|
Author
|
Topic: Fernando Castro-Chavez: Intelligent Design to Generate Biodiversity
|
David L. Hagen
Member
Member # 323
|
posted 07. February 2006 14:18
Cultural Selection
Darwin's Finches may also be strongly differentiated by CULTURAL differences rather than genetic changes. See:
quote:
Abstract
Songs of Darwin's finches were studied on the Galapagos Island of Daphne Major from 1976 to 1995. A single, structurally simple, and unvarying song is sung throughout life by each male of the two common species, Geospiza fortis (medium ground finch) and G. scandens (cactus finch). Songs of the two species differ strongly in quantitative features, and individual variation among males is much broader in G. fortis than in G. scandens. Although there are exceptions, songs of sons strongly resemble the songs of their fathers. They also resemble the songs of their paternal grandfathers, but not their maternal grandfathers, indicating that they are culturally inherited and not genetically inherited. Female G. fortis display a tendency to avoid mating with males that sing the same type of song as their father. They also avoid mating with males that sing heterospecific song, with very rare exceptions. Thus song, an evolving, culturally inherited trait, is an important factor in species recognition and mate choice. It constrains the mating of females to conspecifics, even when there is no genetic penalty to interbreeding, and thus may play a crucial role in species formation by promoting genetic isolation on secondary contact. The barrier is leaky in that occasional errors in song transmission result in misimprinting, which leads to a low incidence of hybridization and introgression. Introgression slows the rate of postzygotic isolation, but can produce individuals in novel genetic and morphological space that can provide the starting point of a new evolutionary trajectory.
Cultural Inheritance of Song and Its Role in the Evolution of Darwin's Finches B. Rosemary Grant, Peter R. Grant Evolution, Vol. 50, No. 6 (Dec., 1996) , pp. 2471-2487
Cultural selection is obvious in human behavior, and probably dominates selectivity compared to genetic differences. Compare cultural selection based on language, religion (e.g., Brahmin vs Dalit, Kohen vs nonKohen), wealth, ethnicity ("race"), and size (relatively similar sized husband/wife.) The primary genetic selection is against those with inherited diseases such as Downs syndrome.
IP: Logged
|
|
Melvin H. Fox
Member
Member # 1684
|
posted 08. February 2006 07:46
David,
Thank you also for your input. I don’t mean to take over the direction of this thread but I will value any and all input in the present debate at my school. You see biology is not my area of expertise and I challenged him to give me one example where it has been proved that speciation has occurred via natural selection.
Thanks again to all.
-Mel
IP: Logged
|
|
Fernando Castro-Chavez
Member
Member # 1201
|
posted 09. February 2006 12:43
Mel,
Related to Finches today, at Teleological I responded to Doctor illogical (whoever that may be, smile) with the next and new reference: quote:
One finch student, before presenting an updated list of the currently known finches (the Dr. Robert Rothman), declares [my brackets]:
“finch expert David Steadman feels that splitting the finches into six genera [uselessly over-] emphasizes their differences; and [rather] suggests [the same Dr. David Steadman], that all of the finches should be united as 14 species in the single genus Geospiza to emphasize their similarities!!”
So, we have two students of finches (Dr. David Steadman and Dr. Robert Rothman) agreeing in beeing extremely cautious with the innumerable misclassifyings going on in biology today!
There I posted "I must add that not only “to emphasize their similarities” all of them finches in the real-nature are under the same Kind, Min or "species", no matter how much the classifyings of men mess them up for philosophical, ideological, evolutionary, Darwinian (or whatever other wrong idea may pop-up to any illogical Darwinian mind reading this response, smile) in their attempt to justify the unjustifiable, as it is such and deliberate misunderstanding within biology!"
"So, I must go one step further, rendering the words of Dr. Steadman as follows: "all of the finches should be united as 14 VARIETIES in the same and single Min, Kind, species" (or whatever you may want to call such self consistent and self-replicable set of molecular, modular and self-perpetuating mates!)"
Now, related to the song of the finches that David linked: quote:
"The Grants observed cases when a G. scandens father died and his sons subsequently overheard a male G. fortis singing [topic: the Galapagos' finches can interbreed producing fertile offspring]. They learned his song and ended up attracting and mating with G. fortis females." [Science 273(5281), Sep., 1996]
And the same happened with their daughters! They also learned the "new song".
"So, Varieties provide a YES to microevolution and a YES to subspeciation or variation, providing a sounding NO to the speculations of "macroevolution" and "speciation".
Do you think that by following that confusing way of thinking started by Darwin and by a neoDarwin Grant will ever be possible to practically discern the difference between varieties and species under the current materialistic biological paradigm? Even with the clear facts in front of every biologist of today?
So, not only the lack of fossil intermediates, but also the living facts of genetics and its sub-fields oppose any Theory of Evolution on the basis of a non-existent 'Speciation'.
So, the different songs in finches, as well as the different song in crickets or the fruit preferences in flies are only examples of VARIATION within compatible organisms, no matter how the evolutionary establishment tries to dress them up!"
So, you can find some other examples under Mendelian Bioengineering and the Limits to Biochange.
Respectfully,
Fernando Castro-Chavez.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Hyfigh
Member
Member # 1897
|
posted 28. February 2006 18:43
I've been debating on another forum with an evolutionist. Every question I pose this person directs me to www.talkorigins.org. Most everything on that site I haven't had much of a problem answering/correcting/updating except for this:
quote:
5.1.1.1 Evening Primrose (Oenothera gigas)
While studying the genetics of the evening primrose, Oenothera lamarckiana, de Vries (1905) found an unusual variant among his plants. O. lamarckiana has a chromosome number of 2N = 14. The variant had a chromosome number of 2N = 28. He found that he was unable to breed this variant with O. lamarckiana. He named this new species O. gigas.
I can't seem to come up with a better answer than, "it's still a primrose". Can you guys help me out on this one? Explain to me why this plant can breed with itself but not with O. lamarckiana. Can O. gigas still breed with other primrose (hope thats all I'm missing out of this snip of (mis)information)?
IP: Logged
|
|
Fernando Castro-Chavez
Member
Member # 1201
|
posted 01. March 2006 09:48
MH,
Can you provide the original reference for your quote? Because if I put the words "Oenothera gigas" in PubMed, I obtain No Articles at all.
So, I went to its direct references through JSTOR (courtesy of ISCID. ISCID, thanks very much for JSTOR!) the next are all the direct relevant references:
Six articles in two Journals by Gates and the initial article by Hugo DeVries (main proponents of Random Mutations [RM] as the 'source' for 'evolution'), as well as the main promoters of such "Oenothera gigas", plus one paper by Gates' student:
1-
The Origin of Species by Mutation. Hugo de Vries. Science > New Series, Vol. 15, No. 384 (May, 1902), pp. 721-729.
2-
The Chromosomes of Śnothera. R. R. Gates. Science > New Series, Vol. 27, No. 683 (Jan., 1908), pp. 193-195.
3-
Apogamy in Śnothera. R. R. Gates. Science > New Series, Vol. 30, No. 776 (Nov., 1909), pp. 691-694.
4-
On the Apparent Absence of Apogamy in Śnothera. R. R. Gates. Science > New Series, Vol. 39, No. 992 (Jan., 1914), pp. 37-38.
5-
Chromosome Linkage in Certain Oenothera Hybrids. R. Ruggles Gates; F. M. L. Sheffield. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Containing Papers of a Biological Character > Vol. 217 (1929), pp. 367-394.
6-
The Cytology of Trisomic Mutations in a Wild Species of Oenothera. R. Ruggles Gates; H. K. Nandi. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences > Vol. 225, No. 524 (Sep., 1935), pp. 227-254
7-
Genetical and Taxonomic Investigations in the Genus Oenothera. R. Ruggles Gates. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences > Vol. 226, No. 536 (Oct., 1936), pp. 239-355.
8-
Chromosome Linkage in Oenothera, with Special Reference to Some F1 Hybrids. F. M. L. Sheffield. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Containing Papers of a Biological Character > Vol. 105, No. 736 (Aug., 1929), pp. 207-230.
Criticisms to it by three different researchers:
The first two by Anne M. Lutz:
1-
A Preliminary Note on the Chromosomes of Śnothera Lamarckiana and One of its Mutants, O. Gigas. Anne M. Lutz. Science > New Series, Vol. 26, No. 657 (Aug., 1907), pp. 151-152.
2-
Notes on the First Generation Hybrid of Śnothera Lata ♀ X O. Gigas ♂ Anne M. Lutz. Science > New Series, Vol. 29, No. 737 (Feb., 1909), pp. 263-267.
3-
Criticism by Bradley Moore Davis:
A Criticism of the Evidence for the Mutation Theory of De Vries from the Behavior of Species of Oenothera in Crosses and in Selfed Lines. Bradley Moore Davis. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America > Vol. 3, No. 12 (Dec., 1917), pp. 704-710.
4- By George H. Shull:
An Unexpected Association of Factors Belonging to Three Linkage Groups in Oenothera and Its Explanation. George H. Shull. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America > Vol. 15, No. 3 (Mar., 1929), pp. 268-274.
Apart of those 12 direct references, there are 9 other indirect References and 5 brief notes.
I you still interested in that topic, please, read carefully those articles and then post its relevant comments here. Thanks!
Fernando Castro-Chavez.
IP: Logged
|
|
Fernando Castro-Chavez
Member
Member # 1201
|
posted 01. May 2006 12:41
MH,
Of course, if you have no access to some of those articles, I can send you the ones you need.
You can see a recent example of the misuse of the Galapagos' Finches as examples of "Darwinism", finches that now we know that are genetically compatible:
The Deception of Aaron J. W. Hsueh: Exaggerating Darwin in Molecular Biology
[ 01. May 2006, 12:43: Message edited by: Fernando Castro-Chavez ]
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic