Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

New species evolve in bursts - Red Queen hypothesis of gradual evolution undermined.
Nature News ^ | 9 December 2009 | Kerri Smith

Posted on 12/10/2009 9:27:01 AM PST by neverdem

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-57 next last
Venditti, C., Meade, A. & Pagel, M. Nature advance online publication doi:10.1038/nature08630 (2009).

The computer model will be attacked!

1 posted on 12/10/2009 9:27:03 AM PST by neverdem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Without making a claim about the veracity of the program or the conclusions, just commenting on the statements....

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.

How convenient. A Scientific Process that is exceptional, rare, unrepeatable, and gives us exactly what we need to explain what we see.

Gee, I think creation is a "single rare event" which gives rise to a new species.

2 posted on 12/10/2009 9:35:09 AM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

The bigger issue is that if biologists abandon Darwin’s natural selection model, what will creationists call evolutionary biologists?


3 posted on 12/10/2009 9:38:01 AM PST by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT
Gee, I think creation is a "single rare event" which gives rise to a new species.

Both worldviews depend heavily on faith. I have faith in God as the creator of mankind. Unfortunately, the amount of faith required to believe in Evolution is so vast that I find I cannot be a believer.

4 posted on 12/10/2009 9:41:54 AM PST by ClearCase_guy (Play the Race Card -- lose the game.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT
One of the Biblical Creations has God bringing in plants and such ~ presumably from a galactic nursery somewhere.

It's been pretty clear since the taming of the first Alpaca that speciation is not driven by "natural" or "otherwise" selection.

You have to mess with the animal's reproductive opportunities first. Not too far back a bacteria was discovered in the Amazon that reconfigured the shape of the sexual organs in insects ~ with the result that many new species can arise in a very short time on, for example, a single tree!

You try doing that to human beings and you'll have a fight on your hands, and besides they'll just use in vitro!

5 posted on 12/10/2009 9:43:51 AM PST by muawiyah (Git Out The Way)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT
"I think creation is a "single rare event" which gives rise to a new species."

Somebody or something would have to be pretty busy holding a new creation "event" for each and every species on the planet, but a nice try.

I think it is relevant to consider that Homo Sapiens and related / associated groups developed along different lines when isolated from others like them. Also, when not challenged or intermixed, there probably is greater tendency to remain the same. (By the way, those long leaps took a loo-oong time themselves.)

The money quote seems to be: "We think people will come around because it will start to unravel some mysteries about speciation,"

Seems like that's what science should be all about.

6 posted on 12/10/2009 9:51:53 AM PST by norton (No tagline here, Just move along.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: norton

UNder conventional evolutionary theory, there is a falsifiability test, although it is complicated. When the scientists finish mapping the genomes of what they believe to be related species, they “simply” have to show how to start with some common ancestor, and then through a series if individual mutations, map gene sequences from the ancestor to both final related species.

With the stipulation that at EACH step on the way, the resulting organism must be viable and reproducable, and it would help if it was an improvement over the norm so it had a reasonable chance of reproducing.

It is my guess that they will never find the path from one species to another, but that is because I don’t believe you can go from one to another through a series of simple step mutations ALL of which are viable, reproducable, and selectable.

However, if this new theory is correct, they won’t have to find the series of mutation steps, because there won’t be one, just this rare huge change.


7 posted on 12/10/2009 10:03:27 AM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
The idea of a neutral observer is impossible. Science is not the problem. It is scientists that create the problems in that they often find for what they are looking. Climategate is a prime example of the fallacy that scientists are disinterested observers. Scientists have a vested interest in defending Darwin's views. If Darwin were proven wrong, the theses, dissertations, and articles of millions of scientists would be nothing but scholarly crap. Science is closer to a religion than most people will admit.
8 posted on 12/10/2009 10:08:20 AM PST by Nosterrex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: norton
Amazing. This theory essentially throws out many of the concepts on which Darwinism is based (random mutations and natural selection combined with the opportunity that VERY long time periods provide) and just says that evolution can happen in a relative blink of the eye. That radical a shift in concept requires that evolutionists answer a few obvious questions about their prior dogmatic adherence to gradual change over huge time spans. What does that say? "Oops, we were wrong about all that stuff we so vehemently defended before, but we're right this time, just trust us. However, you creationists still can't possibly be right, even though we were so wrong."

Sounds like "punctuated equilibrium" all over again. None of this matters, though, because the biggest problem evolutionists have is not explaining how the raw materials of life arose (though that is difficult enough), but rather explaining how the INFORMATION that rides upon that substrate arose spontaneously. They cannot and never will be able to adequately explain how the extremely complex genetic code arose by chance. Codes don't arise by chance. They require an INTELLIGENCE to assign meaning to what would otherwise just be meaningless arrangements of chemicals.

9 posted on 12/10/2009 10:08:44 AM PST by noiseman (The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: El Gato; Ernest_at_the_Beach; Robert A. Cook, PE; lepton; LadyDoc; jb6; tiamat; PGalt; Dianna; ...
Femina Sapiens in the Nursery - The conflict between parenting and career is hardwired in the female brain.

Like the male sex hormone testosterone, oxytocin is produced in the hypothalamus

IMHO, the author is probably confusing the specific hormone receptors with the hormones.

H1N1 influenza adopted novel strategy to move from birds to humans

Who Needs the Grid? A new fuel-cell technology promises to revolutionize access to cheap, clean energy.

Fear memories erased without drugs: A temporal twist to a therapeutic technique could block old terrors.

FReepmail me if you want on or off my health and science ping list.

10 posted on 12/10/2009 10:17:44 AM PST by neverdem (Xin loi minh oi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

I have complete faith in science. I trust what they find in their laboratories to be true and faithful.

Everytime an article or a post uses the phrases “scientific” or “scientist” I perk right up, save it to favorites and live my life by it.

I especially trust the scientists at the Climate Research Unit.

/SARC


11 posted on 12/10/2009 10:18:12 AM PST by gettinolder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: <1/1,000,000th%

The bigger issue is that if You mean WHEN biologists abandon Darwin’s natural selection model, what will creationists call evolutionary biologists?

Answer - MISTAKEN

12 posted on 12/10/2009 10:23:36 AM PST by RoadGumby (Ask me about Ducky)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: metmom; GodGunsGuts

Ping


13 posted on 12/10/2009 10:25:30 AM PST by RoadGumby (Ask me about Ducky)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Nothing says both mechanisms, gradual and “burst” can’t be going on at the same time. But I would tend to agree that new species probably evolve more in response to gross changes in the environment. Either way though, to get a new species, there would need to be an isolated population. Otherwise you’d get a changed species, but still only the one.


14 posted on 12/10/2009 10:27:43 AM PST by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: <1/1,000,000th%
The bigger issue is that if biologists abandon Darwin’s natural selection model, what will creationists call evolutionary biologists?

They would not be abandoning "natural selection", just looking at the method by which it operates. That is more or less continuously, or in "punctuated equilibrium" manner.

This issue is hardly new. In fact I'd thought that the "fits and starts" model was more in favor. I know it is with me.

15 posted on 12/10/2009 10:30:13 AM PST by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: RoadGumby; GodGunsGuts
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."

Now they need to come up with an explanation of what causes speciation. This should be fun.....


16 posted on 12/10/2009 10:45:19 AM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: El Gato
Nothing says both mechanisms, gradual and “burst” can’t be going on at the same time.

Way to cover all the bases. Then no matter which one pans out, you were right!

17 posted on 12/10/2009 10:46:42 AM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: metmom

Perhaps wrong. Yes. Perhaps


18 posted on 12/10/2009 10:48:34 AM PST by RoadGumby (Ask me about Ducky)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: RoadGumby
"What we've shown is that speciation is about happy accidents — rare events that happen in the environment that cause a species to speciate," says Pagel. These events could include a mountain range being thrust up or a shift in climate, he says.

*rare events*? *happy accidents*?

19 posted on 12/10/2009 10:54:25 AM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: metmom; neverdem

I always thought it was reproductive isolation of a population that is the main factor in speciation (or in the production of sub-species, for that matter). But then again, I could be wrong...


20 posted on 12/10/2009 10:58:21 AM PST by Pharmboy (The Stone Age did not end because they ran out of stones...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: metmom; DaveLoneRanger; editor-surveyor; betty boop; Alamo-Girl; MrB; GourmetDan; Fichori; ...

Hat-tip to Road Gumby for tracking this little gem down :o)

All the best—GGG


21 posted on 12/10/2009 11:08:10 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: metmom; neverdem; RoadGumby

You mean something like this???

AiG: Weekly News

Q: Can speciation occur quickly?

A: If the account of Noah’s Ark in the Bible is true, then two of every kind of land animal (and seven of some) came off Noah’s Ark in the Middle East. For instance, two members of the dog kind walked off the Ark. Then, as the number of dogs increased, eventually the population split up and different groups formed.

As the gene pool was split up, different combinations of genes—inherited from the original dogs—would end up in different groups. Thus, different species would form, such as dingoes, wolves, and so on.

Evolutionists have often insisted that such a process happens slowly, and therefore, the Bible can’t be right when it says that the land animals came off the Ark only about 4,300 years ago.

But in the journal Science, a report stated:

“These examples say that natural selection can cause a population to change very quickly and hint that speciation could [occur] very quickly …”

Once again, true operational science confirms the biblical history. The account of Noah’s Ark in the Bible fits with real observations, including natural selection and speciation.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/e-mail/archive/AnswersWeekly/2007/0721.asp


22 posted on 12/10/2009 11:15:20 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy

That is a position also taken by creationists like those at AiG.

They contend, as I understand it, that because life was created with perfect, functional DNA, (no junk) that as populations became isolated, certain traits were lost, allowing others to express. That would be a loss of information.

The ToE says that information is gained.

However, even if this new concept takes hold that it’s through reproductive isolation and information is indeed lost through that, there still arises the question of where the information came from in the first place.


23 posted on 12/10/2009 11:17:24 AM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
"eponymous hypothesis?"

Sounds like the hypothisis that all life had one beginning...

24 posted on 12/10/2009 11:20:11 AM PST by celmak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
But in the journal Science, a report stated: “These examples say that natural selection can cause a population to change very quickly and hint that speciation could [occur] very quickly …”

That doesn't seem unreasonable, PROVIDED that there is a lot of genetic material to begin with.

If genetic material is added by time and chance mutations, that would be a much slower process. That wouldn't allow for fast, large changes as there wouldn't be sufficient material available to sustain that kind of rate.

25 posted on 12/10/2009 11:21:00 AM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: celmak
"eponymous hypothesis?"

Rather, it sounds like the hypothesis that all life forms began at one beginning...

26 posted on 12/10/2009 11:23:20 AM PST by celmak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
"eponymous hypothesis?"

Rather, it sounds like the hypothesis that all life forms began at one beginning...

27 posted on 12/10/2009 11:24:16 AM PST by celmak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: metmom

==That doesn’t seem unreasonable, PROVIDED that there is a lot of genetic material to begin with.’

Precisely! You make informational changes with information you don’t have. Excellent point Metmom!


28 posted on 12/10/2009 11:31:53 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: El Gato

The “fits and starts” model was first postulated to counter-act the lack of smooth progression of organisms that Darwin claimed should be in the fossil record. It is a model that requires the absence of data to be valid. Unless, of course, you can show “fits and starts” happening repeatably in the present.


29 posted on 12/10/2009 11:37:45 AM PST by kosciusko51
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

I’m a little rusty in this (college bio major), but what makes this different than punctuated equilibria, ala Steven Jay Gould?


30 posted on 12/10/2009 11:42:03 AM PST by Claud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: metmom
...there still arises the question of where the information came from in the first place.

Or how God arose in the first place. Both sides can get stuck on that one...

But I did not know that creationists believed in the reproductive isolation stuff. Thanks...

31 posted on 12/10/2009 11:46:41 AM PST by Pharmboy (The Stone Age did not end because they ran out of stones...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: El Gato
They would not be abandoning "natural selection", just looking at the method by which it operates. That is more or less continuously, or in "punctuated equilibrium" manner. This issue is hardly new. In fact I'd thought that the "fits and starts" model was more in favor. I know it is with me.

It didn't used to be with me, but I'm coming around. I heard a great deal about genetic drift in my evolution classes....and yet we have the coelecanth. What happened there? Sure, maybe there was no overt environmental selection pressure, but oughtn't there be at least some random drift in such a small population--and over the time frames we are talking about it, wouldn't it have been enough to cause some serious anatomical changes?

I dunno. Too many groups in too much stasis over too great a time. Like you said, fits and starts. Not many smooth flows.

32 posted on 12/10/2009 11:55:01 AM PST by Claud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: <1/1,000,000th%
The bigger issue is that if biologists abandon Darwin’s natural selection model, what will creationists call evolutionary biologists?

If by 'evolutionary biology' we simply mean biologists who study the nature of changes in the biological world, I have no problem with this remaining unchanged. Indeed, there are creationists biologists who might as well be called evolutionary biologists already. I know one creationist biologist whose job title is 'plant transformation specialist.'

33 posted on 12/10/2009 12:01:57 PM PST by Liberty1970 (Democrats are not in control. God is. And Thank God for that!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Claud
It didn't used to be with me, but I'm coming around. I heard a great deal about genetic drift in my evolution classes....and yet we have the coelecanth. What happened there? Sure, maybe there was no overt environmental selection pressure, but oughtn't there be at least some random drift in such a small population--and over the time frames we are talking about it, wouldn't it have been enough to cause some serious anatomical changes?

I dunno. Too many groups in too much stasis over too great a time. Like you said, fits and starts. Not many smooth flows.

No matter how you slice it, there are issues with the ToE that just strain its credibility.

34 posted on 12/10/2009 1:11:37 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Claud; El Gato
I’m a little rusty in this (college bio major), but what makes this different than punctuated equilibria, ala Steven Jay Gould?

"fits and starts"

OK with me, a chem major.

35 posted on 12/10/2009 1:18:35 PM PST by neverdem (Xin loi minh oi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: 75thOVI; aimhigh; Alice in Wonderland; AndrewC; aragorn; aristotleman; Avoiding_Sulla; BBell; ...
Thanks neverdem.
 
Catastrophism
 
· join · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post new topic · subscribe ·
 

36 posted on 12/10/2009 3:10:47 PM PST by SunkenCiv (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/__Since Jan 3, 2004__Profile updated Monday, January 12, 2009)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: StayAt HomeMother; Ernest_at_the_Beach; 1ofmanyfree; 21twelve; 24Karet; 2ndDivisionVet; 31R1O; ...

· join list or digest · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post a topic · subscribe ·

 
Gods
Graves
Glyphs
Thanks neverdem.

To all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list.
GGG managers are SunkenCiv, StayAt HomeMother, and Ernest_at_the_Beach
 

·Dogpile · Archaeologica · ArchaeoBlog · Archaeology · Biblical Archaeology Society ·
· Discover · Nat Geographic · Texas AM Anthro News · Yahoo Anthro & Archaeo · Google ·
· The Archaeology Channel · Excerpt, or Link only? · cgk's list of ping lists ·


37 posted on 12/10/2009 3:12:01 PM PST by SunkenCiv (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/__Since Jan 3, 2004__Profile updated Monday, January 12, 2009)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kosciusko51
The “fits and starts” model was first postulated to counter-act the lack of smooth progression of organisms that Darwin claimed should be in the fossil record. It is a model that requires the absence of data to be valid. Unless, of course, you can show “fits and starts” happening repeatably in the present.

There was some moth in England that was mostly white, but which then became mostly black, when the industrial age coal dust pollution made "mostly black" better camo. Then when that was cleaned up, it went back to "mostly white/gray". This was not adaptation by individual moths, but multigenerational changes to the species. The same effect is seen when bacterial species develop immunity to antibiotics. Those that happen to have better resistance, or better camo for the moths, live and reproduce, while the others die off and/or are eaten.

Sometimes the species doesn't survive the transition. Dinosaurs for example. The problem is that the process generally takes several generations, sometimes more than merely several, and in those animals that have lifespans meansured in years, that can take a long time, too long to be considered "in the present".

The whole process is no mystery to animal breeders, who provide both the culling and the increased reproductive success for the "desired" variations. But those are generally relatively long lived species, and the best that people can do is change traits. Creating a whole new species would take much longer, and would require a large but isolated population.

Dad used to take our culls to "underprivileged" senior citizens, who ate them. Mom refused to cook pigeons. :) (When he had chickens, the culls did get eaten.)

38 posted on 12/10/2009 3:21:53 PM PST by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy
I always thought it was reproductive isolation of a population that is the main factor in speciation (or in the production of sub-species, for that matter). But then again, I could be wrong

I think it's a combination of both isolation and environmental change. With only isolation, it still might occur, but it would take a lot longer, since most variations would not produce much of an improved reproductive success, nor would they result in much "culling" by the environment. But when the enivronment changes drastically and there are isolated populatons and thus no mixing, at some point the differences between the two (or more) populations may become large enough that they can no longer interbreed, as each population takes a different path to adapting to the new environment.

An exception might be if the "environmental effect" kills off so many species that there are lots of open "slots" in the new ecology, in which case mulitiple species may result.

Of course who/what drives the environmental change?

39 posted on 12/10/2009 3:35:56 PM PST by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: El Gato

Sure...and do not underestimate the founder effect.


40 posted on 12/10/2009 3:38:19 PM PST by Pharmboy (The Stone Age did not end because they ran out of stones...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: metmom
Way to cover all the bases. Then no matter which one pans out, you were right!

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.

41 posted on 12/10/2009 3:39:24 PM PST by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: El Gato
Variation within a species is not the same as new species springing from old. Also, the peppered moth is an example of an evolutionary hoax.
42 posted on 12/10/2009 3:42:40 PM PST by kosciusko51
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: El Gato
Interesting hypothesis. Can you describe an experiment to prove or disprove the hypothesis?
43 posted on 12/10/2009 3:44:50 PM PST by kosciusko51
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
If the account of Noah’s Ark in the Bible is true, then two of every kind of land animal (and seven of some) came off Noah’s Ark in the Middle East.

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...

44 posted on 12/10/2009 4:18:58 PM PST by null and void (We are now in day 323 of our national holiday from reality. - 0bama really isn't one of US.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: El Gato
Of course who/what drives the environmental change?

*jumps up and down frantically waving my hand in the air* I know! I know!!!

Algore!

45 posted on 12/10/2009 4:21:39 PM PST by null and void (We are now in day 323 of our national holiday from reality. - 0bama really isn't one of US.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

.....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.


46 posted on 12/10/2009 4:25:08 PM PST by bert (K.E. N.P. +12 . Lukenbach Texas is barely there)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: kosciusko51
Variation within a species is not the same as new species springing from old. Also, the peppered moth is an example of an evolutionary hoax.

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.

47 posted on 12/10/2009 5:28:56 PM PST by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: El Gato

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.


48 posted on 12/10/2009 5:52:15 PM PST by kosciusko51
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: El Gato

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.


49 posted on 12/10/2009 6:18:05 PM PST by Tramonto (Live Free or Die)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

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”


50 posted on 12/10/2009 6:28:57 PM PST by Locomotive Breath
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-57 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson