Posted on 06/25/2007 5:18:09 AM PDT by Chi-townChief
Nope. Both dogs and wolves are in the species Canis Lupus and can interbreed. There is no proven speciation, one species from another, that I’ve ever seen . . .
Does the molestus subgroup in London interbreed with the molestus subgroups not in London? If so it is the same species. Then if it is the same species, and that species interbreeds with pipiens, the two species are one. The molestus subgroup is just hard to breed with pipiens, as I said earlier, the chihuahua and the wolf . . . not an easy mating, but same species.
Get back to me when that program writes itself without any input from you whatsoever. Thanks!
Still mosquito (sp?) isn’t it?
“attacked to regularly by people who offer even less evidence supporing their own theory.”
The TOE stands on its own. It matters not how much evidence anyone else offers for their own theory.
But my parents had a chihuahua that would’ve loved to give it a try!
They'd have to find a different species of Bible. LOL!
Really? No support?
This is a little off-topic but I always found that to be an interesting story: from what I understand, early dogs were wolves who, for some reason, were friendly to humans. And the cavemen knew enough to drive off the hostile wolves and keep the friendly ones around and breed them to make hunting partners. I still marvel, when I look at my old dog (half-shepherd, half-collie), that this at times ferocious-looking animal is safe to keep in the house.
Nobody actually uses the TOE except as a topic of dinner debate.
I'm not sure what this question asks. Before colonizing underground the ancestral species was C. pipiens, an above-ground mosquito species that feeds chiefly on birds. This species colonized the subway and was selected for a suite of characteristics such as feeding on mammals, laying eggs without a blood meal, breeding in enclosed spaces, and year-round activity.
It is difficult to say exactly what genetic changes occurred. You ask "was the speciation from loss of genetic material rather than gain or change". The major creationists are always going on about "information" (never defined) and about gain and loss of such. In actuality most of the change that occurs during speciation involves gene regulation, so change is the rule. Addition and deletion of genes (which as far as I can tell is what the creationists mean by "information", except when they're talking about alleles (alternative sequences for a gene)) is a rare event. Our genes are extremely similar to chimpanzee genes in sequence, the reason we look so different is because of when these genes are turned on, for how long, and when they are turned off.
The London C. molestus population is incapable of interbreeding with C. pipiens. As I mentioned in a post to someone else, C. pipiens seems amenable to forming the underground phenotype in other areas, but in these places the two populations can still interbreed.
If it truly is a different species I think that the 1st question (did the species exist before it was “discovered” in the London underground) is probably the hard one to overcome for the evolutionary theorist
Genetic studies show that is is most closely related to C. pipiens of the area, and have ruled out colonization of the subways by C. molestus subtypes transported from somewhere else. It came from C. pipiens, that's a done deal.
Please see #53.
From what I've seen so far in this thread, sarcasm is the main supporting "proof" of evolutionary theory. I've never debated it before, so it's my first foray into this, but the only proof of speciation offered so far in this thread of evolutionary theory is an article on a London mosquito, but in the same article cited for proof of speciation, the authors declare that no position on speciation is taken and give citations to those who dispute that speciation occurred.
No proof, just a feeling of superiority based on faith in a commonly believed in theory. 150 years of Darwin and not a single example of a species arising from another species. That's a long, long time for such a heavily researched area of science to have no proof.
See #79.
Ah,#82, sorry.
Yes. Many.
Natural selection is no more random than water flowing downhill rather than up.
It is an interesting topic. One idea is that the wolves sort of domesticated themselves. Some would have hung around human populations and eaten leftover food, bones, and hide. This would have placed selection on the wolves for a shorter flight distance, the distance at which they would allow a human to approach before running away. Wolves that spent all of their time running away wouldn’t have been very successful in this strategy. Humans probably contributed by killing aggressive wolves that threatened their children. Over time humans would have captured some of these semi-domesticated wolf pups and started selectively breeding them.
You say that there are many proofs of one species arising from another, but I’ve never seen one.
If my memory serves, didn’t Darwin once explicitly lay down proving or disproving his theory as a challenge to future scientists?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.