Creation or Evolution: The Statistics!!!

[bob x]

Ummm, no, not really. I would love to have access to the material. But I am not shelling out mega money for a subscription to a science journal.

GO TO A LIBRARY. He is not citing to "obscure" journals but to journals you should be able to find on the shelves just about anywhere.

Fruitflies are still fruitflies.

Evolution happens by small steps. After a hundred speciations, the resemblance to the original is meager.

Does broccoli interbreed with mustard?

Sometimes, giving sterile hybrids however. But there is a recorded case of a speciation through interbreeding of cabbage and turnip (also in the Brassicaceae family I think): the fertilized ovum went through a polyploidy (copying all the chromosomes without splitting the cell) so that each descendant cell had two copies of all the cabbage chromosomes and two of all the turnip chromosomes, and thus the new plant could breed with itself, but not with either cabbage or turnip. Unfortunately this species has a root like a cabbage and foliage like a turnip!

[bob x]

I watched a rather interesting program last night detailing the Coelacanth. Seems these fish have changed very little in 250 to 300 million years. The program showed a live fish in action and how the lobe fins operate. I did notice a number of things though, like:

This fish lives in deep water. While it has been suggested that it or its direct relatives may be (are! from the more "devout") the predecessor to tetrapods, the coelacanth cannot live in shallow water for more than a few hours. So much for crawling out onto land...

The coelacanth is an "actinist crossopterygian". The "rhipidistian crossopterygians" were the shallow-water group; they are now extinct, unless you count all their tetrapod descendants.

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by bob x

GO TO A LIBRARY. He is not citing to "obscure" journals but to journals you should be able to find on the shelves just about anywhere.

Besides the imposition on my precious little free time, is it not the onus of the original presenter to "prove" it and allow for peer review?

Evolution happens by small steps. After a hundred speciations, the resemblance to the original is meager.

Which is where I can agree with the application of time. However, once again, are these "speciations" not more appropriately called sub-speciations until such time as the offspring are no longer able to interbreed with the parent stock in order to be truly classed as "species?"

Sometimes, giving sterile hybrids however. But there is a recorded case of a speciation through interbreeding of cabbage and turnip (also in the Brassicaceae family I think): the fertilized ovum went through a polyploidy (copying all the chromosomes without splitting the cell) so that each descendant cell had two copies of all the cabbage chromosomes and two of all the turnip chromosomes, and thus the new plant could breed with itself, but not with either cabbage or turnip. Unfortunately this species has a root like a cabbage and foliage like a turnip!

I recall reading of this. A researcher in Russia performed this in the lab in the middle of the 20th century. Turnip, as I recall from the paper, is *not* in the brassica family, which made the experiment rather remarkable. Ah, I believe my memory is tricking me, so I must correct myself. Turnip is brassica, so the cross was with a radish as I recall. Root of cabbage, leaves of radish.

However, do we then include laboratory examples along with natural and field hybrids? What of Alba the genetically engineered rabbit? Is she to be counted as a new species? Or boiengineered crops, like corn merged with BT?

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, bobx!

Originally Posted by bob x

The coelacanth is an "actinist crossopterygian". The "rhipidistian crossopterygians" were the shallow-water group; they are now extinct, unless you count all their tetrapod descendants.

Very well. I would have thought the program might have pointed this out.

Here is the link:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/fish/

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Just as much evidence as there is to say that a small stream over 1.8 billion years can do the trick; basic hydraulogy. Multiply "small" by 1.8 billion and cascade across through a funnel over the course of one year. The end result is the same.

I would not discount the possibilty that the draining of an inland sea down the path of the grand canyon actualy happened or that is in part responsible for the formation of the canyon as we see it. But why cant both theories be true? The colorado river maybe continued the work of that original deluge.
The Grand canyons walls are composed of relitively soft sedimentry limestones and sandstones for most of its depth. The youngest of those are found in the Kaibab and Coconino Plateaus and date from around 250-285 million years old and show in the fossils found there that this was once a warm shallow sea. This time corresponds to the same time frame as 'the ocean of Kansas' that you so kindly shared a link. If that sea did indeed drain by way of the Grand Canyon in such a cataclysmic way then we would be unlikely to see the meandering pattern we observe. If you take a sandcastle and put a slow steady trickle of water to it the effect is very different than throwing a bucket full of water with some force. Try it for yourself.
The earliest fossils found in the canyon are stromatolites with an age of around 1250million years old. All the rocks older than that are metamorphic and so contain no fossils.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Tao Equus!

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

I would not discount the possibilty that the draining of an inland sea down the path of the grand canyon actualy happened or that is in part responsible for the formation of the canyon as we see it. But why cant both theories be true? The colorado river maybe continued the work of that original deluge.
The Grand canyons walls are composed of relitively soft sedimentry limestones and sandstones for most of its depth. The youngest of those are found in the Kaibab and Coconino Plateaus and date from around 250-285 million years old and show in the fossils found there that this was once a warm shallow sea. This time corresponds to the same time frame as 'the ocean of Kansas' that you so kindly shared a link. If that sea did indeed drain by way of the Grand Canyon in such a cataclysmic way then we would be unlikely to see the meandering pattern we observe. If you take a sandcastle and put a slow steady trickle of water to it the effect is very different than throwing a bucket full of water with some force. Try it for yourself.
The earliest fossils found in the canyon are stromatolites with an age of around 1250million years old. All the rocks older than that are metamorphic and so contain no fossils.

Indeed, and no problem. Most likely it probably was a "somewhere in between" reality that is factual truth. Which only goes to verify how inaccurate our guesswork is. Purely speculating, if the Grand Canyon had been on one end of this sea, it would fully account for fossils much older than the actual creation of the canyon itself. I seem to recall reading that the Dino fossil finds were concentrated in small areas, such as one might expect if a flood event occured. However, since I have not seen this myself, I cannot confirm it. I might also point out the scablands (?) formation in Washington state, which is acknowledged by geologists to have occured in a very rapid manner.

[Vajradhara]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Speciation

1. M Nei and J Zhang, Evolution: molecular origin of species. Science 282: 1428-1429, Nov. 20, 1998. Primary article is: CT Ting, SC Tsaur, ML We, and CE Wu, A rapidly evolving homeobox at the site of a hybrid sterility gene. Science 282: 1501-1504, Nov. 20, 1998. As the title implies, has found the genes that actually change during reproductive isolation.

2. M Turelli, The causes of Haldane's rule. Science 282: 889-891, Oct.30, 1998. Haldane's rule describes a phase every population goes thru during speciation: production of inviable and sterile hybrids. Haldane's rule states "When in the F1 [first generation] offspring of two different animal races one sex is absent, rare, or sterile, that sex is the heterozygous [heterogemetic; XY, XO, or ZW] sex."Two leading explanations are fast-male and dominance. Both get supported. X-linked incompatibilities would affect heterozygous gender more because only one gene."

3. Barton, N. H., J. S. Jones and J. Mallet. 1988. No barriers to speciation. Nature. 336:13-14.

4. Baum, D. 1992. Phylogenetic species concepts. Trends in Ecology and Evolution. 7:1-3.

5. Rice, W. R. 1985. Disruptive selection on habitat preference and the evolution of reproductive isolation: an exploratory experiment. Evolution. 39:645-646.

6. Ringo, J., D. Wood, R. Rockwell, and H. Dowse. 1989. An experiment testing two hypotheses of speciation. The American Naturalist. 126:642-661.

7. Schluter, D. and L. M. Nagel. 1995. Parallel speciation by natural selection. American Naturalist. 146:292-301.

8. Callaghan, C. A. 1987. Instances of observed speciation. The American Biology Teacher. 49:3436.

9. Cracraft, J. 1989. Speciation and its ontology: the empirical consequences of alternative species concepts for understanding patterns and processes of differentiation. In Otte, E. and J. A. Endler [eds.] Speciation and its consequences. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA. pp. 28-59.

10. Callaghan, C. A. 1987. Instances of observed speciation. The American BiologyTeacher. 49:3436.

(Without ready access to these first ten “claims,” they might as well be someone quoting scripture at me from a religious book I have only heard of. There is no evidence here I can confirm or deny…)

well... you could visit a library and see if they have back issues of Nature, Science and other texts.

you shouldn't believe any of these scientists, as they are all part of the EAC

Pretty much the whole list must be taken as “gospel.” There is so little reference that can be verified. Those references that could be verified in all but possibly one instance prove my point, sub-speciation, * not * true speciation.

incorrect, Juan, scientific theories are not the Good News. you shouldn't accept a single scientific theory unless you can demonstrate it to your own satisfaction.

is "true speciation" like "true Scotsmen" and "true Christians"?

metta,

~v

[Vajradhara]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Besides the imposition on my precious little free time, is it not the onus of the original presenter to "prove" it and allow for peer review?

they have been peer reviewed... that's how one gets articles published in Nature and Science

hey.. you don't have to believe me, you could ask someone like Dr. Behe, for instance, who is now currently arguing for the inclusion of Intelligent Design being part of the biology class.

metta,

~v

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Vaj!

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

incorrect, Juan, scientific theories are not the Good News. you shouldn't accept a single scientific theory unless you can demonstrate it to your own satisfaction.

Indeed, or at the very least consistent argument using terms that are not variable in value.

is "true speciation" like "true Scotsmen" and "true Christians"?

Or perhaps like "true Buddhists?" Should I dig out your reply to my question from long ago when I asked you to define "species?" And then demonstrate the variable application in contrast to that definition over what now, three major threads (some over 200 posts)? May I refresh with the link you provided demonstrating the problem of consistent classification and use of the term "species" among biologists, how even among researchers there is conflict and inconsistent application of the term? May I provide the many contributions from multiple contributors that highlight the very problems I have been demonstrating, specifically holding cosmetic appearance as "proof" of speciation? Shall I tear apart and analyze those threads and count the discrepencies?

Would you accept the raw evidence that took place right before your very eyes?

[wil]

They say currently Americans are at an all time high with fertility issues...some reports as high as 25% having reproductive problems...definitely double digits cannot conceive normally....new species?

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by wil

They say currently Americans are at an all time high with fertility issues...some reports as high as 25% having reproductive problems...definitely double digits cannot conceive normally....new species?

Definitely!!! I propose the name Homo McDonalds!!!

[bob x]

Besides the imposition on my precious little free time, is it not the onus of the original presenter to "prove" it and allow for peer review?

It has already been peer reviewed. If you do not trust the scientific community to review evidentiary claims, then you can look into the matter yourself. But you don't want to do that either.

However, once again, are these "speciations" not more appropriately called sub-speciations until such time as the offspring are no longer able to interbreed with the parent stock in order to be truly classed as "species?"

In most of the speciation events on the talk-origins list, it was verified that the offspring were no longer able to interbreed with the parent.

What of Alba the genetically engineered rabbit? Is she to be counted as a new species?

Is there any barrier to interbreeding with other rabbits? If not, then certainly no. If it is impossible to breed Alba with other rabbits, then certainly yes. If there are intermediate levels of difficulty then we have a semantic issue about where to draw species lines.

I might also point out the scablands (?) formation in Washington state, which is acknowledged by geologists to have occured in a very rapid manner.

Yes indeed. When these happen in a very rapid manner, the signs are unmistakable. If the Genesis flood had occurred, there should be scablands everywhere on earth, which there are not. An undulating canyon like the Colorado is not like a scabland formation at all, and shows every sign of a gradualist rather than abrupt history.

[Vajradhara]

b'Shalom Juan,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Kindest Regards, Vaj!

Indeed, or at the very least consistent argument using terms that are not variable in value.

indeed, it's rather odd how words can have multiple meanings depending on their context and the understanding of those using them.

Or perhaps like "true Buddhists?"

what, pray tell, is a "true Buddhist"?

Should I dig out your reply to my question from long ago when I asked you to define "species?" And then demonstrate the variable application in contrast to that definition over what now, three major threads (some over 200 posts)? May I refresh with the link you provided demonstrating the problem of consistent classification and use of the term "species" among biologists, how even among researchers there is conflict and inconsistent application of the term? May I provide the many contributions from multiple contributors that highlight the very problems I have been demonstrating, specifically holding cosmetic appearance as "proof" of speciation? Shall I tear apart and analyze those threads and count the discrepencies?

Would you accept the raw evidence that took place right before your very eyes?

if you are willing to spend the time doing that, don't you think that it would be a more wise use of your time to investigate the referenced claims?

you can, of course, do what you'd like to do. you can quote and cite and chastise as much as you see fit. regardless of my lack of precision or understanding, it is what it is.

metta,

~v

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by bob x

It has already been peer reviewed. If you do not trust the scientific community to review evidentiary claims, then you can look into the matter yourself. But you don't want to do that either.

I see, since I remarked I do not have the time to do someone else's homework, the onus falls on me. Nice attempt to dodge, but no dice. Over the last year and a half I have printed out and studied enough material to compose an encyclopedia, albeit a small one, to add to my already long interest in this subject. So I think your snide comment is a bit below the belt, don't you think?

What is the matter? Not accustomed to logical challenges to dogma? Of heretical students daring to challenge the status quo? Scared of the white underbelly being exposed for what it is???

And to think, I'm just having a little fun!

In most of the speciation events on the talk-origins list, it was verified that the offspring were no longer able to interbreed with the parent.

Very well, I will return and have a look. Considering the very start acknowledges (truthfully!) that there is conflict over the meaning of the term "species," perhaps I should give them more than average consideration. We will see.

Is there any barrier to interbreeding with other rabbits? If not, then certainly no. If it is impossible to breed Alba with other rabbits, then certainly yes. If there are intermediate levels of difficulty then we have a semantic issue about where to draw species lines.

Since she is confined, we will likely never know if she can breed.

Yes indeed. When these happen in a very rapid manner, the signs are unmistakable. If the Genesis flood had occurred, there should be scablands everywhere on earth, which there are not. An undulating canyon like the Colorado is not like a scabland formation at all, and shows every sign of a gradualist rather than abrupt history.

Likewise, considering research done by Glen Morton, I do not think the Genesis flood was global. But there are signs of flood in places, and a littany of cultural myths regarding the matter to suggest there was some type of wide scale flood calamity that did strike very late in pre-historic or very early in historic times. The question regards how much over where. Whether or not this would include the Grand Canyon is open to question.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Vaj!

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

indeed, it's rather odd how words can have multiple meanings depending on their context and the understanding of those using them.

For a poet, this is acceptable. For scientific nomenclature, it is not.

what, pray tell, is a "true Buddhist"?

What is a true Scotsman, or a true Christian?

if you are willing to spend the time doing that, don't you think that it would be a more wise use of your time to investigate the referenced claims?

Actually, those I could find on the 'net, I have. I haven't the time to travel 30 miles out of my way to peruse for many hours through science mags.