his debate offer needs to be a little more strictly defined.
|
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail) Evidently, I rock! Why not question something for a change? Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 10/04/2004 : 19:44:12 [Permalink]
|
Hmph. From what I've seen of Jimi, he could be flayed and his hide hung to dry on the side of the shed before breakfast. Dunno about tkgurl. My eyes gave out before I could get a take on her.
The debate should be here, where it won't be interfered with when one side or the other, even and especally our own, starts taking a beating.
Ain't gonna be on, though. They have no weapons but rhetoric and blather, and they know perfectly well that it won't work beyond the confines of their sheltered enclave. I declare, it's all but incestious!
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 10/04/2004 : 19:45:32 [Permalink]
|
quote: Originally posted by Dave W.
Well, how strange. tksgurl is absolutely correct when she says "this debate is over before it starts."
She also wrote: "i want to debate for Punctuated Equilibrium against Creation. here's why: i've already refuted gradualistic evolution, and the only response i got was: what is ccdi9."
I am still unable to comprehend how she can gloat over her ability to "refute gradualistic evolution" by simply throwing out a term no one on the planet's ever heard of but her. She freely admits that no one she used the term with has any idea what she's talking about, yet in her messed up mind that equals a "refutation?" How does that work again?
"Creationism is impossible because of thxx17." "What's thxx17?" "I win."
Nice freakin' logic there. I can't imagine any scientist (even a creationist) so ignorant as to think such an argument could float. I mean, what the hell is her first research paper going to look like? "I did this experiment in my lab. It was pretty complicated and everything. I proved stuff, now give me my Nobel prize."
I'm tempted to disbelieve she has a degree in anything, let alone a Masters in biochemistry.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
Edited by - H. Humbert on 10/04/2004 21:24:29 |
|
|
|
|
|
|