Scruffy little weed shows Darwin was right as evolution moves on

Times Online | 2003-02-20 | Anthony Browne, Environment Editor

[longshadow]

Which idiot on this thread is most likely to be "medved" returning to FreeRepublic like a dog returning to it's own vile vomit?

So many candidates; so little time.....

[Ichneumon]

I think you win the prize as the stupidest POS to join FR during February. Congratulations, Mr. Buffoon-of-the-month!

The rudest, on the other hand...

[Con X-Poser]

<< Speaking of genes, though, they show *clear* evidence of common ancestry -- the kind you claim can't exist. >>

Actually, they show *clear* evidence of a Creator using a common plan. So all your charts, graphs, pictures, and conclusions are based on a FALSE assumption. You can make your nice drawings look impressive, but they are worthless as far as determining truth.

[Con X-Poser]

<< So again, why is the ‘Creationist’ singled out? The theistic evolutionist believes in miracles – let’s all have our laugh at him as well… Actually, we can all have our laugh at everyone with the exception of the naturalist/ materialist. >>

Actually evolutionists believe in the biggest miracles of all. Have you seen some of what are offered as transitionals? They expect hearts to evolve different numbers of valves and remain functional the entire time. They expect respiratory systems to evolve from two-way bellows systems to one-way systems with pneumatic bones, and the creature to breathe through the whole transition. They expect eyes tp evolve into totally different lens systems and remain viable. The expect legs to evolve into wings, but not slow the creature down (making it susceptible to predators and unable to catch prey) the entire time.

Scales evolving into feathers, as untenable as that is, is easy compared to most of the miracles they profess had to occur.

[Doctor Stochastic]

...they are both birds - the same kind of creature....

What does this mean? Are Birds a Kind in the Creationist sense of the word?

[kidkosmic1]

I clicked on the link to this article and it took me to "The Onion". Is that right???

[AndrewC]

When they make new species which are reproductively isolated from other species, yes.

So species that are not reproductively isolated from other species, have not come about through evolution?

[Aric2000]

LOSING something is not evidence for evolution. Evolution requires GAINING something

Well isn't that a conveniet little phrase for you, BUT IT IS WRONG.

Evolution says that a creature will evolve into something else over a great period of time.

In the case of Wisdom teeth, which we DO NOT need, and some humans are indeed borm without them, this in fact proves evolution. Because if it is not needed, it is dropped from the genetic code because it is NO longer necessary for survival, just as the appendix, and one other organ that I can't remember right now. If they are removed, you will survive just fine without them.

They had thier uses at an earlier time, but slowly they are being removed from the Genome because they are no longer needed for survival. That is EVOLUTION, and your statement above is DEAD WRONG!!

[Centurion2000]

However, more than 90 per cent of species that have lived subsequently become extinct, and its future is by no means certain.

More like 99% .... but who's counting ...

[jennyp]

I am willing to admit I don't have a good, succinct definition of macro-evolution from a scientific dictionary, but hybrid speciation (the combination of two independent species' characteristics) is not substantial evidence of the ability to create new classifications of life-forms through minute evolutionary steps. It is the greater leaps in differentiation that are at question with regard to evolution versus creation, not the hybridization of compatible and similar life-forms. I'd be interested to know where your definition of macro-evolution comes from

It's pretty mainstream. Here's a good explanation.

Also, your assertion that "from now on the new species will only diverge further from its parent species" is supposition, unsupportable from the evidence in this article. Unless there is a connected trail of evidence concerning the continued divergence of one life-form from another, then the conclusion you have drawn is only a conclusion - not an established fact.

The thing is, if the new species cannot interbreed with either of its parents, then no matter what new mutations arise & take over its genome, they will never be able to get transmitted back to the parent species. Meanwhile the chances of the same mutation also occurring in the same spot in the parent species' genes is infinitesimal. So this new species has no where to go but further away from its parent species.

BTW - Thanks for replying with information - I often avoid these kinds of threads because I prefer at least semi-informed debate to the smug ranting these threads often devolve into.

You're welcome. I try not to be the first one to descend into ranting. :-)

[AndrewC]

In the case of Wisdom teeth, which we DO NOT need, and some humans are indeed borm without them, this in fact proves evolution. Because if it is not needed, it is dropped from the genetic code because it is NO longer necessary for survival, just as the appendix, and one other organ that I can't remember right now. If they are removed, you will survive just fine without them. [Emphasis mine]

Wow! You need to meet the genetic drift theorists.

[AndrewC]

The thing is, if the new species cannot interbreed with either of its parents, then no matter what new mutations arise & take over its genome, they will never be able to get transmitted back to the parent species.

To what species does the cross of the new species and a parent belong, when the new species can interbreed with a parent?

[MattAMiller]

There's always this talk about dogs not coming from cows, or weeds coming from mums. Of course that's not what evolution predicts. We'd expect a new mum-like species, and maybe someday some totally different sort of plant. We certainly don't expect some preexisting sort of plant.

Now this might just be the way Creationists chose to illustrate their skepticism about macroevolution. But to me it reinforces the idea that they simply can't give up the Platonic notion of species. Creationists appear to think that species are essentially immutable and that nature can't generate new ones.

And maybe since they see species as numenous they interpret any assault on their numenous status as an assault on religion.

I'm not trying to suggest that their stupid or warped or anything. I'm just saying that we all have certain faulty concepts that we're hardly even aware of that lead us to misapprehend some things.

[jennyp]

To what species does the cross of the new species and a parent belong, when the new species can interbreed with a parent?

How much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?

Oh, sorry. Um, why, strictly speaking they would all belong to the same species. Good thing that's not the case here, else you'd have scored a debating point. >:-)

[f.Christian]

fC ...

There are no precambrian fossils --- how come ?



Inn ...


More to the point, "how come" you keep saying this even though I've already (on other threads) pointed you to precambrian fossils (including some you can buy from a catalog)?


fC ...

... worms and shells ? ? ?

[BMCDA]

What does this mean? Are Birds a Kind in the Creationist sense of the word?

Hmmm... déjà vu ;)

[AndrewC]

Oh, sorry. Um, why, strictly speaking they would all belong to the same species.

You are the one making the definitions. I was trying to give relevance to this "they will never be able to get transmitted back to the parent species." , in light of this "if the new species cannot interbreed with either of its parents". You are saying the "if" is not necessary. That makes the first statement superfluous.

[Ichneumon]

[In the case of Wisdom teeth, which we DO NOT need, and some humans are indeed borm without them, this in fact proves evolution. Because if it is not needed, it is dropped from the genetic code because it is NO longer necessary for survival, just as the appendix, and one other organ that I can't remember right now. If they are removed, you will survive just fine without them.]

Wow! You need to meet the genetic drift theorists.

Wow! You need to learn more about genetic drift.

Genetic drift applies when a trait is both a) not genetically linked to other traits and b) strictly neutral to selection.

That's not the case for wisdom teeth.

[Ichneumon]

... worms and shells ? ? ?

I will take this as an admission that there *are* precambrian fossils, and that you were wrong when you said that there weren't earlier in this thread.

[AndrewC]

Genetic drift applies when a trait is both a) not genetically linked to other traits and b) strictly neutral to selection.

That's not the case for wisdom teeth.

Nice try at a tap dance, but your statement was a general one. if it is not needed, it is dropped from the genetic code because it is NO longer necessary for survival, just as the appendix...

Anyway your favorite place has this to say about drift

Suzuki et al. explain it as well as anyone I've seen;

"If a population is finite in size (as all populations are) and if a given pair of parents have only a small number of offspring, then even in the absence of all selective forces, the frequency of a gene will not be exactly reproduced in the next generation because of sampling error. If in a population of 1000 individuals the frequency of "a" is 0.5 in one generation, then it may by chance be 0.493 or 0.0505 in the next generation because of the chance production of a few more or less progeny of each genotype. In the second generation, there is another sampling error based on the new gene frequency, so the frequency of "a" may go from 0.0505 to 0.501 or back to 0.498. This process of random fluctuation continues generation after generation, with no force pushing the frequency back to its initial state because the population has no "genetic memory" of its state many generations ago. Each generation is an independent event. The final result of this random change in allele frequency is that the population eventually drifts to p=1 or p=0. After this point, no further change is possible; the population has become homozygous. A different population, isolated from the first, also undergoes this random genetic drift, but it may become homozygous for allele "A", whereas the first population has become homozygous for allele "a". As time goes on, isolated populations diverge from each other, each losing heterozygosity. The variation originally present within populations now appears as variation between populations." (Suzuki, D.T., Griffiths, A.J.F., Miller, J.H. and Lewontin, R.C. in An Introduction to Genetic Analysis 4th ed. W.H. Freeman 1989 p.704)