Thank you for the link regarding the mosquito. I will research it, am actually interested in this as opposed to axe grinding. Off the top of my head the main questions if this is a different species, as opposed to a micro-evolution, would be a) was this seperate species in existence before it took up in the London underground? b) if not was the speciation from loss of genetic material rather than gain or change (devolution rather than evolution)? c) if not, does it never breed with the non-molestus main species? From what I’ve read so far, in North America the Culex Pippiens group has hybridized, which indicates that the London molestus group may not be truly speciated . . . that it is only a subgroup of the larger species. It is probably very hard to breed a chihuahua with a Rottweiler but they are the same species.
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 — simple proof of speciation in this instance would be hard to come by.
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.
Ring species provide unusual and valuable situations in which we can observe two species and the intermediate forms connecting them. In a ring species:
- A ring of populations encircles an area of unsuitable habitat.
- At one location in the ring of populations, two distinct forms coexist without interbreeding, and hence are different species.
- Around the rest of the ring, the traits of one of these species change gradually, through intermediate populations, into the traits of the second species.
A ring species, therefore, is a ring of populations in which there is only one place where two distinct species meet. Ernst Mayr called ring species "the perfect demonstration of speciation" because they show a range of intermediate forms between two species. They allow us to use variation in space to infer how changes occurred over time. This approach is especially powerful when we can reconstruct the biogeographical history of a ring species, as has been done in two cases. Source
Imagine trying to get the chihuahua to quit barking. I think in vitro fertilization techniques would be easier if you’re going to do this.