Posted on 01/13/2010 12:57:24 PM PST by decimon
From your post: The extreme toxicity of the rough skinned newt Taricha granulosa APPEARS to have coevolved with resistance in its predator, the common garter snake.
The sun appears to circle the earth. That doesn’t make it so.
But his point, tangentially, DID have something to do with what happens in isolated “islands”, you get weird effects like the evolution of huge rodents and dwarf elephants, as well as the “founder effect”. There are also numerous cases of an evolutionary “arms race” either between or within species. That is basic biology and is well supported by evidence.
But so far, as I have continually noted, I have found zero evidentiary support that “the island effect”, the “founder effect”, or any evolutionary “arms race” contributed to the evolution of the abundance of highly poisonous species in Australia.
And, as I also noted, the “arms race” would be between predator and prey, exacerbated possibly by the abundance of OTHER poisonous species; but it isn't like there is some evolutionary “battle to the death, winner take all, may the most venomous reptile win!” criteria.
I think TTR had an interesting idea; but it lacks at least one essential thing before it could be a theory.... evidence to support it.
And if one “googled it” as I did, they didn't find much to support TTR’s idea either, just the basic hypothesis behind his idea.
I agree that people need to back up their claims, and “google it” is one of my least favorite cop outs, even if when you did you found exactly what they asserted, but especially when you do NOT (as I did not).
Your quibble that they used the word “appears” makes you look like a fool.
If they had said “the extreme toxicity of the newt DID coevolve with resistance in its predator” that would be an example of how scientists are NOT supposed to write about their findings.
So what you are saying is that “scientists” are supposed to support their hypothses with pixie dust and “it seems like it should be that way”. All I was saying to TTR was if he couldn’t show me that laboratory studies have shown that over a number of generations the toxicity of venom increased as the prey became resistant, then I am free to call his assertion bunk. So I will. TTR’s assertion of the hypothesis he stated is bunk.
I forgot. I guess calling me a name is scientific.
Scientists (no need for the scare quotes, as they do indeed perform science) need to always couch their language in unassailable terms such as “the evidence suggests”.
Even if they turn out to be incorrect because of new evidence, they are absolutely correct that the OLD evidence suggested what they claimed.
Those that hate science usually try to have it both ways. One one hand they claim that scientists always say things as if they were 100% true; and in their next breath they claim that scientists are always using worlds like “appears” and “suggests” in order to imply that scientists do not know what they are talking about.
But all they do by that tactic is make quite apparent that they are unfamiliar with the rudiments of the scientific method and scientific thought.
“allopatric speciation” -— a much more eloquent statement of my hypothesis.
It would be much more in line with scientific language to say “1r1 appears to be a fool” or “the evidence suggests 1r1 is a fool”.
My own statement was that your quibble about the language “appears” in a scientific abstract makes you look like a fool, and it does; as it illustrates your unfamiliarity with the basics of how scientific data is presented.
So you’re still lurking and letting others do your fighting for you. Can’t you just say that your assertion of the hypothesis is only presumed, not proven.
You are wasting your time interacting with an anti-science troll.
I noticed. Thanks for the heads up.
Thanks.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.