Posted on 12/10/2009 9:27:01 AM PST by neverdem
New species might arise as a result of single rare events, rather than through the gradual accumulation of many small changes over time, according to a study of thousands of species and their evolutionary family trees.
This contradicts a widely accepted theory of how speciation occurs: that species are continually changing to keep pace with their environment, and that new species emerge as these changes accrue. Known as the 'Red Queen' hypothesis, it is named after the character in Lewis Carroll's book Through the Looking-Glass, and What Alice Found There who tells a surprised Alice: "Here, you see, it takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place."
The Red Queen hypothesis rests on the idea that species must continuously evolve just to hang on to their ecological niche. That gradual evolution is driven by the constant genetic churn of sexual selection.
A consequence of this is that all of the species in a particular family, or genus, gradually evolve to form new species at the same rate.
But Mark Pagel and his team at the University of Reading, UK, challenge this idea. In a paper published today in Nature, they compared four models of speciation — one of which was the Red Queen hypothesis — to see which best explains the rate of speciation in more than 100 species groups from the animal and plant kingdoms, including bumblebees, turtles, foxes and roses.
They looked at the lengths of branches in thousands of species'...
--snip--
The team's findings might stir things up in the world of evolutionary biology. "It really goes against the grain because most of us have this Darwinian view of speciation," says Pagel. "What we're saying is that to think about natural selection as the cause of speciation is perhaps wrong."
(Excerpt) Read more at nature.com ...
Not at all, I'm saying both, if it's all one or the other, or neither, then I'm wrong.
By the "same time", what I really mean is that "gradual" is always going on, but that when the "punctuations" happen, then bigger and faster changes occur.
Minor point.
I do recall that the Bible says seven pairs of each of the Kosher animals went onto the Ark.
I don't recall it saying how many *burp* excuse me! actually got off...
*jumps up and down frantically waving my hand in the air* I know! I know!!!
Algore!
.....if this new theory is correct,....
I don’t think it is new.
It is remarkably similar to Stephan J Gould’s Punctuated Equilibrium. It is a matter of fact just some tinkering with that theory.
The fact is, there is no certainty precluding several different evolutionary processes.
Sure the photos were staged, as most science photos are. They represent an oversimplification. But, from your link,
Its validity rests upon experiments conducted by researcher H.B.D. Kettlewell during the 1950s, which demonstrated that white moths do have an advantage over dark moths on pale trees, and a disadvantage on dark trees, and vice versa.
While his results were criticized, there is no indication they were faked, nor that they were completely wrong.
If there weren't many black moths around at the time the photo was taken, they have had to use a specimen. The photos are illustration, not evidence.
But it doesn’t show evolutionary change. While there is an advantage to being one color or another, the trait to be white or black never left the species. In other words, the information was already there.
Except the moths don’t usually land on tree trunks in nature. So yeh, the entire experiment is flawed. Its still makes the cut for being some of the best evidence for decent from a common ancestor despite being meaningless.
This is the way science is supposed to work: scientists throwing rocks at each others theories. The problem with the global warming crowd was that they managed to get hold of the publication process and prevent publication of any rebuttal.
Just keep saying to yourself
“the religion is settled”
“the religion is settled”
“the religion is settled”
The late S.J. Gould’s model was “diastrophe” — diastrophe was the punctuation mark in the punctuated equilibria.
Yes but..... once the effect is developed it is not really to hard to find another cause
You don't suppose the rest of the trees were affected by the soot of the coal age do you? And yes, birds for which the camo would matter, are not the only predator that east moths, but they do eat them.
Possibly. The moths roost on the underside of small branches among the leaves of the trees. Its unclear that their coloration had a significant effect on their chances for survival. The experiment was supposed to show that birds were able to see the lighter moths easier and were eating them at a greater rate. This was supposed the be the cause of the increase in darker colored moths. The problem is that the experiment placed the moths in unnatural positions on tree trunks where they were exposed to the birds. The experiment was flawed and should not be used as an example of natural selection.
“Way to cover all the bases. Then no matter which one pans out, you were right! “
That’s what makes the TOE just an idea and not a theory. There’s no way to falsify it.
“Interesting hypothesis. Can you describe an experiment to prove or disprove the hypothesis? “
Let me know when you get a good answer on this one. I’ve heard some lame excuses for experiments but none under controlled conditions which would prove anything. They try to use adaptation as the example of the TOE but that does not show speciation, in fact it shows the opposite.
Darwin proposed some, I hear, but that sort of thing isn’t allowed any more.
For every thing that Darwin said would falsify his theory, Darwinists have found some way to excuse it.
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.