|
Author
|
Topic: Fernando Castro-Chavez: Intelligent Design to Generate Biodiversity
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 08. January 2006 10:40
Chris
I know of no experiments with Chihuaua, Great Dane compatibility. Winge in his book "Inheritance in Dogs," described the result of a spontaneous cross between a male St. Bernard and a female Dachshund which resulted in a fertile bitch who delivered a litter herself, thereby satisfying the criterion that there was not even a behavioral isolation. I am prepared to bet some real money that a successful and fertile product would result from a cross between a St. Bernard or Great Dane and any or all of the tiny dog breeds. Furthermore I predict with confidence that delivery would not require assistnce in either direction. What is the most probable result is that, as was the case in the instance reported by Winge, only a single pup would result when the bitch was the smaller of the two. I would expect that many pups might result from the cross in which the female was the larger of the two. This is an example of what is called in embryology - "regulation." It has already been demonstrated that in crosses between large and small horse breeds, the only effect is on the size of the foal at delivery. The "hybrid," if it can be called that and of course it cannot, is perfectly normal in either direction.
We tend to underestimate the plasticity of developmental processes. I hope others will join with me by contacting their veterinarians to suggest that such crosses be made. I am confident the Darwinians will not follow my suggestion. They stopped testing their hypothesis decades ago for reasons which have become obvious to me and I hope to others as well.
William Provine actually suggested to me in private correspondence that dogs represent a model for Darwinian evolution. I was flabbergasted that one of the primary advocates of neo-Darwinism could ever claim such a thing especially since it hasn't even been examined experimentally. Of course neither were Darwin's finches which prove to all one species according to the field observations of the Grants. I mention both of these in my Manifesto by the way.
There is an interesting comment made during the Nazi regime by Josef Goebbels, Hitler's Propagandist Minister. As I recall it Goebbels put it this way:
"It has not yet been shown that non-Aryans cannot hybridize with apes."
Apparently the Nazis had actually done some experiments that led to the conclusion that Aryans and apes are separate species. Isn't that precious? Incidentally, I would not be in the least surprised that such an experiemnt might be successful but I am absolutely certain that the product would be sterile. There are far too many chromosomal rearrangements to permit a successful meiosis in the hybrid.
It is hard to believe isn't it?
I hope this helps.
IP: Logged
|
|
Fernando Castro-Chavez
Member
Member # 1201
|
posted 10. January 2006 11:57
Let's keep in mind the big picture of the jungle!
The Fraud of Evolution: Variation sold as Speciation
Dr. Beling wrote: quote:
I suppose the question is now whether or not the hybrids are fertile or not?
Absolutely! Under an ID framework, we seek to predict and to demonstrate a resulting fertile offspring on the thousands of examples of misclassified and compatible variation.
Your mammoth reference is certainly interesting!
This is one more recent entry:
Woolly Mammoth Resurrection, "Jurassic Park" Planned, by Stefan Lovgren (April 8, 2005)
And John, as I posted at Teleological.Org:
quote:
You don’t need to abandon a forum just because a venomous critter ‘foxes’ over you! Many of us don’t even bother reading the rants of such a fox; however, we may learn a big deal by reading your own scholarly postings! However, the decision is yours.
[ 10. January 2006, 11:58: Message edited by: Fernando Castro-Chavez ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Atom
Member
Member # 1840
|
posted 10. January 2006 13:19
Hey Fernando,
I really enjoy the research you do and have found it quite informative. Have you considered documenting your findings in a book? (Perhaps collaborating with Mike Gene on "ID Theory in Practice", combining work on ID-based prediction and use of the metatheory.) Just a suggestion. Keep up the good work!
Atom
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 10. January 2006 19:34
Alan Fox has been banned at Teleological Blog for exactly the same reason he was banned here. He has proven to be nothing but a troublemaker who contributes nothing to rational discussion. Like others from Panda's Thumb his purpose is only to disrupt any challenge to the neoDarwinain myth.
IP: Logged
|
|
Fernando Castro-Chavez
Member
Member # 1201
|
posted 10. January 2006 23:58
Atom,
Thanks for your encouraging Words!
As you know, I believe that in due time the proper doors will open.
Regarding to your work, congratulations for being awarded the Solo Artist of 2005!
[ 11. January 2006, 00:04: Message edited by: Fernando Castro-Chavez ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Atom
Member
Member # 1840
|
posted 11. January 2006 11:01
Lol, thanks Fernando. (I'm suprised you tracked that down.) I do what I can.
I am down for the ID community, and drop some knowledge in my songs.
"We strike Achilles at his heel/
We strike the modern man like Gregor Mendel, meddling with his alleles/
Wounds of Darwinian theory will never heal/
Once the population finds Intelligent Design/
Enzymes hold the signs of a divine Mind/
Darwinian speculation is useless/
To explain emergence/
Of cellular machines below the surface/
Seeing Specified Complexity points to a purpose/
Of a system of intergrated parts/
Excluding chance as part/
Of how it could ever start..." - Atom, Achilles
Fernando, I agree, hopefully doors will open for what you do. But you must be ready for when they do open! Get writing! ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Atom
[ 11. January 2006, 12:42: Message edited by: Atom ]
IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Fernando Castro-Chavez
Member
Member # 1201
|
posted 16. January 2006 16:22
Dear Atom,
If you like to hear nocturnal songs amongst different VARIETIES of crickets, you may enjoy my next study related to:
The Cricket Variation
Again, thanks for your thoughtful songs that I am still trying to understand (smile). I have found a different version of your prime song Achilles, as the link that you presented is for the song's remix, isn't it?
Ah, and send my regards to your group (and for their solo's careers) Secta7, I hope to also have the blessed opportunity to talk with them at some time!
[ 16. January 2006, 16:24: Message edited by: Fernando Castro-Chavez ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Atom
Member
Member # 1840
|
posted 16. January 2006 17:11
Thanks Fernando. I'm glad you've found more of my music.
I will read your cricket variation study. I look forward to it.
Thank you for your kind words.
Atom
IP: Logged
|
|
Fernando Castro-Chavez
Member
Member # 1201
|
posted 26. January 2006 13:46
Atom,
At my Research on Intelligent Design place you wrote, related to those singing Hawaiian crickets:
quote:
It is really troubling how the evolutionary establishment oversells its 'evidence' time and time again. This clear (documented, I might add) example of variation within species is glossed over and presented as evidence for evolution. But then when they actually *test* their hypothesis, it is shown to be false. A house of cards which quickly collapses when you open the door.
Additional observations were added recently:
My last comments on the Laupala cricket variation
As well as your song:
Achilles by Atom
Keep Up The Good Work and thanks again for your Song and for your Posting!
IP: Logged
|
|
Atom
Member
Member # 1840
|
posted 26. January 2006 14:09
Good work to you on your research.
Thank your for the publicity. One small correction: "Love Is" is not by me, but by Redeemed Thought, who are friends of mine. They are excellent MCs, and worth a listen, but I can't claim credit for their skill. : )
Thanks,
Atom
IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Melvin H. Fox
Member
Member # 1684
|
posted 06. February 2006 11:00
John
I am involved in a debate here at school. An anthropologist has reported Darwin’s finches as an example of speciation, declaring that the different variations can’t mate.
You wrote:
quote:
Why didn't they long ago test Darwin's celebrated finches? Finches are among the most easily birds to domesticate, Fortunately we now know that all of Darwin's finches are physiologically compatible and produce genetically fit offspring.
Could you reference the documentation of the fit offspring?
-Mel
IP: Logged
|
|
Fernando Castro-Chavez
Member
Member # 1201
|
posted 07. February 2006 11:04
Mel, you wrote:
quote:
Could you reference the documentation of the fit offspring?
One reference from 1997 is the next:
quote:
"all six species of Darwin's ground finches (genus Geospiza) hybridize (rarely) with at least one other congeneric species. In addition some intergeneric crosses are known among the tree finches and warbler finch, and breeding hybrids have been produced”
"On Daphne Major Geospiza fortis (medium ground finch) hybridizes with G. scandens (cactus finch), another resident species, and G. fuliginosa (small ground finch), an uncommon immigrant. Contrary to expectation from the [evolutionist] reinforcement hypothesis, hybrids formed by Geospiza fortis breeding with G. scandens and G. fuliginosa are both viable and fertile to a degree similar to that of the contemporary offspring of conspecific matings; so are the first two generations of backcrosses."
"Backcrossing negates the hypothesis of speciation occurring entirely in allopatry."
From:
Grant PR, Grant BR.
Genetics and the origin of bird species.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1997 Jul 22;94(15):7768-75. http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/94/15/7768
Then, from a comment appeared in 2002 in Science:
"The two species on Daphne Major can and sometimes do interbreed, and their hybrids--far from being mulelike reproductive dead ends--are a source of fresh genetic variability."
"Interbreeding may be one of the secrets... hybrids may be an unrecognized factor..."
"...A few desperate males [cactus finches] mated with female ground finches, which then produced perfectly healthy and fertile hybrids."
Darwin's Avian Muses Continue To Evolve
Carl Zimmer. Science 26 April 2002; 296: 633-635.
http://www.carlzimmer.com/articles/2002/articles_2002_Finch.html
My personal comment: Those are interfertile varieties and not members of different 'species', as Darwin wished us to keep thinking...
My additional comments on the subject:
The Finch Variation
http://fdocc.blogspot.com/2005/12/finch-variation.html
Intelligent Design’s Prediction: Compatible Mates Interbreed Producing Fertile Offspring
http://teleological.org/WPblog/?p=165
IP: Logged
|
|
Melvin H. Fox
Member
Member # 1684
|
posted 07. February 2006 13:18
Fernando,
Thank you very much for these references. I was able to find two of them on my own but the rest will be of great value. Thanks again for the time you took to post these.
-Mel
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic