Posted on 06/08/2004 3:30:58 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
There exists no paper trail for you between the ages of four months and seven months. Begone, phantom!
"Whether the two closely related fruitfly populations, designated Drosophila mojavensis and Drosophila arizonae, represent one species or two is still debatable among biologists"
And...
"biologists haven't been able to put their finger on just what initiates the reproductive isolation."
And...
"Further experiments demonstrated that the sterility trait is caused by more than one genetic change. "I think there are many genes--4 or 5 probably, maybe many more," Reed predicted."
And...
"There's a huge amount of biodiversity out there, and we don't know where it comes from."
Looks like there is still plenty of research to do.
I can't even imagine what they'll think when some future biologist unearths your fossilized remains.
I'm basically hoping they'll say, "Damn if he didn't get all the mileage out of THAT body."
Excellent parody of the creationist position, but it is a bit on the vicious side. Lets play nicely, now.
"...a bit on the vicious side. Lets play nicely, now."
That was being nicey-nice, even after 2 cups of good Columbian joe.
Yep, a decent set of hemispheres...
I'm not totally clear on the theory here. Is it the changes in the female fly's genes that causes the sterile hybrid or is it the male's??? You'd have to use one male and several females then several males and one female to distinguish the difference. The text isn't clear on this.
Well, the Department of Homeland Security evinces one Creationist claim. There was a communications gap between the FBI and the CIA. Now there are two gaps between the DHS and FBI and between the DHS and CIA. In this case, the two gaps are at least as wide as the first gap. Not to mention the Kenndey's Missle Gap, General Turgidson's Mineshaft Gap, and Candidate Kerry's General Giap. (Last sentence no verb, in the rain.)
Explanation for literal-minded creos: As in ... "Win one for the Gapper."
Indeed; there was an attempt several years ago to compile a master list of Creationist arguments, and assign an unique numerical designation to each one, such that we could all reduce the amount of typing expended on these threads. Basically, when a Creationist showed up and invoked one of the standard arguments, the Evo's would look it up, and reply: "Ah; that's #47, to which the standard rebuttal is Evo argument #14.... thank you for participating in the discussion."
Unfortuneately, it did go over very well.....
According to this Negros and Caucasians in the early 1700's were different species. But then we became one species again in the 1960's.
Either they neeed to do a lot more work on this or they have to phrase things much better
I meant: "did NOT go over well"
I thought we decided it had already been done: An Index to Creationist Claims.
Thank you for your thoughtful contribution.
That is kind of an unclear statement. I don't think it really refers to preferences (i.e., I prefer to exchange genes with redheads but that doesn't mean that my descendants will form a separate species from brunettes) but rather talks about different species that CAN interbreed but do not do so under natural conditions (such as tigers and lions, who can create liger and tigon hybrids)
Thanks, that'll spark my day.
Actually, it's a rarely discussed phenomenon that Australian aborigines who conceive children with non-aborigines tend to have extremely high rates of miscarriage and stillbirth. This is likely attributable to the 70,000-50,000 year genetic separation of aborigines from the rest of mankind.
Got any hybrid info on other distinct groups like pygmies?
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.