Validity of Micro/macro-evolution idea

That organic tissue discovered from the bone marrow of the T Rex tells us that chickens are the "closest living relative" of the T Rex, but they don't cite this too often, because really all it shows is that the creatures were entombed much more recently than popularly advertised, besides, chickens morphing from T Rex is pretty comical anyway.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

IAC, where did you get you get your degree in Biology and Paleontology again? Thanks.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

troll alert.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Saquist, why respond when you and IAC's eyes are shut? You will rationalize everything to your preconceived beliefs, obviously.

 

You forget so much of what you read, NDS, I said several times that I was a Lyellian Darwinite, though not a rabid one, when I was born again, then, as a geologist, I began to investigate. Do you remember me saying that several times now?

 

Me, too. But I sense we're not talking about the same side.

Which questions? What sources? Please outline your arguments directly and cogently, with their relevant sources. You surely can't be talking about the pit-picking that IAC's been offering.

Of what? Evolution? Descent with modification? Microevolutionary change? Macroevolutionary change? Genotype-phenotype correlation? Which?

I regret to inform you that this is simply not the case:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/335636722147273l/
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/290/5491/519

You might also restart your argument by identifying how the coefficients of evolution via natural selection differs fundamentally from those produced via artificial selection. In other words: in what functional way are they different?

I also add that speciation - as per the biological species concept (BSC) of reproductive isolation - itself has been observed in a number of plant species and even several animal taxa:


Plants - Speciation via hybridization

Butters, F. K. 1941. Hybrid Woodsias in Minnesota. Amer. Fern. J. 31:15-21.

Butters, F. K. and R. M. Tryon, jr. 1948. A fertile mutant of a Woodsia hybrid. American Journal of Botany. 35:138.

Clausen, J., D. D. Keck and W. M. Hiesey. 1945. Experimental studies on the nature of species. II. Plant evolution through amphiploidy and autoploidy, with examples from the Madiinae. Carnegie Institute Washington Publication, 564:1-174.

de Vries, H. 1905. Species and varieties, their origin by mutation.

Digby, L. 1912. The cytology of Primula kewensis and of other related Primula hybrids. Ann. Bot. 26:357-388.

Karpchenko, G. D. 1927. Polyploid hybrids of Raphanus sativus L. X Brassica oleraceae L. Bull. Appl. Botany. 17:305-408.

Karpchenko, G. D. 1928. Polyploid hybrids of Raphanus sativus L. X Brassica oleraceae L. Z. Indukt. Abstami-a Verenbungsi. 48:1-85.

Muntzing, A. 1932. Cytogenetic investigations on the synthetic Galeopsis tetrahit. Hereditas. 16:105-154

Newton, W. C. F. and C. Pellew. 1929. Primula kewensis and its derivatives. J. Genetics. 20:405-467.

Owenby, M. 1950. Natural hybridization and amphiploidy in the genus Tragopogon. Am. J. Bot. 37:487-499.

Rabe, E. W. and C. H. Haufler. 1992. Incipient polyploid speciation in the maidenhair fern (Adiantum pedatum, adiantaceae)? American Journal of Botany. 79:701-707.

Soltis, D. E. and P. S. Soltis. 1989. Allopolyploid speciation in Tragopogon: Insights from chloroplast DNA. American Journal of Botany. 76:1119-1124.


Animals - speciation via hybridization

Bullini, L. and G. Nascetti. 1990. Speciation by hybridization in phasmids and other insects. Canadian Journal of Zoology. 68:1747-1760.

Lokki, J. and A. Saura. 1980. Polyploidy in insect evolution. In: W. H. Lewis (ed.) Polyploidy: Biological Relevance. Plenum Press, New York

Vrijenhoek, R. C. 1994. Unisexual fish: Model systems for studying ecology and evolution. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics. 25:71-96.


Plants - Speciation without hybridization

Gottleib, L. D. 1973. Genetic differentiation, sympatric speciation, and the origin of a diploid species of Stephanomeira. American Journal of Botany. 60: 545-553.

Macnair, M. R. and P. Christie. 1983. Reproductive isolation as a pleiotropic effect of copper tolerance in Mimulus guttatus. Heredity. 50:295-302.

Pasterniani, E. 1969. Selection for reproductive isolation between two populations of maize, Zea mays L. Evolution. 23:534-547.


I highlighted one of special interest since it involves speciation/isolation by selection.


Animals - Speciation without hybridization

Dobzhansky, T. and O. Pavlovsky. 1971. Experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila. Nature. 230:289-292.

Kilias, G., S. N. Alahiotis and M. Delecanos. 1980. A multifactorial investigation of speciation theory using Drosophila melanogaster. Evolution. 34:730-737.

Indeed! For, as I've illustrated above, speciation occurs within quite contemporaneous timeframes, and has already been therefore observed, besides genetic mechanisms for leap evolution having been demonstrated. The fossil record is supportive, of course, in the sense that it illustrates descent with modification, but frankly the implication of the fossil record - which, indeed, tells a story via deposition, succession and radiological dating - should be sufficiently clear. However, as someone once said, there are none so blind as will not see.

 

When you can prove that Darwinian evolution is true, then you'll really have something there GeoffP, good luck!

 

IAC, already did speciation, including the McNair and Christie ref. That's the Darwinian deal right there. I don't know what more you mean by "proof". I keep hitting the boundaries you set and exceeding them, yet you don't take the evidence. Why not? There's loads of evidence for speciation above. Are you just going to ignore it then?

So, to sum up - YEC, no can be. Be as theistic as you like, but the literalism doesn't work.

 

Species is a meaningless term, haven't you figured that out yet?

 

Regrettably, the data appears to invalidate your point. You might define some putative species as species groups, but the illustration of reproductive isolation is sufficient unto the BSC. In other words, you can call it speciation or speciesgroupiation, but it still means descent with modification. Next point? Perhaps you could outline your synthesis of the history of the world, and the evidence associated with it.

 

I already wrote a book about it.

 

Where? Or at the least, invalidate my arguments.

 

What arguments?

 

Start with post #150, or any of the references therein. I recommend the McNair and Christie ref to start with.

Now. Let's see what you can do.

 

Been there, done that, so what do you think is the single most "compelling evidence" that Darwinian evolution is true?

 

The fact that it's been demonstrated, including speciation, several times. Read the references above. I'd also add phenotype-genotype correlational coefficients and the sheer fact of allelic frequency change.

 

Who is debating it? And especially: which biologists doubt evolution? Who? I've never met these people. Let's have some names. And no miscitations please.

 

You said there was debate. But you don't present any. You said there were biologists who don't believe in evolution. Yet, you don't give them either. You say you have a better view. But you don't illustrate it.

Is there anything that YEC does do? Besides unsubstantiated claims, I mean.

 

I'll mail you a copy, just give me your snail-mail address, I'll also send you my new DVD entitled Atlantis: Secret Star-Mappers of a Lost World.

And GeoffP, if you think academia is unanimous that Darwinian evolution is true, then you just go on imagining that.