“For what it’s worth:”
No much: here’s why.
“a powerful and tractable comparative model to test natural selection’s role in the speciation process”
opening with a conclusion. not promising; classic manipulative technique. let’s see if it’s true.
“two benthics or two limnetics from different lakes that evolved in complete isolation for thousands of years”
LOL!! “evolved in complete isolation for thousands of years”. How do they know this? Did the stickleback tell them? I though evolution took millions of years, not mere thousands! that whole premise smells bad.
“Repeatedly we see the same mechanism of reproductive isolation evolve in lock step with adaptation to their environment”
what a load of tardedness. “mechanism of reproductive isolation” = they won’t mate, mate.
“Natural selection is the only process that can do that.”
ooh. another conclusion with nothing to back it up. I’m soooo impressed.
(blah filler)
“equivalent of tetrapod hind limbs in most sticklebacks. Schluter had found this only once before in the five other British Columbia species pairs.”
only once before!!?? wow.
“Could the same mutation be at work in the Little Quarry Lake fish?”
could you have ANY less to write about?
“post-glacial stickleback feature”
hey look, it’s a premise. everyone wave to the nice premise.
“they probably don’t stem from ancient, preexisting mutations”
oh I just looove “probably” articles, don’t you?
so, with a bunch of sciencey, high-sounding words to make you think they know what they are talking about, what they are basically saying is, there was a mutation, they don’t know why, they don’t know what, they don’t know where. but the have LOADS of premises and assumptions and conclusions and religious worldviews they’d just love to shove down your throat on the basis of it though.
Ha ha, I’ve got to hand it to ya!
Let’s see how the thread turns out... I’ll be checking back for any refutations to what you’ve just posted.