|
Author
|
Topic: Fernando Castro-Chavez: Some Implications for the Study of Intelligent Design ...
|
Fernando Castro-Chavez
Member
Member # 1201
|
posted 23. April 2004 09:58
Dear Moderator, Nobody, and Nosivad-Davison:
Allow me this time to expand my posting (even if this should be the last).
As you know it is not possible to really dissociate the researcher from his background. I am a Christian and a Biotechnologist. This is just a bit focused on some of my recent research findings and its sources:
When I came from Mexico to do my research, the central part of my personal original project was related to: "...Methods for the Identification of One Naturally Produced mRNA from Two Different Chromosomes in Adult Mammals..."
The real starting point of that work, regarding the scientific literature, was based on:
http://www.jbc.org/cgi/content/abstract/274/16/11060
The source of inspiration for me, to pursue on that endeavor was precisely my background. At that time I did not knew of ID, but I was thinking that if that phenomenon was really a mechanism designed by God, it will clearly be evident in many other natural instances, and it will be helpful in our understanding of the "Molecular Basis of Biological Change", as a possible prospect for the amazing abundance of proteins, exceeding the number of genes, i.e., in humans an estimate is more than a million of proteins produced by only 30,000 genes... it talks of the amazing precision of an ID to do a very logical and rational combination of gene products. So, my first prospect was that maybe, if that article was right, that process may have been starting at the RNA level.
But after three years of comparing sequences, I did the discovery that it was most possibly only an artifact. The original work was co-authored by my former advisor. Two months before the end of my contract, and when I was getting ready to complete my findings to publish them, my former advisor fired me from his Laboratory on 04-30-03, just when I was getting ready to complete and to publish my work on the heterotranscript-artifacts (I have been without a job since then because of my pending status, being supported only by my wife and pursuing my research in my home computer P3).
The only explanation of the advisor: "I do whatever I want to do in my Lab." He did not liked my working style, neither my work itself.
But that finding leaded me to discover that the same sequence and longer palindromes acting as linkers are contaminating thousands of sequences in Genbank:
http://www.geocities.com/fdocc3/ht.htm
So, when anybody that is influential in science believes blindly on “evolution” as to consider a yeast polyploid an example of if (Eric S. Lander), and declares that any alternative proposal or proposer disagreeing with ‘evolution’ are like “rubber ducks” only worth of “Push ’em down” (Eugenie C. Scott), and even forbids the University of Georgia to promote stickers declaring that evolution is just a theory but not a fact (Bruce Alberts), I can not do less than to bringing them to the attention of the rest of the thinking community, first and foremost from this wonderful free country of the U.S. My own country is highly controlled by illicit drug dealers and by corruption at all levels (i.e., focused only in the academic field: a faculty director and members receiving money for classes they never imparted; The Faculty Director adding his name to works he never did; and before, an homosexual faculty member arrived from France discriminating female students and attempting to corrupt males, are those problems never seen in the U.S. or in any other country?).
The importance of my discovery is that it promotes a more stringent quality control in molecular methodologies versus artifacts (used until now in almost all labs and sold by almost all molecular companies: the biological host-vector interactions perform, among other activities, the artifactual insert of a palindrome, most commonly the host being a bacteria or yeast, and the vector a lambda phage or a plasmid).
I just submitted that work by myself alone, signing it as an "Independent Biotechnologist" without any Institution backing me, disclaiming any participation or agreement from Baylor College of Medicine. So, I submitted it on Feb 18 2003 to "The Scientific World Journal" (I liked the fact that it displays the full text on line), but no answer has been given to me until now, even after my requests.
I claim that my findings are the product of ID Research.
And also, to move on from only the philosophical and theoretical realm, I am proposing today on these posting boards, especially to the ISCID founding members an organized and exhaustive research project based also on ID Research. I propose them to request a government grant to start a research on "second generation fertility" of the American fauna, flora and micro-organisms, to set also a higher standard in our understanding of which of them are true species, and which of them are just sub-species.
This statement complements my posting of today in my 'Literature Review', under “Research Tools”.
--------------
Other things that we still don’t know about the "stomas" of the earth and some other issues:
http://science.msfc.nasa.gov/headlines/y2000/ast12dec_1.htm
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2000/ast02oct_1.htm
http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/ast09dec97_3.htm
http://science.msfc.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast18may_1.htm?list533366
http://science.msfc.nasa.gov/headlines/y2000/ast27dec_1.htm
--------------
Other more striking evidences:
1. The determinant of the sex of the child is not present in women,
2. A male son may have a blood stream different than his own mother,
3. The female ovules are transmitted in a continuous way from mother to daughter, hence being immortal.
4. The male sperm is transmitted in a discontinuous way from father to son, hence being the carrier of life, but also of death.
http://www.geocities.com/fdocc3/christ.htm
And also:
5. The male hormone testosterone and its precursor is first produced by female in order to be further processed to obtain estrogen,
6. Males lack of a chromosomal fragment (in "Y") when compared with women ("X"),
7. Inside the bone marrow there are multi-potent cells that are able to produce any other body cell...
etc...
My last posting, related to a working definition of 'Species' can be seen at:
http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-18-t-000034-p-2.html
With a better understanding of 'species' the plan for the full use of our natural resources makes complete sense, as also not forever an organism like the salmon must be in the list of 'endangered species', contrary to the 'static' view of some:
http://www.citizenreviewonline.org/mar_2002/groups_seek_to_stop.htm
[ 03. May 2004, 16:56: Message edited by: Fernando Castro-Chavez ]
IP: Logged
|
|
nobody
Member
Member # 145
|
posted 04. May 2004 12:23
I sent a PM regarding this thread on April 24. That PM hasn't even been read yet. I just checked. Can I please get a response?
Thank you.
IP: Logged
|
|
Fernando Castro-Chavez
Member
Member # 1201
|
posted 04. May 2004 17:05
Dear Nobody:
I am sorry for not answering to your posting immediately, I was busy writing my PhD Thesis in Spanish, but here we go:
You wrote:
>"The interesting variations in beak size and shape merely demonstrate the impressive flexibility that we observe as we learn more and more about God's incredible programming of life."
I completely agree with you, and inspired by your comment, I want to add the next, related to the study of cranes:
http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0404/feature2/map.html
I thought that, if all those cranes were also only varietes of one same species, as the finches are, they were then able to interbreed among themselves, and then, they were able to have a fertile offspring (the second generation fertility test.)
In that way, we can save the genetic load of the varieties endangered (the Canadian, the Siberian, and the Japanese), through crossing some of them with varieties not endangered, and according to Mendel's Laws, at least 1/3 of the F2 will present features corresponding to the endangered ones, and if we cross those, plus backcrosses with the original endangered ones, we can gradually increase and take out of the list the number of the 'endangered' varieties. We don't want those same organisms ever present on those lists.
This is another practical example of a perspective completely based on 'Intelligent Design' and in total opposition to evolution and to the mistakes of the 'morphological' classification of organisms.
Tell me what do you think about that, and how possible is for you or for likeminded researchers to 'team up' to propose a grant, to do such recoveries of 'endangered' organisms. That's a lot of work, but is worthy.
That will shut down the wrong idea of 'speciation', and will preserve and produce deliberately biodiversity in different natural and new locations.
I understand that ISCID is mostly theoretical, but I want to 'move on' and to put into practice those useful principles of ID that I have been posting.
God provided us with every natural resource to use them wisely, not to have them as useless 'sanctuaries' of biodiversity. This is another 'clash' between the evolutionarily static conservationism versus the practical ID Research (as Mendel and our contemporary breeders are well aware of).
I don't want neither to hide anymore our human ignorance behind useless hypotheses, theories, degrees, and titles that are based on 'evolutionary thinking'.
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 05. May 2004 10:50
Fernando
I understand your frustration but past evolution cannot be denied. It is only the mechanism or mechanisms that remain either undisclosed or untested. The Darwinians stopped testing their own hypothesis years ago and show no interest in testing alternatives now. In short, Darwinism is not an experimental science and never was. It is a religion.
IP: Logged
|
|
Fernando Castro-Chavez
Member
Member # 1201
|
posted 07. May 2004 15:14
Nosivad,
I don't want to argue but I must use an Einstenian analogy here: to transfer the mythological scenarios imagined by evolution in time, i.e., to the far past or future, is as unfortunate as to transfer them in space, i.e., panspermian Crick or babilonian legends.
Remember that the bad advisor of Mendel was a non-Darwininan, however he was indeed an evolutionist. So, being a non-Darwininan evolutionist, even semi-Darwinian or Th.Evo. speculations have not been of any useful or practical purpose in biology, or in any science, just the opposite.
I don't mean to be mean.
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 07. May 2004 17:15
Fernando
I am sure you don't mean to be mean. I feel that both the Semi-meiotic Hypothesis and the related Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis are subject to verification or I never would have proposed them. As a matter of fact, I regard the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis as already largely verified through the expedient of having eliminated from consideration alternative explanations. Certainly Darwinian gradualism and Lamarckian devices have proven to be of no value. I just don't see other viable possibilities. Of course that is just my opinion as the simple truth is that no one knows anything for sure about the mechanisms that have operated in the production of new life forms.
"Nothing is so firmly believed as what we least know".
Montaigne
[ 08. May 2004, 05:40: Message edited by: nosivad ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Fernando Castro-Chavez
Member
Member # 1201
|
posted 10. May 2004 23:34
Nosivad,
We both can see that the very beginning is clear:
As I stated in my Literature Review "Putting Limits on the Diversity of Life":
"Real life is originated only from Life" (the "Law of Pasteur"), behind the works of Pasteur against the "Spontaneous Generation" (which also had a very practical end, leading him to be considered "The Father of Microbiology").
If there is no "Spontaneous and Random Generation" today, there was none of that in any point in the past in any oceanic "soup". That was the first "Quality Control for Life"!
We also can see that today there is no 'speciation', there is only evolutionary speculation.
The only point that I have is the clear evidence of a non-linear origin of 'true species' and the fallacies of any 'evolutionary' scenario which claims on the need of linearity, of common descent, and of millennia (as the illusions of molecular or radioactive dating).
I have no problem to understand that the 'working prime matter' (i.e., nucleic acids, proteins, etc.), once created perfect at once, then was taken and 'reshaped' with ID.
My observations then indicate a non-linear use of that 'reshaped' material for the origin of the different true species, and that happening suddenly, i.e., in the same day, from one day to another, during the first week, etc., without the need of any long periods of time and without any need to happening again today, it happened once and it was good, and it was then perfect... since the very first time.
[ 10. May 2004, 23:39: Message edited by: Fernando Castro-Chavez ]
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 11. May 2004 08:20
Fernando
I agree with much of what you say with the exception of common descent. Common descent is a mandatory assumption for any evolutionary hypothesis and I am not prepared to abandon it with the following proviso. The original representatives of the various phyla were so fundamentally different from one another that I have difficulty imagining their evolutionary transformations one to another. On the other hand, that could easily be understood within the framework of the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis which I have proposed.
IP: Logged
|
|
nobody
Member
Member # 145
|
posted 12. May 2004 21:11
Nosivad comments:
quote:
In short, Darwinism is not an experimental science and never was. It is a religion.
I agree with you that Evolution has become a religion based on assumption and assertion. However, wouldn't the Darwinists claim that they have attempted to to experimental science with all the fruit flies they have mutated?
Alternatively, wouldn't some of them also claim that they can't do real experimental science because of the vast amount of time required for a species to "evolve"?
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 13. May 2004 07:38
Nobody
You have put your finger on it. The Darwinian model still depends on gradualism which of course demands long periods of time. There is not a single demonstration of the gradual transformation of one kind of living thing into another kind. Quite the contrary, like all other genetic alterations, evolutionary change was instantaneous. Furthermore, by requiring long and unspecified periods of time, the Darwinian scheme becomes untestable, thereby rendering it of no value. In short, it is not scientific.
IP: Logged
|
|
nobody
Member
Member # 145
|
posted 13. May 2004 11:43
quote:
Quite the contrary, like all other genetic alterations, evolutionary change was instantaneous.
Then why haven't all the years of fruit fly mutations resulted in any "evolution"?
IP: Logged
|
|
nobody
Member
Member # 145
|
posted 13. May 2004 11:53
Hi Fernando,
I think that's a wonderful idea!
quote:
I thought that, if all those cranes were also only varietes of one same species, as the finches are, they were then able to interbreed among themselves, and then, they were able to have a fertile offspring (the second generation fertility test.)
In that way, we can save the genetic load of the varieties endangered (the Canadian, the Siberian, and the Japanese), through crossing some of them with varieties not endangered, and according to Mendel's Laws, at least 1/3 of the F2 will present features corresponding to the endangered ones, and if we cross those, plus backcrosses with the original endangered ones, we can gradually increase and take out of the list the number of the 'endangered' varieties. We don't want those same organisms ever present on those lists.
This is another practical example of a perspective completely based on 'Intelligent Design' and in total opposition to evolution and to the mistakes of the 'morphological' classification of organisms.
Tell me what do you think about that, and how possible is for you or for likeminded researchers to 'team up' to propose a grant, to do such recoveries of 'endangered' organisms. That's a lot of work, but is worthy.
That will shut down the wrong idea of 'speciation', and will preserve and produce deliberately biodiversity in different natural and new locations.
Unfortunately I am not currently in a position to assist with such a grant proposal. And I'm concerned that the evolutionists would attempt to squash research of this type, for the obvious reasons.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
IP: Logged
|
|
Fernando Castro-Chavez
Member
Member # 1201
|
posted 13. May 2004 19:14
Nobody,
>with all the fruit flies they have mutated?
1-
Evolution Int J Org Evolution. 2003 Nov;57(11):2557-65. Divergent environments and population bottlenecks fail to generate premating isolation in Drosophila pseudoobscura. Rundle HD.
"Bottlenecks alone did not generate any premating isolation, despite an experimental design that was conducive to bottleneck-induced speciation"
2-
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1995 Apr 25;92(9):3983-6. Founder-effect speciation theory: failure of experimental corroboration. Moya A, Galiana A, Ayala FJ.
"Our results provide no support for the theories proposing that new species are very likely to appear as by-products of founder events"
3-
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2001 Jun 5;98(12):6714-9. A locus for female discrimination behavior causing sexual isolation in Drosophila. Doi et al.
“The genetic basis of sexual isolation that contributes to speciation is one of the unsolved questions in evolutionary biology.”
4-
Bioessays. 2000 Dec;22(12):1134-41. Dualism and conflicts in understanding speciation. Schilthuizen M.
"Speciation is a central but elusive issue in evolutionary biology"
"Over the past sixty years, the subject has been studied within a framework conceived by Ernst Mayr and Theodosius Dobzhansky... The more prominent debates in speciation (i.e., the species definition, sympatry/allopatry, and the role of reinforcement) all derive from an inherent conflict between the "isolation" theory and Darwin's "selection" view on species and speciation (in which disruptive selection is crucial). New data, mainly from field ecology, molecular population genetics, laboratory studies with Drosophila and computer analysis, all suggest that the isolation theory may no longer be the most desirable vantage point from which to explore speciation.”
5-
Mol Biol Evol. 2000 Apr;17(4):601-15. Evolution of nucleotide substitutions and gene regulation in the amylase multigenes in Drosophila kikkawai and its sibling species. Inomata N, Yamazaki T.
“…we do not know whether there was any evolutionary relationship between the two.”
6-
Heredity. 2000 Jan;84 ( Pt 1):97-102. Are the same genes responsible for intra- and interspecific variability for sex comb tooth number in Drosophila? Nuzhdin SV, Reiwitch SG.
“One of the most interesting unresolved puzzles is the relationship between intraspecific variability in morphological traits and their interspecific divergence” “…the vast majority of intraspecific variants could be deleterious mutations … In this case intraspecific variation would not ultimately generate interspecific trait differences.” “Whether or not these effects result from the same genes requires further examination.”
7-
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1997 Jul 22;94(15):7768-75. Genetics and the origin of bird species. Grant PR, Grant BR.
"Ideas about the genetics of speciation in general trace back to Dobzhansky who worked with Drosophila. These ideas are an insufficient guide for reconstructing speciation in birds…” “The genetic basis of the origin of postmating isolating factors affecting the early development of embryos (viability) and reproductive physiology (sterility) is almost completely unknown"
8-
Evolution Int J Org Evolution. 2002 Mar;56(3):527-45. Divergence of mitochondrial dna is not corroborated by nuclear dna, morphology, or behavior in Drosophila simulans. Ballard et al.
"Evidence presented in this study suggests that mtDNA is not a good indicator of organismal subdivision in D. simulans. Furthermore, there is no evidence to suggest that Wolbachia causes any reduction in nuclear gene flow in this species"
9-
Betancourt AJ, Presgraves DC. Linkage limits the power of natural selection in Drosophila. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2002 Oct 15;99(21):13616-20.
"Together these findings suggest that linkage limits the rate and degree of adaptation even in recombining genomes."
10-
Nature. 2003 Jun 12;423(6941):715-9. Adaptive evolution drives divergence of a hybrid inviability gene between two species of Drosophila. Presgraves DC, Balagopalan L, Abmayr SM, Orr HA. [Comment in: Nature. 2003 Jun 12;423(6941):699-700.]
“Almost nothing is known about the genes involved in such hybrid incompatibilities or the evolutionary forces that drive their divergence.”
11-
Heredity. 2003 Jul;91(1):28-35. Drosophila melanogaster and D. simulans rescue strains produce fit offspring, despite divergent centromere-specific histone alleles. Sainz A, Wilder JA, Wolf M, Hollocher H.
“A recent theory proposes that the independent evolution of centromere-binding proteins in isolated populations may be a universal cause of speciation among eukaryotes" "we demonstrate that divergent cid alleles are not sufficient to cause inviability or female sterility in hybrid crosses." "cid... is not a speciation gene.""
12-
Genetics. 2002 Aug;161(4):1517-26. Hybrid sterility, Haldane's rule and speciation in Heliconius cydno and H. melpomene. Naisbit RE, Jiggins CD, Linares M, Salazar C, Mallet J.
"Most genetic studies of Haldane's rule, in which hybrid sterility or inviability affects the heterogametic sex preferentially, have focused on Drosophila. It therefore remains unclear..."
13-
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003 Apr 29;100(9):5302-7. A rapidly evolving MYB-related protein causes species isolation in Drosophila. Barbash DA, Siino DF, Tarone AM, Roote J.
"Matings among different species of animals or plants often result in sterile or lethal hybrids"
-----------
The idea of Haldane to include 'sterility' in the equation of possibilities for 'speciation' was as brilliant as the theory of 'spontaneous generation'.
The book of Darwin should have been related to "subspecies", it is, to "varieties" within 'true species'. He or the rest of the evolutionists 'in all their doses and shapes' are unable to explain anything about the origin of nothing, but at least it will be more close to the facts and today we will be able to truly originate a wonderful array of varieties and subspecies in the most variable environments (like those new subspecies of cranes that I have proposed). That has been done with many varieties of dogs developed by man.
A list of possibilities of animals pertaining to the same true species but mistakenly classified as if pertaining to different species will be of great use for that purpose, and also to prevent 'the mischievous exploitation of ignorance' that has been going on with the evolutionists, darwinists, and with every other 'speciation'-ist.
IP: Logged
|
|
nobody
Member
Member # 145
|
posted 14. May 2004 11:08
Good morning Fernando,
I appreciate your mention of dogs. I even met one evolutionist of the internet, on another board, who believes that dogs have already been "evolved" into different species due to the dramatic size difference between a Chihuahua and a St. Bernard (to mention just two).
IP: Logged
|
|
Fernando Castro-Chavez
Member
Member # 1201
|
posted 14. May 2004 15:44
Nobody and Nosivad:
I have read in J.A. Davison that dogs and wolves can interbreed and have a fertile offspring, can you validate that information with a reference please?
I must say that Davison writings have a lot of interesting biological facts that have been dismissed by mainstream evolution, like the non-homology of the gametes between different families, that must be called also a specific feature that destroys the continuum of the 'evolutionary thinking'. Or that sexual reproduction exists to 'preserve' true species instead of to 'evolve' them in something different, congratulations for that specific details J.A.!
But I must say that instead of thinking in the possible production of "hopeful monsters" by random rearrangements of chromosomes (I am putting together some recent references of such rearrangements and all of them are deleterious and negative for the organisms carrying them, an oncologist can help to clarify that), as I understand that Davison proposes in several of his papers, I think that we can start producing an amazing variability by carefully and wisely interbreeding what we still have now in nature, Mendel's laws are the only ones practically, immediately and predicable ('predictable') useful here.
I have read that as Bateson, Davison is disillusioned of Mendel's Laws, but are the only ones really practical and really useful and really proven, contrary to all that 'dark net of evolutionary speculations'.
Mendel's Laws did not worked with evolution because they are facts, evolution is speculations. Bateson went to Mendel's laws with the preconceived idea to try to prove evolution with them, he and all the evolutionary preconceptions failed, why? Because were only imaginary...
I deeply appreciate the next Davison's statement:
"Shortly after the publication of the Origin, Gregor Mendel published his papers documenting the laws that now bear his name. Carl Naegeli, at that time the czar of European botany, in a letter to Mendel, described Mendel’s findings as “You should regard the numerical expressions as being only empirical, because they can not be proved rational.” (Stern and Sherwood, 1966) Of course that which is empirical doesn’t have to be rational! Wisely, Mendel had elected to publish his work in the Proceedings of the Natural History Society of Brunn, a journal for which he was an editor. It is questionable if his work would have survived a review had Mendel sent it to one of the major botanical journals of the day."
However I don't see true to facts the next one:
"Mendelism is the genetics associated with sexual reproduction, the very means that apparently is incapable of supporting macroevolutionary change. So it would seem that the influence of these two authorities has been largely inhibitory to the progress of our understanding of phylogeny."
Of course that Mendel's Laws are NOT going to support any of the speculative 'macroevolutionary change'. To put together Mendel's Laws with every Evolutionist speculations (being those Darwinian or Nagelian, who also proposed the 'jumps', how his 'jumps' differ other than in more details today with any of the modern 'jumping' theories?) is like to try to blend oil with water, the product, if any, only can be 'a sterile hybrid'. But rather, I think that any evolutionary theory is sterile within itself. And then to blame also Mendel's Laws as to preventing the progress?... as evolution and darwinism have done...
It is like Newton and a possible experimental Einsteinian biologist, did any of them 'prevented any kind of progress' or actually both of them may and can, as Newton and Einstein indeed 'helped to further our knowledge'
Why, because is to try to discredit Mendel's Laws and to substitute them by a 'speculative' evolutionary scenario is NOT just and fair?
By other side, evolutionists always have tried to discredit Mendel's Laws, like that statician Fisher that tried to 'prove' that Mendel's work was flawed and 'cheated', what does he 'won' with that?
He and his evolutionary staticians that I don't even remember will go back to 'the average', while Mendel's work will still prove to be useful to preserve different subspecies (many of them called by mainstream biology as different 'species') before they go to extinction... To discredit the 'second generation fertility test' and its potential in the development of innumerable new varieties is not fair. NO controlled experiments in nature have been done on that. Is time consuming and maybe 'nobody' wants to perform them. It took Mendel more than 8 years to complete his classic paper... That may depend on the reproductive cycles of each group of sub-species.
Let's see:
//////////////
Meanwhile these have been some of my findings:
1-
The two different colored snow geese were once thought to be two separate species. However, since the blue and white birds nest together and interbreed, taxonomists have determined that the blue goose is simply a color phase of the snow goose.
http://www.inetshops.com/newipnews/naturewalkl.htm
2-
Many duck species will interbreed, so these species often need to be aviary bred.
http://www.goodzoos.com/Animals/birds.htm
3a and 3b-
This species occurs in two forms in Europe, the all-dark Carrion Crow of western Europe and the grey-bodied 'Hooded Crow' of Scandinavia and Eastern Europe. Although these birds look completely different, they often interbreed where the range overlaps, producing hybrids which look intermediate between the two.
The Carrion Crow is a common resident except in northern Scotland where it is replaced by the Hooded Crow. The two races interbreed and intermediate individuals are common in the zone of overlap.
http://www.birdguides.com/html/vidlib/species/Corvus_corone.htm
4-
12 Sep 1999 AFRICA: Gorillas in a mystery age.
By Graham Phillips
Two groups of mountain gorillas. One lot lives in Virunga, in the Democratic Republic of Congo, the other in Bwindi, Uganda. The two populations are separated by just 40km, yet that distance has been sufficient to prevent them mixing and interbreeding. The result of this separation is the Bwindi and Virunga apes look different and even have different behaviours... both would be in even more precarious situations, with only 300 in each sub-species. What's a caring conservationist to do here? The two groups don't naturally breed with each other, but they would if put in the same jungle... . It turns out the two sub-species of mountain gorilla have been around for only 500 years or so. It was human farmers carving up the forest that separated a single population of mountain gorillas into two distinct groups... there are differences between the two groups of apes: the Virunga are larger and have shaggier coats; the Virunga sleep on the ground while the Bwindi sometimes sleep in trees; the Bwindi eat more fruit... By the old definition of sub-species (there's no interbreeding, and there are visual and behavioural differences) the Virunga and Bwindi are separate... [but] interbreed them [to preserve them]
http://www.yowiehunters.com/crypto/reports/other_crypto_1.htm
5-
Grus rubicundus, related to the other crane species, particularly the Australian sarus crane, with which they can interbreed.
http://www.wellingtonzoo.com/animals/animals/birds_and_fish/brolga.html
6-
The BALTIMORE ORIOLE is an example of a taxonomist's nightmare. Its found throughout eastern North America, ranging as far west as the eastern edge of the Rocky Mountains. Its cousin, the BULLOCK'S ORIOLE is found out west. The two ranges overlap in Cottonwood creek bottoms in western Kansas and Nebraska, where they interbreed... Because BALTIMORE and BULLOCK'S ORIOLES interbreed, they were lumped together into the NORTHERN ORIOLE. There was no more BALTIMORE ORIOLE, much to the dismay of the baseball team.
http://listserv.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0103e&L=birdeast&F=&S=&P=1102
7-
“Alder Flycatcher.” Although they were nearly indistinguishable even in the hand, they occupied different habitats and sang different songs. Careful study demonstrated that they rarely, if ever, interbred. Yet portions of their ranges overlapped – i.e. they were “sympatric.”. Using absence of hybridization in areas of sympatry as its main criterion, AOU split them into “Alder Flycatcher” (Empidonax alnorum) and “Willow Flycatcher” (Empidonax traillii)... If the test of a species is whether or not two populations hybridize where their ranges overlap, how do you decide when their ranges do not overlap any where? (The scientific term for not overlapping is, “allopatric”).
Recently, however, some of the most prominent splits have been of geographically-separated populations. Examples are Florida Scrub-Jay, Western Scrub-Jay and Island Scrub-Jay, which formerly were a single species called, “Scrub Jay.” Presumably DNA testing helped to demonstrate that those newly-named species are genetically different enough so that they probably would not hybridize if given the opportunity.
http://www.mobirds.org/Ezine/Ornithology101/Ornithology101.htm
[Where is in the last example an evidence of the second generation fertility test? Here is like going backwards]
8-
a Black-bellied Whistling Duck (Dendrocygna autumnalis - BBWD) has been seen at their site. This South American bird, as far as I can recall, was sighted by a team at Nylsvlei during BBD. The individual BBWD at TWT does not have a ring, sometimes carried by ascaped birds. This bird is capable of interbreeding with Whitefaced and Fulvous Ducks...
The Ruddy Duck (Oxyura jamaicinsis) originating from both America's, has, as far as I can remember, also established sizable feral
breeding populations in Britain and Spain, and have started to interbreed with local species (I can't recall which - tell me please), creating a conservation problems.
http://birdnet.zarf.com/archive/9801/980127.htm
9-
The once dominant and undoubtedly valuable Biological Species Concept places emphasis on the ability of individuals to interbreed: forms that can interbreed and produce fertile offspring are regarded as members of the same species... It is thus often associated with 'lumping', which is the downgrading of similar species into subspecies of a single species. A local example of a situation where application of the Biological Species Concept might be misleading is that of the recently-discovered narrow hybrid zone between Karoo Lark and Barlow's Lark. These two distinctly different species are not even each other's closest relatives, and their inappropriate 'lumping' into one species would obscure the myriad and fascinating differences shown between these forms.
http://peter.maxitec.co.za/birdingafrica/Resources__Taxonomy.html
/////////////
By those references you can see that the two last ones are opposed to interbreed subspecies because the diversity of the parental line will 'disappear'.
I think that under a strictly rational and controlled interbreeding between subspecies, instead of the 'disappearance' of the parental lines we will have 'more diversity'. So it is just question of doing it wisely, don't you think?
That is a straight Mendelian application to preserve the genetic pool of very endangered species before they become actually extinct and then, nothing else could be done.
And again, this destroys any 'speciational' fallacy, as we have been dealing with varieties or subspecies all the time, only...
[ 14. May 2004, 16:06: Message edited by: Fernando Castro-Chavez ]
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic