monkey, you have provided a great many source of opinions, hypothesis and theories. Of course, I have equally as many theories and opinions contradicting what you have presented as evidence. However, evidence cannot be claimed as evidence if there are equally valid alternative explanations. If you would like to present one specific theory at a time, I will show you an equally valid (if not more valid) explanation. Once again, if you have valid, scientific evidence demonstrating the radical DNA restructuring in macro-evolution (one species to another), then present it now. Obviously, bunch of rambling opinions does nothing to validate evolution or any other scientific fallacy.
Have we stopped evolving.
- Thread starter Halo
- Start date
Inspector, if evolution were not real, what would explain the various characteristics of the world that spurious and I have brought up. Then please explain why you would believe that is true.
Then we will try to punch holes in your argument with evidence at least as factual as that which you use.
It is much harder to defend ANY argument than to attack one .(without being a fanatic)
Then we will try to punch holes in your argument with evidence at least as factual as that which you use.
It is much harder to defend ANY argument than to attack one .(without being a fanatic)
"Inspector, if evolution were not real, what would explain the various characteristics of the world that spurious and I have brought up. Then please explain why you would believe that is true."
------------------
This thread is about evolution. You claim evolution as fact. Your stance is a positive one. I acknowledged that micro-evolution occurs within species. However, I say macro-evolution (one species to another) is a hoax, based on a flawed geologic column and circular reasoning. It is your responsibility to prove that evolution occurs. Now, once again, if you have valid, scientific evidence demonstrating the radical DNA restructuring in macro-evolution (one species to another), then present it now. If you cannot do this, then I will assume that you have no direct evidence and that alternative theories can better explain the complexity of humanity than the fallacy of evolution.
BTW, my intent here is to expose the error in your logic and the fallaciousness of evolution. I will be writing a book on this topic in the near future, which is also why I would like input from you, and others, who put their faith in evolution.
Proceed.
------------------
This thread is about evolution. You claim evolution as fact. Your stance is a positive one. I acknowledged that micro-evolution occurs within species. However, I say macro-evolution (one species to another) is a hoax, based on a flawed geologic column and circular reasoning. It is your responsibility to prove that evolution occurs. Now, once again, if you have valid, scientific evidence demonstrating the radical DNA restructuring in macro-evolution (one species to another), then present it now. If you cannot do this, then I will assume that you have no direct evidence and that alternative theories can better explain the complexity of humanity than the fallacy of evolution.
BTW, my intent here is to expose the error in your logic and the fallaciousness of evolution. I will be writing a book on this topic in the near future, which is also why I would like input from you, and others, who put their faith in evolution.
Proceed.
inspector
BTW, my intent here is to expose the error in your logic and the fallaciousness of evolution.
You've not done that - ever. Whenever anyone presents hard evidence you respond with the patented:
But I've not once ever seen you refute the evidence presented with valid arguments, other than the above quote. Surely the Revolutionists Against Evolution have valid arguments somewhere on their site.
BTW, my intent here is to expose the error in your logic and the fallaciousness of evolution.
You've not done that - ever. Whenever anyone presents hard evidence you respond with the patented:
But I've not once ever seen you refute the evidence presented with valid arguments, other than the above quote. Surely the Revolutionists Against Evolution have valid arguments somewhere on their site.
Q, that is a different forum and topic altogether. ;-)
Give me something to refute, and I will do my best to refute it (or at least expose the error in the evidence and offer equally valid alternative explanations. The problem these evolutionists seem to be having here on this thread is the lack of valid, scientific evidence justifying macro-evolution.
Give me something to refute, and I will do my best to refute it (or at least expose the error in the evidence and offer equally valid alternative explanations. The problem these evolutionists seem to be having here on this thread is the lack of valid, scientific evidence justifying macro-evolution.
Inspector, dont worry if we get a little off topic. Its a related discussion.
Anyway micro evolution is all you need to get species divergence. You have a population of organisms get just a touch of change and if its benificial the change becomes spread throughout the species as whole.
Another tiny, insignificant mutation occurs, and another,and another. In time the population of animals you are looking at would look nothing like what you started out with.
Thats all evolution claims. Yeah its slow, but we have billions of years for it all to happen in.
Anyway micro evolution is all you need to get species divergence. You have a population of organisms get just a touch of change and if its benificial the change becomes spread throughout the species as whole.
Another tiny, insignificant mutation occurs, and another,and another. In time the population of animals you are looking at would look nothing like what you started out with.
Thats all evolution claims. Yeah its slow, but we have billions of years for it all to happen in.
i see that you didn't bother to look into any of these papers, since they also contain factual data and experiments. An opinion usually comes at the end of the paper, but is always based on the data that is presented. I'm sorry that you never realized how a scientific paper is organized. I shall summarize it for you.
standard organization:
title
introduction
methods and material
results
discussion and conclusion
references
as you can see there is no such thing as just an opinion. Many papers nowadays don't even have an opinion. They just present the data.
I know this was off topic, but you don't seem to know much about science.
proof of speciation (on special request of inspector)
Hybrid Speciation in Experimental Populations of Yeast
Duncan Greig, Edward J. Louis, Rhona H. Borts, and Michael Travisano
Science 2002 November 29; 298: 1773-1775.
that's the most recent article i could find for you...
the researchers in question actually made new species of yeast...and you thought it was impossible. I assume that you are convinced now, since you only required a single proof that speciation is real. And here it is, all neatly packed in one article.
Last edited:
"the researchers in question actually made new species of yeast...and you thought it was impossible. I assume that you are convinced now, since you only required a single proof that speciation is real. And here it is, all neatly packed in one article."
--------------------------------
Not so fast, my gullible friend. I read this brief article, and here is the last sentence of that article,
"Our results suggest that homoploid hybrid speciation can occur readily and that any intrinsic incompatibilities in Saccharomyces can be overcome relatively easily, but extrinsic barriers, such as fitness under differing environmental conditions, could limit speciation," conclude the authors.
Note especially the last sentence once again, "but extrinsic barriers, such as fitness under differing environmental conditions, could limit speciation," conclude the authors.
Now, you stated that this very brief article demonstrates "proof of speciation (on special request of inspector)". What proof? This article gives no specific details about the experiment. Also, the authors stated the obvious flaws when exposed to EXTRINSIC BARRIERS. In other words, anything outside of a petri dish. Radical mutations in uncontrolled environments lead to sterility. Period. Shall I show you the mathematical numbers of abiogenesis?
Keep trying, and BTW, do not underestimate my knowledge of biology. ;-)
--------------------------------
Not so fast, my gullible friend. I read this brief article, and here is the last sentence of that article,
"Our results suggest that homoploid hybrid speciation can occur readily and that any intrinsic incompatibilities in Saccharomyces can be overcome relatively easily, but extrinsic barriers, such as fitness under differing environmental conditions, could limit speciation," conclude the authors.
Note especially the last sentence once again, "but extrinsic barriers, such as fitness under differing environmental conditions, could limit speciation," conclude the authors.
Now, you stated that this very brief article demonstrates "proof of speciation (on special request of inspector)". What proof? This article gives no specific details about the experiment. Also, the authors stated the obvious flaws when exposed to EXTRINSIC BARRIERS. In other words, anything outside of a petri dish. Radical mutations in uncontrolled environments lead to sterility. Period. Shall I show you the mathematical numbers of abiogenesis?
Keep trying, and BTW, do not underestimate my knowledge of biology. ;-)
apparently the only proof you accept is a sentence in the Bible saying:
and then there was speciation...
although al you say looks maybe interesting to a fool and you yourself might think you are a wonderful thinker, you might have noticed how the articel ended:
Our results extend the range of known mechanisms that cause reproductive isolation. These act at different levels and in different taxa, but all may help produce new species.
and if you couldn't find any details whatsoever about the experiment you might want to read it again. If you are referring to the fact that it is missing a methods and material section then i can take your worries away by telling you that Science is a very high impact factor journal, with not that much space to give out. Hence it requires shorter articles. I actually believe you know nothing about biology to be true actually.
and then there was speciation...
although al you say looks maybe interesting to a fool and you yourself might think you are a wonderful thinker, you might have noticed how the articel ended:
Our results extend the range of known mechanisms that cause reproductive isolation. These act at different levels and in different taxa, but all may help produce new species.
and if you couldn't find any details whatsoever about the experiment you might want to read it again. If you are referring to the fact that it is missing a methods and material section then i can take your worries away by telling you that Science is a very high impact factor journal, with not that much space to give out. Hence it requires shorter articles. I actually believe you know nothing about biology to be true actually.
Last edited:
There you go, bringing up religion again. However, I can understand your frustration in trying to prove a negative (macro-evolution). I was reviewing your analysis of scientific papers below,
standard organization:
title
introduction
methods and material
results
discussion and conclusion
references
note also,
"These act at different levels and in different taxa, but all MAY help produce new species."
The thing that I love most about scientific articles and papers about macro-evolution or the origin of humanity is the vernacular. Words such as: suggest, may, nearly, almost, could, might, etc. If macro-evolution is a fact, as you claim, then why do evolutionists use such ambiguous language? What? You cannot know for sure? But, you claim evolution is a fact? Now, you will say evolution is only a theory..............yet even more inconsistencies. If you have valid, scientific evidence of macro-evolution (one species to another), then present it now. How about a fossil of a fishibian? or a amphitile? or a repbird?
standard organization:
title
introduction
methods and material
results
discussion and conclusion
references
note also,
"These act at different levels and in different taxa, but all MAY help produce new species."
The thing that I love most about scientific articles and papers about macro-evolution or the origin of humanity is the vernacular. Words such as: suggest, may, nearly, almost, could, might, etc. If macro-evolution is a fact, as you claim, then why do evolutionists use such ambiguous language? What? You cannot know for sure? But, you claim evolution is a fact? Now, you will say evolution is only a theory..............yet even more inconsistencies. If you have valid, scientific evidence of macro-evolution (one species to another), then present it now. How about a fossil of a fishibian? or a amphitile? or a repbird?
Last edited:
paulsamuel
Registered Senior Member
reply to spuriousmonkey
i think you are beating your head against the wall in talking to inspector.
I have 'Ignored' him, so I only see little snippet quotes, but that's enough for me. I know all about these fundamentalist fanatics and their "special creation" belief
Beliefs are unassailable and a belief in special creationism is no different than a belief in my pink elephant theory of many posts ago.
Evolution theory is falsifiable, this is what makes it science. all scientific theories, as a requisite, need to be falsifiable. beliefs are not falsifiable, that is why religion and "special creationism" are not science. I refer you to Karl Popper, and Thomas Kuhn. Specific refs. available upon request.
inspector's motivations are transparent. he is trying to mis-inform and mislead people in an effort to confuse them into questioning science, like evolutionary biology. I find this dispicable.
i suggest you leave him to argue with himself until a moderator comes along and puts him back into the religion forum where he belongs.
may I suggest some more fruitful subjects of disscussion;
What, if anything, is a "species?"
Gradualism in evolution or pucntuated equilibrium, or both?
Source of speciation in developmental genes?
Hopeful monsters?
Good luck in your arguments with the special creationists.
i think you are beating your head against the wall in talking to inspector.
I have 'Ignored' him, so I only see little snippet quotes, but that's enough for me. I know all about these fundamentalist fanatics and their "special creation" belief
Beliefs are unassailable and a belief in special creationism is no different than a belief in my pink elephant theory of many posts ago.
Evolution theory is falsifiable, this is what makes it science. all scientific theories, as a requisite, need to be falsifiable. beliefs are not falsifiable, that is why religion and "special creationism" are not science. I refer you to Karl Popper, and Thomas Kuhn. Specific refs. available upon request.
inspector's motivations are transparent. he is trying to mis-inform and mislead people in an effort to confuse them into questioning science, like evolutionary biology. I find this dispicable.
i suggest you leave him to argue with himself until a moderator comes along and puts him back into the religion forum where he belongs.
may I suggest some more fruitful subjects of disscussion;
What, if anything, is a "species?"
Gradualism in evolution or pucntuated equilibrium, or both?
Source of speciation in developmental genes?
Hopeful monsters?
Good luck in your arguments with the special creationists.
Inspector. Let me ask this in a plain, simple, and understandable way. Is there anything we could possibly tell you that would change your mind about this? If so, what?
If there is no reasonable thing that would change your mind you are a fanatic and there is no further use continuing this thread. If there is some piece of scientific evidence that would change your mind you are still a human being with some hope attatched to you.
You, of course, are free to hold your belief but not as an absolute. I do not hold evolution as an absolute and some things would make me give it up. You may try to convert us to your way of belief but only by way of rational arguement.
Please begin by suggesting an alternative to evolution that explains the previously discussed features. Then attempt to back it up with facts.
You cant say something is wrong without a manageable alternative.
If there is no reasonable thing that would change your mind you are a fanatic and there is no further use continuing this thread. If there is some piece of scientific evidence that would change your mind you are still a human being with some hope attatched to you.
You, of course, are free to hold your belief but not as an absolute. I do not hold evolution as an absolute and some things would make me give it up. You may try to convert us to your way of belief but only by way of rational arguement.
Please begin by suggesting an alternative to evolution that explains the previously discussed features. Then attempt to back it up with facts.
You cant say something is wrong without a manageable alternative.
inspector:
i was just wondering if you really are this stupid or just acting this way. I really hope it is the latter
the list i gave you was the standard list. Not all journals conform to the standard list. If you had read the article you would have seen that the methods are somewhat described in the text. If you have questions about the methods then there is the address of the corresponding author. As a scientist you are allowed to ask questions. I'm sorry to hear you are not used to ask questions. Furthermore with this specific article it is mentioned all the way in the back that there is supporting online material, including materials and methods.
I'm sorry to hear that you don't like ambiguous language, but a science article is not a bible. And this is the way we use language.
and i gave you the evidence. These researchers made new species. That's what you asked for. If you want fossile evidence, go a few posts up, because there are some articles about evolution of flight...look them up...check out the references...and then come back.
because all you did so far is show a severe case of parrotism and disbelief.
-you repeat other peoples nonsense without giving any ideas of your own
-your evidence against evolution seems to be that you just can't belief it is true.
what we need from you for a proper discussion is:
1. what is your reasonable alternative to evolution (you still didn't mention it)
2. what is your positive evidence for this extraordinary claim.
edit: sorry clockwood...forgot to read your post before i wrote this...
i was just wondering if you really are this stupid or just acting this way. I really hope it is the latter
the list i gave you was the standard list. Not all journals conform to the standard list. If you had read the article you would have seen that the methods are somewhat described in the text. If you have questions about the methods then there is the address of the corresponding author. As a scientist you are allowed to ask questions. I'm sorry to hear you are not used to ask questions. Furthermore with this specific article it is mentioned all the way in the back that there is supporting online material, including materials and methods.
I'm sorry to hear that you don't like ambiguous language, but a science article is not a bible. And this is the way we use language.
and i gave you the evidence. These researchers made new species. That's what you asked for. If you want fossile evidence, go a few posts up, because there are some articles about evolution of flight...look them up...check out the references...and then come back.
because all you did so far is show a severe case of parrotism and disbelief.
-you repeat other peoples nonsense without giving any ideas of your own
-your evidence against evolution seems to be that you just can't belief it is true.
what we need from you for a proper discussion is:
1. what is your reasonable alternative to evolution (you still didn't mention it)
2. what is your positive evidence for this extraordinary claim.
edit: sorry clockwood...forgot to read your post before i wrote this...
Re: reply to spuriousmonkey
what do you actualle mean by this...i can't quite figure out the problem...do you think developmental genes are mainly the source of speciation???
what do you actualle mean by this...i can't quite figure out the problem...do you think developmental genes are mainly the source of speciation???
I would first like to state that this is a discussion on evolution. This is not a discussion on alternative explanations. If one were to review my posts one would find that I have not brought up the topic of religion. Those who feel threatened when someone challenges their beliefs should be ready to explain those beliefs. BTW, Sam, to be ignored is a great compliment, since it only reinforces the validity of my interrogations. This is a public forum open for discussion. I am here to present valid evidence againt the fallacy of macro-evolution. I believe the moderator will agree with me. Now, back to the discussion at hand.
"Let me ask this in a plain, simple, and understandable way. Is there anything we could possibly tell you that would change your mind about this? If so, what?"
----------------------------------
Of course I would, but, since there are equally (if not more) valid alternative explanations, how can one derive an absolute decision regarding macro-evolution (one species to another)? For example, the scientific method is based on empirical evidence. However, empirical evidence only deals with real, physical things. Now, how does the scientific method account for the plethora of non-empirical evidence found in this world? Is the scientific method then really taking all available evidence into consideration? The Bell Theorem of nonlocality, or, the subatomic particle neutrino are based on non-empirical evidence, that is that the object or process themselves are invisible but their results impinge on our empirical world and can be measured. Does everything have to pass the scientific method to be fact? Of course not. Even macro-evolution is beyond the scope of the scientific method. So, if you can provide a transitional fossil or explain the many flaws of the geologic column (and the subsequent circular reasoning), then, I will entertain the idea of macro-evolution being valid. Until then, it is simply a fallacy and I will continue to expose it's errors on the many public forums which I attend on a daily basis.
"Let me ask this in a plain, simple, and understandable way. Is there anything we could possibly tell you that would change your mind about this? If so, what?"
----------------------------------
Of course I would, but, since there are equally (if not more) valid alternative explanations, how can one derive an absolute decision regarding macro-evolution (one species to another)? For example, the scientific method is based on empirical evidence. However, empirical evidence only deals with real, physical things. Now, how does the scientific method account for the plethora of non-empirical evidence found in this world? Is the scientific method then really taking all available evidence into consideration? The Bell Theorem of nonlocality, or, the subatomic particle neutrino are based on non-empirical evidence, that is that the object or process themselves are invisible but their results impinge on our empirical world and can be measured. Does everything have to pass the scientific method to be fact? Of course not. Even macro-evolution is beyond the scope of the scientific method. So, if you can provide a transitional fossil or explain the many flaws of the geologic column (and the subsequent circular reasoning), then, I will entertain the idea of macro-evolution being valid. Until then, it is simply a fallacy and I will continue to expose it's errors on the many public forums which I attend on a daily basis.
Last edited:
paulsamuel
Registered Senior Member
reply to spuriousmonkey
I am referring to the problems with gradual character transformation in speciation. For example, if evolution occurs gradually, a gradual incremental change in character state, one has to wonder how the character states between ancestral and derived are not selected agaisnt.
It has been suggested that there are no gradual character state changes, and that the changes occur all at once from a change in development or developmental genes (i.e. the hopeful monster hypothesis).
I was wondering, since you have a background in developmental biology, if you knew what genes are (or could be) responsible for drastic character changes that could lead to speciation events.
I am referring to the problems with gradual character transformation in speciation. For example, if evolution occurs gradually, a gradual incremental change in character state, one has to wonder how the character states between ancestral and derived are not selected agaisnt.
It has been suggested that there are no gradual character state changes, and that the changes occur all at once from a change in development or developmental genes (i.e. the hopeful monster hypothesis).
I was wondering, since you have a background in developmental biology, if you knew what genes are (or could be) responsible for drastic character changes that could lead to speciation events.
scilosopher
Registered Senior Member
This topic has interesting discussion despite the typical clutter. I think paulsamuel's idea to actually continue discussing the interesting topics is a good one.
I'm actually keyed up to talk about some of this stuff since Sean Carrol gave a talk at our school yesterday that was pretty interesting. BTW paulsamuel, I asked him about the evolution of new enhancers and he said that no one had ever really done the necessary experiments to be able to say too much about the generation of new binding sites etc. from previously nonfunctional DNA or whether most sites were formed through descent.
He talked mainly about the stuff in his book "From DNA to Diversity", I've only skimmed it at this point, but it looks like a good basis for a discussion on evo-devo stuff. I've also skimmed "Genomic Regulatory Systems", byt Eric H. Davidson and it is a similar potential alternative. Over the Holiday break I'll hopefully have time to actually do some more serious reading, my boss has been swamping me with papers for two weekly journal clubs.
I'd like to make a suggestion though - why doesn't someone start a thread about some of interesting topics for discussion and set ground rules of the topic, where it states certain things as being taken for granted in the course of the discussion. Then if someone wants to start a debate about the existence of macro-evolution or whatever they can start their own thread without cluttering one which isn't about that.
If one takes the definition of a species as the ability to create fertile offspring I would tend to think that morpholigical barriers are not usually what generates the actual change that separates a population into two species. Rather one would think it was some mechanistic detail in reproductive cell biology. As discussed by Carroll in his book hox genes are the main candidate for morphologically important genes.
I'm actually keyed up to talk about some of this stuff since Sean Carrol gave a talk at our school yesterday that was pretty interesting. BTW paulsamuel, I asked him about the evolution of new enhancers and he said that no one had ever really done the necessary experiments to be able to say too much about the generation of new binding sites etc. from previously nonfunctional DNA or whether most sites were formed through descent.
He talked mainly about the stuff in his book "From DNA to Diversity", I've only skimmed it at this point, but it looks like a good basis for a discussion on evo-devo stuff. I've also skimmed "Genomic Regulatory Systems", byt Eric H. Davidson and it is a similar potential alternative. Over the Holiday break I'll hopefully have time to actually do some more serious reading, my boss has been swamping me with papers for two weekly journal clubs.
I'd like to make a suggestion though - why doesn't someone start a thread about some of interesting topics for discussion and set ground rules of the topic, where it states certain things as being taken for granted in the course of the discussion. Then if someone wants to start a debate about the existence of macro-evolution or whatever they can start their own thread without cluttering one which isn't about that.
If one takes the definition of a species as the ability to create fertile offspring I would tend to think that morpholigical barriers are not usually what generates the actual change that separates a population into two species. Rather one would think it was some mechanistic detail in reproductive cell biology. As discussed by Carroll in his book hox genes are the main candidate for morphologically important genes.
paulsamuel
Registered Senior Member
reply to scilosopher
It's good to hear from you.
I am not surprised to hear what S.Carrol had said. My wife had three very recent texts on the biology of transcription factors (2 published in 2000 and one in 2001) and only one even mentioned evolution.
I do think the origins can be determined through some kind of comparative or phylogenetic approach with some test for selection.
It sounds like you're keeping busy. I can tell you, it feels great when your done (I'm assuming you are a graduate student working on your MS or PhD). I will definately pick up Carrol's book, it sounds interesting. Right now I'm reading Mayr's "The Growth of Biological Thought" as a lead-in to Gould's new tome "The Structure of Evolutionary Theory." The refs. in that book alone are worth its price.
Re: species; there are 2 instances I can think of off-hand that show morphological differences resulting in reproductive barriers. 1). There is a land snail species that shows species-specific chirality (I don't know all the specific details of this example, but I can find them if one is interested). Recently, researchers have found mutants with reverse chirality. Reverse chirality precludes mating between the mutants and non-mutants because of the morphology of reproduction (in plain terms, the penis is not long enough for sprem transferral if chirality doesn't match). This is resulting in a speciation event. Is this a genetic mutation for chirality, or a mutation in a developmental gene (or suite of genes) responsible for shell development?
2) an isolating mechanism in spiders is the shape morphology of the copulatory pedi-palps in male spiders and the seminal vesicles in female spiders. Intra-specifically, these traits co-evolve over their evolutionary history and preclude inter-specific mating. As far as I know, this is true for all spider species. Do these morphologies have a direct genetic basis or a developmental basis?
My thoughts based on my research and readings is that isolating mechanisms leading to speciation can have a variety of sources (genetic, molecular, cellular or morphological). The main reason I brought up the topic was to critically assess saltational vs. gradual theories of speciation (although the two are not mutually exclusive).
I have to admit that my knowledge of hox genes and their role in morphological changes leading to speciation is very weak. I would appreciate any review refs. that can be supplied.
It's good to hear from you.
I am not surprised to hear what S.Carrol had said. My wife had three very recent texts on the biology of transcription factors (2 published in 2000 and one in 2001) and only one even mentioned evolution.
I do think the origins can be determined through some kind of comparative or phylogenetic approach with some test for selection.
It sounds like you're keeping busy. I can tell you, it feels great when your done (I'm assuming you are a graduate student working on your MS or PhD). I will definately pick up Carrol's book, it sounds interesting. Right now I'm reading Mayr's "The Growth of Biological Thought" as a lead-in to Gould's new tome "The Structure of Evolutionary Theory." The refs. in that book alone are worth its price.
Re: species; there are 2 instances I can think of off-hand that show morphological differences resulting in reproductive barriers. 1). There is a land snail species that shows species-specific chirality (I don't know all the specific details of this example, but I can find them if one is interested). Recently, researchers have found mutants with reverse chirality. Reverse chirality precludes mating between the mutants and non-mutants because of the morphology of reproduction (in plain terms, the penis is not long enough for sprem transferral if chirality doesn't match). This is resulting in a speciation event. Is this a genetic mutation for chirality, or a mutation in a developmental gene (or suite of genes) responsible for shell development?
2) an isolating mechanism in spiders is the shape morphology of the copulatory pedi-palps in male spiders and the seminal vesicles in female spiders. Intra-specifically, these traits co-evolve over their evolutionary history and preclude inter-specific mating. As far as I know, this is true for all spider species. Do these morphologies have a direct genetic basis or a developmental basis?
My thoughts based on my research and readings is that isolating mechanisms leading to speciation can have a variety of sources (genetic, molecular, cellular or morphological). The main reason I brought up the topic was to critically assess saltational vs. gradual theories of speciation (although the two are not mutually exclusive).
I have to admit that my knowledge of hox genes and their role in morphological changes leading to speciation is very weak. I would appreciate any review refs. that can be supplied.
Ah, but it is. The two subjects are intertwined fully. If there are no other possible and reasonable explanations than the one remaining is the correct one.
Its like a police investigation of a murder. If you have no clear suspect you take the people who may have came in any contact with the victem and put them on a list. Then you eliminate those with alabies, no cause to commit the crime, etc. The last few people on the list are who yyou have to focus on.
The same applies here.