|
Author
|
Topic: Fernando Castro-Chavez: Intelligent Design to Generate Biodiversity
|
Moderator
Administrator
Member # 1
|
posted 15. January 2005 13:40
Intelligent Design to Generate Biodiversity
by Fernando Castro-Chavez
Abstract: The classic work of Mendel on the precise inheritance of characters demonstrated an Intelligent Design behind the Laws of Heredity. Those Laws can be linked now to our modern knowledge of molecular biology to provide a clearer account of the molecular basis and limits to biological change as well as to generate biodiversity.
To read the entire paper, click here.
[ 15. January 2005, 13:44: Message edited by: Moderator ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Fernando Castro-Chavez
Member
Member # 1201
|
posted 19. April 2005 13:16
To add to this case, next we have the example of a fish:
Genetics, and molecular subfields, is erroneously 'identitied' with evolution. As Jim Coors clearly does it in the third column of his political diatribe: http://www.crops.org/pdf/cssa_president_message.pdf
Evolution is selling 'Varieties' at the extremely high cost of their souls, as if those were the members of different 'Species' (smile).
Example:
Gasterosteus (Threespine stickleback)
First, fragments of the original publication of Schluter and then the Grant's comment, in the same number, followed by several comments:
Schluter D. Experimental Evidence That Competition Promotes Divergence in Adaptive Radiation. 1994. Science 266:798-801. [From the Full Text: "I used interspecific hybridization to increase the frequency of these individuals, and, therefore, the sensitivity of the test. Hybridization is a valid manipulation because all previous crosses between closely related freshwater sticklebacks have not revealed any intrinsic reduction in offspring viability (refs: McPhail JD, Can. J. Zool. 62:1402 (1985); ibid, 70:361 (1992); Hatfield T & Schluter D, unpublished). F1 hybrids were raised from artificial crosses between the Cranby species and the Paxton benthic species ( C x B ), and between the Cranby and the Paxton limnetic species ( C x L )"]
Grant PR. Ecological Character Displacement. 1994. Science 266:746-747. [From the Text (on commenting the previous work): "...to give the experiment a good chance of working, one extra manipulation had to be made; the frequency of the extreme forms of the two species was artificially increased, by hybridization."]
McKinnon JS & Rundle HD. Speciation in nature: the threespine stickleback model systems. 2002. Trends Ecol. Evol. 17(10):480-488: “Complete viability and fertility of hybrids is the norm...given the ease with which various hybrid crosses can be raised in the laboratory … Indeed, several studies have demonstrated that speciation can occur in the absence of genetic incompatibilities (Ref. Schluter, D. (2001) Ecology and the origin of species. Trends Ecol. Evol. 16, 372–380)”] http://facstaff.uww.edu/mckinnoj/McKinnonRundle2002.pdf (color pictures included)
My Comment: Here, the extreme of incongruity is reached by Schluter et al, as those varieties of sticklebacks are deliberately deemed as if pertaining to different 'Species', in an attempt to justify a biased reasoning as 'support' for a non-existent 'Speciation'.
The quoted oxymoron was based on Schluter's work: “several studies have demonstrated that speciation can occur in the absence of genetic incompatibilities”. Which means that the topic here is variation, the description of varieties or sub-species and their interbreeding producing fertile offspring.
Then, some comments:
The Species Problem. Ann Gibbons. Science 273(5281):1501 (Sep., 1996)
" "The definition of species is a constant thorn in the side of progress in speciation research," says University of British Columbia ecologist Dolph Schluter, who studies speciation in what may or may not be two separate species of stickleback fish."
"By the leading textbook definition, the sticklebacks probably don't count as two species. The two groups of fish interbreed occasionally and produce viable offspring, which disqualifies them from species status under a strict interpretation of the "biological species" concept…"
"[Ernst Mayr's concept of] reproductive isolation is a kind of mystical definition, in that you know it when it’s absolutely complete, but actually there are plenty of examples of species that do hybridize in the wild," says evolutionary biologist James Mallet at University College in London." [emphasis mine].
"Coyotes interbreed with wolves and dogs, blue whales interbreed with fin whales, and many species of Protozoa, lower Metazoa, and plants do as well. "Are we going to say [that] those [interbreeding animals] aren't [of the same] species?" asks Mallet. [emphasis and words in brackets, are mine].
"… [evolutionary] scientists would still like to winnow the definitional diversity, so that when researchers such as Schluter publish on stickleback speciation, others won't voice doubts that he was looking at separate species in the first place. "Perhaps the best we can do is to agree to disagree in a rational manner" and agree on a limited set of concepts, says entomologist Stewart Berlocher of the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaing" [emphasis and words in brackets, mine].
From the same page, out of the square: "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." And the same happened with their daughters! They also learned the "new song".
Figure legend: "One species or two? These sticklebacks may be separate species - or not, depending on the species definition".
So, not only the lack of fossil intermediates, but also the living facts of genetics and its sub-fields oppose any ToE on the basis of a non-existent 'Speciation'.
But people have the freedom to cling to such 'mirage', instead of clinging to the evidence.
[Based on my recent post at ARN in response to Neil A. Wells, Geologist at Kent State Univ.]
IP: Logged
|
|
Stuart Harris
Member
Member # 152
|
posted 21. April 2005 03:01
Fernando, I posted the following three years ago on ARN and it very much relates to your interesting paper:
A short article from University of Massachusetts, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/10/001020092437.htm reports on a fascinating study of a group of salmon introduced into Lake Washington in Seattle during the 1930's and 1940's that have now become two reproductively isolated groups. One group now spawns in a river and the other along a lake beach. Though their origins date from the same ancestral population, the two groups now have very little interbreeding and exhibit different physical traits, such as body depth and female breeding size variations. This is seen as evidence by the authors of the study as an example of a classic process that leads to speciation by Darwinian evolution.
Here is the article’s headline and introduction:
New Species Arise More Quickly Than Previously Believed, UMass Researcher Finds
Details are published in the prestigious journal, Science.
---------------------------------------------
AMHERST, Mass. - The splitting of a species into two new species may occur in far fewer generations than scientists previously believed, according to a study led by University of Massachusetts postdoctoral researcher Andrew Hendry. Hendry, an evolutionary ecologist, conducted his study on two populations of sockeye salmon in the Pacific Northwest. The findings are published in the Oct. 20 issue of the journal, Science.
-----------------------------------------------
The primary author of the study, Andrew Hendry (postdoc U Mass) states, “There is a widely-held perception that when one population splits into two different environments, traits evolve quickly and, as a result, the two new populations become less likely to interbreed. That is, they become reproductively isolated. This process, called ecological speciation, may be one of the easiest and fastest ways that new species arise. Our results suggest that this perception may not only be correct, but in spades."
New species are arriving quickly? Even more quickly than “previously believed”? In spades? This article brings to mind one of the basic confusions that seem to surround any discussion of evolution, namely, what is the definition of “species”? The most common definition goes like this:
If two organisms are reproductively isolated then they are of a different species, or conversely, if they are not reproductively isolated then they are of the same species.
This definition, and the observations in Dr Hendry’s study are simply unsatisfactory when seeking to establish examples of “speciation” in order to support the 19th century Darwinian (natural selection acting on random mutation) concept of evolution. The relevant definition of “species” must address whether a set of organisms have the same genotype, not just whether they are reproductively isolated and exhibit variation. A Darwinian process whereby a group of organisms with the same genotype split off in some way and gave rise to new organisms with new genetically incompatible database structures (genotypes) has not been shown to my satisfaction.
Here are some common (and very classic) examples that explain what I mean:
1. Great Danes and Chihuahua dogs are reproductively isolated. My neighbor’s Chihuahua is about the size of the head of my friend’s Great Dane. They can’t mate, yet we consider both these dogs to be members of the same species, canis familiaris. Why? If we artificially inseminated a Great Dane female with a Chihuahua’s sperm we’d get fertile puppies because their genetic database structure, their genotype, is the same. Retrievers, German Shepherds and other dogs can, and sometimes do, mate with wolves. I have another neighbor with two wolf-dog hybrids that are perfectly healthy and fertile. However, wolves are considered a separate species, canis lupus. Why? The truth is that Great Danes, Chihuahuas, Retrievers, German Shepherds, and wolves are ALL members of the same species, if we define “species” in a way that is relevant to the speciation that must occur to validate Darwinian evolution. The relevant definition is that they all have the same genotype, irregardless of the amount of variation among them or their ability to reproduce based on size or behavior.
2. According to the story, when Darwin found the Galapagos finches, he finally settled on the idea that natural selection acting on mutation solves the puzzle of speciation. Finches in different areas of those islands have different beak sizes, coloration, behavior and other traits and do not interbreed. Do they have different genotypes and therefore are genetically incapable of being crossbred? Or, are they simply variations on the same genotype that have led them to be unable to mate because of acquired behaviors, eating patterns, beak shapes, and other simple variations that were selected for after they became isolated? If you extracted sperm from a small-beaked variety male on one island, and were then able to artificially inseminate a large beaked female on another island, would the incubated eggs hatch into fully fertile hybrid finches? I think so, and if true, this observation of reproductive isolation among Galapagos finches tells us nothing about the validity of Darwinism. No new genotypes are arising. The reproductive isolation of those finches provides no evidence as to how finches, eagles, or penguins arose in the first place.
3. Horses and donkeys are considered different species because that while they do mate, get an embryo started, and give birth, the resulting animal (a mule) is sterile. Their genotypes are quite close, but not close enough to create viable offspring. Yet, they cannot be considered to be reproductively isolated. Horses and donkeys will happily mate and create mules out in the pasture if you don’t work to keep them apart. I’m told that given the opportunity, they will “do it” in the wild as well. The evolutionary assumption is that the wild precursors to today’s horses and donkeys came about by Darwinian selection acting on two reproductively isolated groups that had the same genotype. But no one can prove this. It’s just based on a priori Darwinian assumptions and extrapolations.
So, simply observing that some groups have become “reproductively isolated”, while basing a definition of “species” on that concept, and then extrapolating that whole new genotypes arrive from it, really has no easy evidence in nature. We cannot show how one genotype can change and be modified simply by natural selection to create subsequent novel genotypes.
My three classic examples above are variously used as primary validations of Darwinism. I think they are more “icons of evolution” that do not meet any rational test.
For purposes of showing evidence for Darwinism, proponents must base their definition of species on the genome, and the genetic possibility of reproduction and continuity of a type. They must provide examples where reproductive isolation leads to new genotypes: not just beach vs. river spawning salmon, little-beaked vs. big-beaked finches, wolves and Great Danes and Chihuahuas, and please, not the horse and the ass.
[ 21. April 2005, 03:03: Message edited by: Stuart Harris ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Jerry D. Bauer
Member
Member # 756
|
posted 23. April 2005 07:22
These posts point out a problem that has long frustrated me. There is no rationality in taxonomy that I can detect in modern times and perhaps this is a problem fomented by science leaping into a new millennium with expanded (or maybe even twisted??) knowledge. The times they are achangin.'
Last I heard, the Ernst Mayer definition for a sexual species was still being printed in the Bio 101 textbooks as: any two organisms are the same sexual species that can (doesn't mean they have to) interbreed and produce viable, fertile offspring and do so in the wild (naturally).
Does this technically rule out Great Danes and Chihuahuas from being of the same species? Nah..Probably not. I believe they still are if we correctly interpret the species definition because we have interfered with the wild by purposefully breeding them for traits that go the opposite direction in size. In other words, it's our fault they can no longer interbreed, not nature's.
Are lions and tigers of the same species? They do interbreed and some of these offspring are NOT sterile if my information is correct. Do dogs and wolves interbreed in the wild or just in captivity? I don't know and perhaps field studies need be done to determine this. If they do breed in the wild and produce fertile offspring, then they are sorely misclassified.
Finally, we are down to the Lake Washington salmon. I like this study probably because I have been familiar with it since it was released (I dissected the original paper somewhere or another) and it serves as a great example to show what evolution is not. The conclusion of that study if I recall correctly was that they prefer not to interbreed with the formerly reproductively isolated population. So what?
I'm sure that many reproductively isolated tribes in the Amazon COULD interbreed with Icelanders. They just prefer not to. Doesn't mean they are a different species. Here is a great thesis project for a graduate student.
[ 24. April 2005, 08:15: Message edited by: Jerry D. Bauer ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Fernando Castro-Chavez
Member
Member # 1201
|
posted 26. April 2005 13:54
Stuart Harris and Jerry D. Bauer,
Thank you for your great observations. I have added the example of the salmon to my long working Appendix of the article featured here. Such Appendix can be seen at:
http://www.geocities.com/plin9k/limiting-species.htm
The observations raised by Stuart Harris and by Jerry D. Bauer are important and should be considered in any attempt to apply this 'Intelligent Design to Generate Biodiversity'. My next elementary approach, an 'Intelligent Design' model can be useful in our endeavor:
(1) Software + Hardware = Design
Which, applied to biology can be seen as:
(2) Genes + Environment = Variation
The normal function of an organism has been perfectly designed, as well as the normal expansion of changes within its global population.
As the gene expression within an individual changes with age (time), the gene expression of the global population changes with location (space).
This can be seen as the elasticity of a rubber band, it is within its design how much it can be expanded, which can be done until a certain limit. In the same way, organisms experience a restrained variation within their boundaries.
While the critics of 'the limits of biological change' repeat time after time that there is no limit, the reality is that the limits have been deliberately blurred by Darwin and its followers on keeping 'without end' the convenient confusion for the distinction between varieties vs. species. My work attempts to approach the end of that confusion and at the same time hopes to produce a practical result: the expansion of biodiversity in the wild. The 'endangered species' became then just 'endangered varieties'; and we have now the ability to produce many new wild varieties. The 'natural selection' ('ns'), that mystical escape for evolutionists, gives place to a more rational interplay of Genes + Environment, 'ns' being replaced by a practical engineering of varieties by the simple exercise of Mendel's Laws.
The first practical and elementary genetic formula, to be used here, can be expressed as a corollary:
If:
(3) P1 + P2 = F1 Fertile
Then:
P1 and P2 are just varieties of the same Kind or 'Genos' of organism, no matter how morphologically different they may appear.
This will be further illustrated with a recently striking example, also mentioned in my article:
If:
(4) Pseudorca crassidens + Tursiops truncatus = F1 Fertile
Where:
Pseudorca crassidens = male false killer whale (14-foot, 2,000-pound)
Tursiops truncatus = female Atlantic bottlenose dolphin (6-foot, 400-pound)
F1 Fertile = a fertile female called a 'Wholpin', that itself has been able to conceive in three different occasions, her first calf lived for 9 years, the second died when born and this third one, a female, a putative product of interbreeding with a 8-foot long Atlantic bottlenose male dolphin was born last December 2004:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/04/15/wholphin.birth.ap
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/050414/lath100.html?.v=5
http://hotspotshawaii.com/Wolphin.html
Then:
Pseudorca crassidens and Tursiops truncatus are just varieties of the same Kind or 'Genos' of organism, not a different 'genus', as it is wrongfully currently held by scientists, no matter how morphologically different they may appear and in disregard of the common names of the involved animals (false killer whale, dolphin, wholphin).
Still, you won't read this full successful interbreeding story in indexed journals, yet. However, you can find it in AiG, where I read it for the first time. In that aspect AiG is a better broadcaster than any indexed and highly reputed journals (smile), and don't forget the 'Christian Forums'.
Pro Darwinians will want to continue the winnow game by saying that this only happened once and 'in captivity' but that this 'does not happen normally in the wild'. The fact is that they, this P1 and P2, have a 'genetic compatibility', as Stuart Harris declared, no matter their 'psychological mating preferences' as Goldschmidt may have said it.
The sheer fact is that they can interbreed producing fertile offspring!
And like this, I have seen that the misclassification of varieties as if pertaining to different species or worse, to different genus, like in the example provided, can reach the hundreds of thousands!
But, oh well, that's not important right now for the evolutionists, as far as they keep high the public ignorance, as regards to this topic, in their attempt to keep promoting their sterile 'Speciation' fallacy. As my former advisor liked to say (regarding other Molecular issues) 'your findings are jeopardizing the established knowledge'. While evolutionists try to stop alternatives to their views, they think that their failed evolutionary multi-theories may still 'afloat'. But thanks God that today we have the 'Internets' (smile).
A related example can be seen in the HybriDatabase:
Hyb. # 1693. Grampus griseus x Tursiops truncatus. Intermediate characters suggest natural hybridization [Gray AP 1972]
http://www.bryancore.org/hdb
This useful database, HybriDatabase, was designed for the study of "Baraminology" (two Hebrew words – bara and min – the created kind of Genesis 1:11,12,21,24,25. Frank Lewis Marsh in 1941 proposed that "the ability to reproduce was the hallmark of animals or plants that descended from the same Baramin"). This "Creation Biosystematics" was founded in 1990 by Kurt Wise:
http://www.bryan.edu/771.html
My final note here is that, as reference, an early and successful attempt to use Mendel's Laws to produce new domestic varieties was done by the geneticists and the breeders, in a time when evolutionary naturalists where indifferent to Mendel's discovery (and still are):
A New Color Variety of the Guinea-Pig. W. E. Castle. Science 28(712):250-252 (Aug., 1908).
Castle was in the Zoological laboratory, Harvard University.
"This is a perfectly normal Mendelian result, both qualitative and quantitative, and confirms in the most complete manner the hypothesis of an independent pattern factor. For, can a more severe test of the hypothesis be conceived than that by its application one should produce a wholly unknown variety?"
The Origin of Varieties in Domesticated Species. W. J. Spillman. Science 28(712):252-254 (Aug., 1908).
Spillman was in the USDA.
"Now we have a simple, rational explanation, which any one can put to the test. We are able to predict the production of new varieties, and to produce them. We must not, of course, in our exuberance, conclude that the powers of the hybridizer know no limits. The result under consideration consists, after all, only in the making of new combinations of unit characters, but it is much to know that these units exist and that all conceivable combinations of them are ordinarily capable of production. This valuable knowledge we owe to the discoverer and to the rediscoverers of Mendel's law."
"... the art of the breeder, who would naturally be attracted by new types that crop out (which occurs when heterozygotes are mated) would seize these forms and establish races from them... That these race peculiarities are, generally speaking, recessive to the wild form is well established... But that these peculiarities may have originated ages ago in the wild form, and been transmitted almost unnoticed, has not hitherto been suggested... [and those] peculiarities... are not greatly in need of a theory of "saltatory change" to explain their abundant development in domesticated species."
You see that the highly publicized activism of SJ Gould was just a variation of an old improductive evolutionary song, the "saltatory change", also held by the bad adviser of Mendel, the evolutionist Nageli.
So, our proposal is to expand such successful application of Mendel's Laws to produce new varieties of wild organisms. Are we going to wait until the 'official' evolutionary establishment is interested on it?
New examples, support and suggestions are very welcome.
[ 07. October 2005, 13:26: Message edited by: Fernando Castro-Chavez ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Fernando Castro-Chavez
Member
Member # 1201
|
posted 20. May 2005 20:59
The next is a pertinent imput on the subject:
quote:
Ref. 1.
Wild, A. L. 2004. Taxonomy and distribution of the Argentine ant Linepithema humile (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Annals of the Entomological Society of America 97(6): 1204–1215.
AL Wild wrote:
"Species Delimitation. I follow the view that species are aggregates of interbreeding or potentially interbreeding populations (Mayr 1942). Although resources were not available in the current study to directly examine gene flow,species boundaries can be inferred indirectly..."
Ref. 2.
Wild, A. L. 2003 (“2002”). The genus Pachycondyla (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) in Paraguay. Boletín del Museo Nacional de Historia Natural del Paraguay 14: 1–18.
AL Wild wrote:
"The genus Pachycondyla F. Smith 1858 is a large group of ants in the subfamily Ponerinae. There are around 200 described species worldwide, mostly known from the tropics and sub-tropics (Bolton 1995.)"
> My point question: Can it be possible for me to develop a project to reach their Species Delimitation (it is, their 'species boundaries')? I.E., by doing interbreeding experiments to produce fertile offspring among different groups of ants. I.E., on any of those groups of ants mentioned by AW, to directly and to better define their boundaries. I think we agree that the direct way is the better way to define those boundaries.
The next was an expert's answer (emphasis added):
quote:
Fernando-
I cannot improve on your idea in the slightest. Ideally, that's exactly what we'd try to do to establish species boundaries. The sad truth is that such thoroughgoing research as you propose is rarely done because it is time consuming. Some organisms- such as these ants- simply don't breed well in captivity, or keeping them is fraught with logistical or even legal difficulties. I can take a month to do a paper on 3 species like the Pachycondyla one linked above, or I can take 3 years to attempt the same with a thorough breeding program and molecular genetic analysis. It's a trade-off, really, but what you suggest would be an excellent research program. To do the full 200-species genus would be several lifetimes of work.
Comments? Ideas? Help? ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
[ 09. September 2005, 18:51: Message edited by: Fernando Castro-Chavez ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Fernando Castro-Chavez
Member
Member # 1201
|
posted 20. July 2005 12:36
The Silversword Alliance
On another example related to my article, recently I received a personal communication regarding abundant postings on the Internet by Art et al related to those plants called "silverswords":
"Art's silversword example is a classic refutation…" KC Jun 25 2005 ![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
Art on melott's "please post link to silverswords. IDists, please explain how this is not right" 10-28-2004 ![[Mad]](mad.gif)
"Silverswords are a bona-fide example of macroevolution" Art 08-26-2003
"The example of silverswords renders Bergman's arguments pretty meaningless" Art 06-01-2003 ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
"I still want someone to comment on Hawaiian silverswords" Art 09-25-2001 ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Etc…
Another expanded example, on Jan. 13 2003,22:56 Art posted (read all context) in a proevolution Website: quote:
"…it can be strongly concluded that each of these (as well as other members of the Silversword alliance share a common ancestry. This is because, the vast morphological differences aside, they are interfertile."
My answer: If some are interfertile, producing fertile offspring, no matter how different their appearance be, those are just varieties of the same kind of plant! [i.e., hybrids within Argyroxiphium and within Dubautia]
In the same place Art wrote before:
quote:
"It doesn’t take much of an eye to see stupendous morphological differences, easily dramatic enough to qualify as possibly macroevolutionary in nature. Of course, this could only be if it could be shown that these plants share a common ancestry."
My answer: Many notorious darwinian macroevolutionists, i.e., Eric Reynolds, an AAAS member, deliberately deny the distinction between macroevolution and microevolution. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) http://www.kcfs.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=000306;p=14#000333
Other darwinian macroevolutionists use such distinction at their rhetorical convenience, like Richard B. Hoppe, who sometimes signs as an affiliated Scholar in Biology's Kenyon College, Ohio, Hoppe wrote...
[Editing Note: first example removed, RBHoppe was not using the word "macroevolution" himself. RBH was quoting. See his posting below]
RBH on 29. March 2004 [the next link was originally presented by him]: "evolution can produce new species"
[My note: The idea that "evolution can produce new species" is identical to "macroevoluiton"]
To whom I answered here on 30. March 2004 23:27:
quote:
1-) The concept of “Specie” is not absolute, it is rather imperfect and subject to change. The Word “Kind” stands out of that fallibility and goes beyond Linnaeus. If the Word “Kind” bothers some, don’t use it, but there is freedom if another individual wants to use it. The fallibility of the definition of “Specie” can be seen in the next point.
2-) Your ~ 41 data on “Speciation” shows that the same Kind of organisms are being compared in each of them. Where is the follow up of those old studies using today the same organisms described there?
3-) The search of a [species] boundary led Mendel to become “the Father of Genetics”. The limits in artificial and natural selection have been described in phenotype and genotype and now those limits are starting to be described also at the molecular level, i.e. in the mechanisms of “molecular quality control”.
4-) This space… describes the simultaneous and sudden appearance of life in the ocean, one of four different events of sudden appearance of life, non-linear, lacking of gradual improvements or millions of years.
5-) Finally, your opinion contrasts the Conclusion of Mendel. His search for limits on variability took him to the discovery of the most common and important Laws of Heredity. Mendel’s Conclusions are dismissed and/or despised by “evolutionary thinking” (past and present), as your postings demonstrates.
However, RBH never responded to those points, but rather, he continued pandering the same false and fallacious 'speciational' song through all the Internet, as recently, in the same mocking style he wrote to William D. Rubinstein: "Speciation has been observed. As in seen, field notes taken, etc."
Back to Art, nobody denies the common ancestry within the same kind of organism. Art's "possibly macroevolutionary" statement should be rather 'certainly microevolutionary' or as BA Leonard may have said it: 'subspeciational'(smile)
In the proevolutionary Website linked above, Art also wrote:
quote:
"changes in developmentally-important genes are important in macroevolutionary progressions."
My answer: quote:
Those are microchanges in developmentally-important genes that only can explain the microchanges within the same kinds of organisms ('microevolution')
I am defining here microevolution as it appears in the approved by the Ohio Department of Education “Critical Analysis of Evolution”, by Bryan A. Leonard, M.S.:
quote:
Microevolution: Evolution resulting from succession of relatively small genetic variations that often cause the formation of new subspecies.
And also:
quote:
To help ensure academic clarity, this lesson distinguishes between microevolution and macroevolution. Teachers may need to provide support to students to help them understand this distinction throughout the lesson.
Plus:
quote:
Aspect 3
The increase in the number of antibiotic resistant bacterial strains demonstrates the power of natural selection to produce small but limited changes in populations and species. It does not demonstrate the ability of natural selection to produce new forms of life. Although new strains of Staphylococcus aureus have evolved, the speciation of bacteria (prokaryotes) has not been observed, and neither has the evolution of bacteria into more complex eukaryotes. Thus, the phenomenon of antibiotic resistance demonstrates microevolution.
And:
quote:
Aspect 4
English peppered moths show that environmental changes can produce microevolutionary changes within a population.
They do not show that natural selection can produce major new features or forms of life, or a new species for that matter — i.e., macroevolutionary changes. From the beginning of the industrial revolution, English peppered moths came in both light and dark varieties. After the pollution decreased, dark and light varieties still existed. All that changed during this time was the relative proportion of the two traits within the population. No new features and no new species emerged. In addition, recent scientific articles have questioned the factual basis of the study performed during the 1950s. Scientists have learned that peppered moths do not actually rest on tree trunks. This has raised questions about whether color changes in the moth population were actually caused by differences in exposure to predatory birds.
Finally, Bryan Andrew Leonard also declared:
quote:
WHETHER MICROEVOLUTION CAN BE EXTRAPOLATED TO EXPLAIN MACROEVOLUTIONARY CHANGES (SUCH AS NEW COMPLEX ORGANS OR BODY PLANS AND NEW BIOCHEMICAL SYSTEMS WHICH APPEAR IREREDUCIBLY COMPLEX) IS CONTROVERSIAL. THESE KINDS OF MACROEVOLUTIONARY EXPLANATIONS GENERALLY ARE NOT BASED ON DIRECT OBSERVATIONS AND OFTEN REFLECT HISTORICAL NARRATIVES BASED ON INFERENCES FROM INDIRECT OR CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.
Leonard's Capitals for his guide and Power Point presentation at The Kansas State Department of Education
http://www.ksde.org/outcomes/scienceexptestileonard.html
I can say then that "Macroevolution" is the darwinian speculation that imposes that what we observe in microevolution should also be believed by a blind evolutionary faith as if happening beyond the realm of true kinds of organisms. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Let's see now some of the natural and artificial hybrids in the Hawaiian silversword alliance:
Intergeneric Hybrids: Argyroxiphium x Dubautia, Argyroxiphium x Wilkesia, Dubautia x Wilkesia.
http://www.botany.hawaii.edu/faculty/carr/asm_x_wgym.htm
Infrageneric Hybrids: Within Argyroxiphium and within Dubautia,
More on silverswords can be seen at:
http://www.botany.hawaii.edu/faculty/carr/silversword.htm ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
[ 21. July 2005, 09:21: Message edited by: Fernando Castro-Chavez ]
IP: Logged
|
|
RBH
Member
Member # 380
|
posted 21. July 2005 01:44
Castro-Chavez wrote quote:
Other darwinian macroevolutionists use such distinction at their rhetorical convenience, like Richard B. Hoppe, who sometimes signs as an affiliated Scholar in Biology's Kenyon College, Ohio, Hoppe wrote:
quote:"Macroevolution by punctuated equilibrium predicts that transitional forms will not be found"
RBH's May 27, 2004 posting, at http://acs.ucsd.edu/~idea/punceq_comments.htm
Castro-Chavez screwed up the quoting. The posting he references is this: quote:
Dr. Hoppe writes:
quote:
"'But what hard evidence does punctuated equilibrium predict? Macroevolution by punctuated equilibrium predicts that transitional forms will not be found. With respect to finding fossil evidence of the stages of evolutionary change, punctuated equilibrium predicts that evidence of these changes will not be found. (Emphasis added)'
That’s complete glop. Punctuated equilibrum makes a very specific prediction about the kind of corroborating evidence it expects, and as Wes Elsberry pointed out (May 27, 2004 01:36 PM posting)"
The embedded quotation ("But what ... not be found. (Emphasis added)"), which Castro-Chavez incorrectly attributes to me, is in fact my quotation of the IDEA site's claim. My comment on that quotation from the IDEA site begins with "That's complete glop". At least get your attributions correct, Castro-Chavez.
RBH
P.S. I didn't answer the earlier posting because when a creationist invokes "kinds" the conversation is doomed.
[ 21. July 2005, 01:55: Message edited by: RBH ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Fernando Castro-Chavez
Member
Member # 1201
|
posted 21. July 2005 09:04
Richard,
Thank you for showing up and for pointing out that my mistake related to your speech, now I will remove such wrong statement in order to retain the one of yours, depicting your own complete wording of your original statement.
Your second point, related on how you did not answered me before because you feel a conversation is "doomed" when some person uses the word "Kind" is, as I declared in points one and two of my original answer for you in 2004:
quote:
"The concept of “Specie” is not absolute, it is rather imperfect and subject to change. The Word “Kind” stands out of that fallibility and goes beyond Linnaeus. If the Word “Kind” bothers some, don’t use it, but there is freedom if another individual wants to use it." And also "Your ~ 41 data on “Speciation” shows that the same Kind of organisms are being compared in each of them. Where is the follow up of those old studies using today the same organisms described there?"
Let me now remove the word "Kind" especially for you to answer it, if you want to:
"Your ~ 41 data on “Speciation” shows that the same organisms are being compared in each of them. Where is the follow up of those old studies using today the same organisms described there?"
IP: Logged
|
|
RBH
Member
Member # 380
|
posted 21. July 2005 14:39
Castro-Chavez asked quote:
"Your ~ 41 data on “Speciation” shows that the same organisms are being compared in each of them. Where is the follow up of those old studies using today the same organisms described there?"
C-C is a Ph.D., a professional, with access to the various literature databases. I'm not going to do the cataloguing for him. Life is finite, and one expends one's time and effort according to some priorities. This particular question, being answerable (with some effort) by he who asked it, is not a top priority for me. I will note that a search on [cichlids speciation] on Google Scholar yields nearly 1,000 hits.
RBH
IP: Logged
|
|
Fernando Castro-Chavez
Member
Member # 1201
|
posted 22. July 2005 13:23
To Richard B. Hoppe and to anybody else interested on these studies,
Thanks for the link, I did my first scannings there and this is what I got (not in any order or specificity):
about 3,150 for "Intelligent Design". (0.16 seconds)
about 1,100,000 for Creation [definition]. (0.05 seconds)
about 579,000 for Creator [definition]. (0.21 seconds)
about 123,000 for Bible [definition]. (0.06 seconds)
about 166,000 for Christ [definition]. (0.02 seconds)
about 208 for "William Dembski". (0.11 seconds)
about 285 for "Michael Behe". (0.12 seconds)
bout 26 for "Richard Hoppe". (0.06 seconds)
bout 122,000 for Speciation [definition]. (0.12 seconds)
about 3,100 for MicroEvolution [definition]. (0.12 seconds)
bout 2,540 for MacroEvolution [definition]. (0.14 seconds)
bout 14,600 for Darwinism [definition]. (0.04 seconds)
bout 22 for "Richard Sternberg". (0.09 seconds)
5 for "Salvador Cordova". (0.09 seconds)
4 for "Bryan Leonard". (0.01 seconds)
3 for "Fernando Castro-Chavez". (0.04 seconds) [smile]
As you may recall, on 07. May 2004 in the next link (big file):
http://www.iscid.org/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=print_topic;f=18;t=000034
I presented the finals of the hundreds of articles that I found at that time in the PubMed. That same day I wrote there:
quote:
As it was stated before, the search strategy selected was to use two words in Pubmed: speciation and evolution. Why? Because if you only use the word 'speciation' alone you carry over all the 'noise' of mineralogical speciation, maybe somebody can define that for us.
Even 'charlie d' has argued elsewhere that it is not sufficient to guideline the search strategies, and I agree, it is necessary to provide details, not only of the reference but also of some of the internal information; by other side gordon/Gordy [today's update: another sock-puppetry's name for SLPage] don't even likes to see any reference or quotations. Anybody is welcomed to post articles that he thinks are lacking to the representative ones that I have already posted here. We know that no matter how we present the evidences [or how much evidence], some are just never going to accept them.
Thanks, have a good weekend, today is Friday.
And apart of that I keep working day after day, almost every day on finding more and more evidences or examples:
http://www.geocities.com/plin9k/limiting-species.htm
Those Cichlids that you mentioned before are just "subspecies", not "new species" which is the presumed claim for evolutionary 'speciation', which is 'par' to 'macroevolution'.
Being the key and practical factor, the "FERTILE OFFSPRING".
quote:
In these cloudy areas, bright color morphs have disappeared and the fish have become similar and dull in appearance through hybridization (Seehausen et al. 1997).
http://www.cichlidae.com/articles/a110.html
Cichlids "produce viable, fertile hybrids":
Turner GF, Seehausen O, Knight ME, Allender CJ, Robinson RL. How many species of cichlid fishes are there in African lakes? Mol Ecol. 2001 Mar;10(3):793-806.
[Note: Thanks to Salvador Cordova for showing me how to reduce the size of looong links!]
Here again, there is one true species with limitless varieties, with limitless sub-species
Cichlid Pictures: http://www.accuracyingenesis.com/kind.html
http://www.cichlids.com/gallery
The evidence is clear for everybody to see, but 'what the heck', you don’t have time to go on deeper on this, right? However you have more than enough and sufficient time not only to flood all the Internet but also to bash down the related works of Bryan Leonard (sorry but that's not fair), of myself, and of others, right? And all this "in the name of Darwin" and supporting his evolutionary speculations at the macrolevel, right?
Next is the last example of Myrmecos, also a phony and false 'speciation' example (initially, even Raymond Bohlin and many others, as seen in his 1980's book, was deceived by such sorts of 'evidences'):
Laupala, a group of forest-dwelling Hawaiian crickets: "acoustic variants can interbreed and hybridize" http://www.life.umd.edu/biology/faculty/shaw
At least, more than 150 varieties from a single pair of genetic colonizers. Plate from Otte's book showing Hawaiian crickets and a picture of a semi-transparent Cave Cricket, photo by Bill Mull: http://www.hawaii-forest.com/essays/9902.html
You also wrote on 03. May 2004 (you posted before my own last quoted references):
quote:
Castro-Chavez wrote
quote:
After reviewing every abstract available on speciation I can see no evidence of any kind of speciation today or in the past.
That's a pretty amazing project to have completed. Just for the heck of it I did a couple of searches on "speciation." These are the results:
PubMed: 3,919 hits
PNAS: 2,818 hits
JBC Online: 12,980 hits
JCB Online: 2,971 hits
That's a whole lot of abstracts, even allowing for overlap.
RBH
RBH, you claimed in your last posting that you are extremely busy to review this literature, but how else superficial views blindly endorsing 'speciation' and all the other darwinian charades can be correctes?
The reality is that all those examples are of organisms that change at the level of subspecies, never a-la macro, always on the micro-level.
As I just wrote elsewhere:
http://www.arn.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php/ubb/get_topic/f/14/t/001464/p/2.html#000049
quote:
I am working on molecular biology and I see the evidences for the biological change and for variation within true organisms (microevolution), but I don't see any shred of evidence for a saltational speculative speciational darwinian macroevolution!
And also:
quote:
I am working in the forefront of Biology without accepting the dogma of those 'dominant' bullies of science. Do you want me to believe now that such illusory worldview had something…?
Let me give you an example of the practical advantages of considering them subspecies, as they really are, instead of considering them, and all their variants as a delusional different species, as delusional evidences of 'speciation'. No more should exist the fearful idea of the invaders leading to the total extinction of native organisms, what happens is that in many times (it goes unnoticed), and I must say, those organisms don't get extinct, but rather, they blend, they hybridize producing a fertile offspring. This may not mean anything for a superficial evolutionist acting as a political activist, but these details mean a deal of difference for those attempting to understand and to preserve organisms.
You can try to retort all rhetoric you may have, but that won't change the facts for those persons that love detailed and meticulous observations, as hope many of such persons will be reading this, my humble postigs, in contrast to the useless and 'imposed' speculations of darwinian macroevolution. See the next gem:
Hybrids Consummate Species Invasion. Wade Roush. Science 277(5324):316-317 (Jul., 1997).
quote:
"biologists at the University of Notre Dame in Indiana are finding that the local crayfish are having their own effect on the invader [crayfish], as the two species produce a new population of vigorous hybrids. The finding is a surprise, researchers say, because ecologists often expect animal hybrids to be sterile, unable to play more than a bit part in species invasions. But at the Annual Evolution and Natural History meetings here, William Perry, a graduate student in the labs of ecologist David Lodge and biologist Jeff Feder, described molecular studies showing that hybrids of Kentucky native Orconectes rusticus, or the rusty crayfish, and a native crayfish, O. propinquus (the blue crayfish), are indeed fertile.
Which means that those crayfishes, even when mistakenly named as members of two different species (thence, supposedly 'speciated'), in reality they are only members of the same main organism (I try not to use here the word that you reject, but only for you, in order for me at least in this way, being able to reach u).
From the same Article:
quote:
"…these hybrids are outcompeting both natives and invaders. The rusty crayfish, it appears, is taking over by assimilation… hybrids were assumed to be less important than other species-replacement mechanisms… backcrosses between hybrids and rusty crayfish were nearly as common as first-generation hybrids, indicating that hybrids are fertile and that they tend to mate with rusty crayfish rather than with each other. Together, the first generation hybrids and backcrosses accounted for 30 % of the crayfish in one lake. The apparent prowess of the hybrids may be speeding the invasion. When Perry put rusty and blue crayfish in tanks with similarly sized hybrids, the hybrids beat both species in competition for food - such as insects and aquatic plants - and for shelters under rock piles. They are actually more competitive than the invader…"
This is a profitable example of subspeciation or microevolution from the University of Notre Dame in Indiana. A work with practical results, very different to the useless and identical experiments with Gasterosteus (Threespine stickleback) fishes performed by Schluter D et al to try to 'prove' or to justify the illusory darwinian 'speciation' and 'macroevolution', to keep on supporting a debunked worldview, even when Schluter himself declares "all previous crosses between closely related freshwater sticklebacks have not revealed any intrinsic reduction in offspring viability".
http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-6-t-000553.html#000001
Schluter was strongly endorsed by the Grants couple (you may know them, their second name is Grant), the scholars of another falsely so-called 'speciation' event, this time among the Galapagos finches, which also is only a 'subspeciation' event with interfertile hybrids, like we have seen here that happens with the Orconectes within themselves and in the Gasterosteus within themselves.
So, Schluter's Gasterosteus 'speciation' and the Grants' finches 'speciation' are staunchly lies and contradictions that, however, to keep up with the lie of evolution, such miss-information has been shouted even more intensely that the well-chanted statement by Art related to those members of the Hawaiian "Silver Swords" that I posted above. Not so well voiced has been the jewel of work done at the U. of Notre Dame by student Perry. Why? Is it smell as an ideological bias here? You bet!
A lot of examples similar to that work at Notre Dame appear next. Notice however that the new note of Perry's work was the emphasis on mixing up of characters invader/native, instead of thinking in terms of replacement (extinction of 'species', that rather should be called, the 'mingling of varieties', but the key point is that the complete genetic load still is present there, to produce an even more abundant variation!). Replacement rather than intermingling of gene-loads was the old idea of 1993. Today, the same fear is based on ignorance and is very rooted on the false claim that evolution is the 'cornerstone for a confused biology and ecology of to-day' (smile).
Please, RBH, notice the full reference below. I am only pointing here the significant aspects that we are studying. I never try to consciously quote-mine things, as many times evolutionists charge us:
Cryptic Intercontinental Hybridization in Daphnia (Crustacea): The Ghost of Introductions past. Derek J. Taylor; Paul D. N. Hebert. Proceedings: Biological Sciences 254(1340):163-168 (Nov., 1993).
"Daphnia galeata… Four populations from the lower Lauretian Great Lakes were genetically intermediate between North American and European populations… extensive hybridization…"
"… the introductions of rainbow trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss, in North America have resulted in hybridization and partial replacement of the native cutthroat trout, Oncorhynchus clarki"
"Similarly, hybridization involving introduced Pecos pupfish, Cyprinodon pecoensis, in Texas and New Mexico and introduced guppies, Poecilia reticulata in Trinidad…"
"…heterozygote excesses involving alleles… introgressed [reticulated] from D. rosea to D. g. mendotae" [which leads to a fertile hybridization]
Instead of thinking with fear about introduced or invader organisms, as it happens still today among 'evologists', ecologists and biologists, if we learn to tame and to control such hybridizations and its resultant hybrid vigour, we can not be losing varieties ('cause those are not different 'species' but only different and interfertile varieties).
With the emphasis on this new knowledge then, instead we are going to GAIN NEW VARIETIES, which is not 'speciation', as I keep repeating, because those are not 'new species' but rather, those are only interfertile subspecies. Is it fair that instead of givig up for the truth of this thousands of clear and straight-forward examples of variation within organisms, evolutionists rather prefer the darkness of keep on looking for the hardest situations to explain...?
The beauty of the classes that Leonard is presenting, is that this concept of subspeciation and its corresponding microevolution is clearly presented there!
A similar way of reasoning I am applying to my micro research, and so, instead of only thinking about the artifacts in molecular biology as useless things. Now I am thinking on taming those events, already present on the lab, and using them for protein engineering, for example. Such are some of the "Intelligent Design" models that I mentioned in one of my former article reviews. The same one that you improperly qualified beforehand as a "fraud".
http://www.arn.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php/ubb/get_topic/f/14/t/001048.html
I am unable to present all details of it, there or here, because that line of research, I hope, will continue to provide me with my daily bread through publications (although, anybody searching carefully enough can reach the same results), until a financier, a public or private company, be interested on them!
I believe that the real and practical entrepreneur will tell me, "I don't care how you call it!, I don’t' care about theories, as far as it works, I don't care how you call it"
But reality is that today, with all that evolutionary parafernalia and all that opposition to any alternative to evolution, we have not been able to be there, yet. As you are well aware of, superficial boasters pro-evolution are doing all that they can to discourage and to prevent the progress of any other alternative, no matter how practical can be!
Until now, evolutionism in all its morphs dominates, at the same time, extinction of varieties of living organisms is rampant.
I just want to let everybody know that we, with funds and willing collaborators [and I speak not only for myself, or even not at all for me, but for all that new and willing generation of researchers that faithful teachers like Leonard are preparing right now].
I reiterate, it is time to demonstrate that with this new view of "Intelligent Design" applied to the ecosystems, as well as to molecular research, which is what I have been proposing here, instead of losing organisms, we can take the initiative to produce more and new varieties within them!
RBH, please have mercy with my writing 'accents' and don't despise it 'cause its length!
Have a blessed weekend!
[ 01. October 2005, 23:31: Message edited by: Fernando Castro-Chavez ]
IP: Logged
|
|
RBH
Member
Member # 380
|
posted 24. July 2005 13:52
Castro-Chavez wrote quote:
Those Cichlids that you mentioned before are just "subspecies", not "new species" which is the presumed claim for evolutionary 'speciation', which is 'par' to 'macroevolution'.
Gee, sure looks like speciation to these folks, and also to these folks.
RBH
IP: Logged
|
|
Fernando Castro-Chavez
Member
Member # 1201
|
posted 24. July 2005 22:22
RBH,
Thanks for the examples.
Again, I don't want to be contentious with you, I just want to study and to leave the evidence for everybody to see.
The fact of the articles that you are linking here is 'subspeciation' or the origin of new varieties, never the origin of 'new species', for example, from the first link that you present:
quote:
Phylogeny of a rapidly evolving clade: The cichlid fishes of Lake Malawi, East Africa
R. C. Albertson, J. A. Markert, P. D. Danley, and T. D. Kocherdagger
PNAS Vol. 96, Issue 9, 5107-5110, April 27, 1999
"...mbuna will hybridize under artificial conditions (McElroy, D. M. & Kornfield, I. (1993) Copeia 1993, 933-945)... We cannot rule out a role for hybridization during the early radiation of the flock..."
That's precisely the key of my studies to demonstrate that there is genetic compatibility, that the offspring produced is fertile, which will help us in the engineering of new varieties. Again, those cichlids are not different 'species' but different varieties within the same organism.
---------
And from your second link:
quote:
"We first estimated the effective number of genetic factors controlling differences in the cichlid head through a comprehensive morphological assessment of two Lake Malawi cichlid species and their F1 and F2 hybrid progeny."
If those two morphologically different cichlids are producing F1 and F2 generations, that means that their offspring is fertile, which again indicates their genetic compatibility. Those again, are just varieties within the same organism.
IP: Logged
|
|
Fernando Castro-Chavez
Member
Member # 1201
|
posted 20. September 2005 12:40
Three interesting comments related to this work, from ARN, are:
N. Wells wrote,
quote:
"Of course, it could be that the designer designed in extensive hybridization capability, along the lines of software compatability."
"...quite a few hybridization studies have been done, precisely because of the erection of the [Ernst Mayr's version of the] Biological Species Concept, although admittedly not at the scale you would like. So apply for grants."
John Wendt wrote,
quote:
"You may be able to find some problems, but if you want to overturn the paradigm, you will have to systematically overturn lots of the purported evidence… If you can come up with good theoretical arguments, you might be able to get some attention on the merits of your ideas."
Aster wrote,
quote:
"...If you know what you're doing, you must carry out your project as YOU see fit. You don't have to fit into any mold."
As posted at ARN, thank you all for your valuable comments!
Taken from:
Topic: What do you think are the main weaknesses of evolution theories?
Additional Related Material aimed to students:
MENDELIAN BIOENGINEERING and the Limits to Biochange
CRITICAL ANALYSIS of Evolution, Material for Students
[ 20. September 2005, 12:41: Message edited by: Fernando Castro-Chavez ]
IP: Logged
|
|
daverb
Member
Member # 1715
|
posted 22. September 2005 12:42
Fernando
A question I've always had regarding the ability to produce fertile offspring as a definition of being of the same species: Is this property transitive? If A and B are interfertile and B and C are, is it necessarily the case that A and C are? I'm not a biologist, but my intuition would be no. But it that is true, then A and B are of the same species; B and C are of the same species; but A and C are not! That would be an odd result. So maybe my intuition is wrong?
Dave
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic