Ex-Teacher Testifies in Evolution Case [Day 3 of trial in Dover, PA]

The Intelligencer (PA) via phillyBurbs ^ | 28 September 2005 | MARTHA RAFFAELE

[connectthedots]

i believe that at least some of the claims have been discouted recently, especially the ring species argument; even by evolutionists.

[Quark2005]

i believe that at least some of the claims have been discouted recently, especially the ring species argument; even by evolutionists.

Please cite where this has occurred in a reputable journal or mainstream scientific literature. Ring species are an excellent example of speciation in action. It has not been discredited.

Given how much change has been directly observed in living organisms, one is hard-pressed to think of reason why observed biodiversity couldn't have arisen in the 3.5 billion year history of life on earth.

In any case, the evidence in favor of evolution remains so overwhelming that a competent biology teacher couldn't not teach it in good conscience.

[From many - one.]

google "ring species"

[Tribune7]

I'd started off considering the actual men who participated in developing the Constitution, but adapted to a wider meaning when you included the local people who were designing and running townships.

Local groups were the ones who put religion in the public schools. The feds were basically neutral remember.

I suspect that even today if you left it up to local groups -- without fear of lawsuit -- the school day would be started with a prayer in most places, and the Bible would be read.

About the only groups who have actively crusaded against religion in school were cranks like O'Hair and Newdow , the ACLU, and activist leftist judges.

[b_sharp]

"And you can name which primates that have the same number of chromosomes as humans? That would only be a start.

The number of human chromosomes is one less than the chimp's because we've had two fuse together where chimps have not.

Chromosome fusion verified

Pictures of fused chromosome

[Tribune7]

Assuming that questioning the Word of God (the Bible) might be considered blasphemy,

It's not.

Concerning the other rather harsh mandated penalties, why do you think they are bad? . . . Because I personally don't think death is appropriate in those cases . . .the established punishments for breaking them, should be devised using a more logical reasoning system.

Can you articulate why you believe this? Why would it be illogical to punish someone harshly for being caught breaking a taboo?

[b_sharp]

"So your answer is "No"? A like number of chromosomes would seem to be rather indicative of an ability to mate, wouldn't it? And by the way, what are the odds of identical mutations occuring in both a male and female of one species resulting in a new speciea at the same time, in the same location, having both survive to adulthoods, finding one another and then successfully mating and having their offspring survive. I would say the odds are zero."

And you would be wrong.

Trisomy and Beyond

________________________________
Richard Harter.

Here is a partial answer: There are a number of ways that chromosomal structure and number can change between generations. The simplest is doubling -- a diploid becomes a tetraploid. This is quite common in plants, less so in animals. Chromosomes can fuse; this is responsible for the difference between chimpanzees (48 chromosomes) and humans (46 chromosomes). There are other changes which affect structure but not number. A very common case is that a section of a chromosome will be duplicated, i.e. there will be multiple copies of a gene.

The important point is that [mostly] it doesn't matter on which chromosome a gene is on or how many copies of the gene there are. This isn't universally true -- life is messy in the details -- but it is true enough so that rearrangements of the chromosomes is feasible.

_____________________________________
Howard Hershey

Nothing could be easier. Simple Robertsian chromosome fusions and fissions suffice. These chromosomal abberations, as well as inversions and translocations that can produce telomeric chromosomes (those with the centromere at the end) are quite common *within* species. Since speciation is thought to occur in small populations at the edge of an environmental niche and these changes in chromosomes can help keep gene combinations together when there is still outbreeding, the fact that speciation often involves chromosomal rearrangements of some sort is hardly surprizing. In some cases, chromosomal rearrangements are *part* of the process of reproductive isolation.

_____________________________________
John Harshman?

There will be no problem during fertilization. In cases where an organism is heterozygous for a "fusion" or a "splitting" of a chromosome [or other major translocation-type events] the corresponding chromosome parts may still recognize one another and thus pair up properly during meiosis. [one chromosome may pair with two of the other set].

Wild populations are known showing surprising variability in chromosome numbers; in other cases the variation within a species is geographic.

In some cases, fertility of the F1 hybrids is impaired by chomosome pairing problems at meiosis but is not completely eliminated... subsequent generations may show restored fertiity.

_______________________________________
Howard Hershey

A tiny little bit too little (small deletion) is sometimes functionally irrelevant (depending upon which little bit is lost). Small duplications are, in fact, important to evolution - they can provide a spare gene that already does something that can be modified to do something slightly different while retaining the original functional gene. But big gains or losses (whole chromosomes, aneuploidy) can often be detrimental (in animals, plants are more tolerant).

*Rearrangements* of the information (reciprocal translocations, Robertsian translocations, inversions) are often well tolerated. After all, all the genetic information is still there. It's just in a different order. Most of the differences between species represent such rearrangements.

Interestingly enough, gains of whole sets of chromosomes (polyploidy) is usually less harmful than gain of a single chromosome (again, particularly in plants but also in humans - even though it is still fatal in humans).

Although there are some species where the haploid genome of the egg or sperm actually functions, for most species the nature of the DNA packaged in the sperm or egg (present or not, defective or not, rearranged or not) has absolutely no effect on the ability of the sperm and egg to form or fuse.

An exception must be made for paracentric inversions (one that does not contain the centromere) when the parent is heterozygous for an inversion. If (and only if) there is a recombination event within the inverted region, this can lead to the inability of a gamete to form properly. This is because a dicentric chromosome is produced (as well as an acentric fragment). The dicentric chromosome can lead to two-headed sperm or to these chromosomes not being included in the one (out of four) haploid genome that becomes the egg. Inversions and translocations can (sometimes) *reduce* fertility (but don't eliminate it). But *only* when the abberation is in a heterozygous or hybrid state. However, these abberations also allow beneficial gene combinations to become physically linked to each other. If this benefit is sufficient, you can quickly generate a localized subpopulation of individuals that are homozygous for the inversion. This subpopulation is fully fertile among themselves but less fertile with the larger population. In such a circumstance, mutations or behaviours that lead to reproductive isolation (speciation) might be positively selected for.

But that is more genetics than you probably need. Short answer is that chromosomal differences between species is not only possible, but should be relatively common.

_____________________________________________

"Seems? Seems = speculation"

Get used to it. Science is always couched in those terms.

[b_sharp]

"Which makes a new species from a different species even more improbable.

Speciation does not occur in one generation. Individuals do not speciate, populations do.

Check into ring species.

[b_sharp]

"You don't know what a species is, and say speciation occurs.

Recognition of a species is inexact because nature is a continuum. Species is a human construction, don't reify the idea.

"You can't say if the hominids interbred.

It does not matter.

"Mergers are not accounted for in the trees of life.

All you have shown are individual mergers. These individuals would not be included because the tree is based on populations.

"NS as a ToE is central to biology. But really hasn't had an major impact in medicine. Or any any other major tech application either.

That would be a surprise to those developing new crops and those studying virii and bacteria.

"As always, NS is a crappy theory. Crappy definitions, crappy logic, and overstated importance.

We know how you feel. We also know your opinion is meaningless to the ToE.

"So where are the mergers in the trees? We know the mergers exist.

Because 'mergers' are not a large enough phenomena and the resolution of the tree is not that good.
Hybrids are on occasion included in taxonomy.
The tree is not the end all and be all of evolution.

[b_sharp]

How different do two organisms need to be before they are different species?

[b_sharp]

What are the differences between 1) two related but different species and 2) the non-breeding ends of the continuum in the ring species?

[Doctor Stochastic]

I thought of posting about such a country, but I ran from the idea.

[Doctor Stochastic]

De Beers

[connectthedots]

Speciation does not occur in one generation. Individuals do not speciate, populations do.

It would have to occur from one generation to the next. the reality is that for speciation to be true, the offspring of on set of parents would have to be a different species. there is nothing gradual about this requirement. Isn't this the very reason evolutionists had to come up with 'punctuated equilibrium'?

[Antonello]

Can you articulate why you believe this?

I spent 3 paragraphs articulating my opinion in my last post. Accept it, or don't.

[Antonello]

>Assuming that questioning the Word of God (the Bible) might be considered blasphemy,

It's not.

If we lived in that biblical land, and I wanted you dead, and I was in power (or favored by those in power) and you weren't, you would be dead. No question.

[Dark Knight]

Did you read what you wrote?

Each section said you want to be ignorant.

Sounds like NS.

DK

[From many - one.]

"It would have to occur from one generation to the next. the reality is that for speciation to be true, the offspring of on set of parents would have to be a different species."

Wrong.

"there is nothing gradual about this requirement."

Wrong...it's not a requirement and sciation is gradual, just like the transition from green to blue on a spectrum

"Isn't this the very reason evolutionists had to come up with 'punctuated equilibrium'?"

Wrong on two counts: it's not the reason for punctuated equilibrium and that's not what punctuated equilibrium is.

[bobdsmith]

Each square represents an individual. A column of individuals represents a population. Individuals with similar colors are more closely related, and are more able to breed. Individuals with colors too far apart cannot breed with each other and are therefore different species.

Individuals in generation 1 and generation 7 are too far apart to interbreed. They are therefore different species.

But there is no point of speciation. There is no point at which a parent produces an offspring which is a different species from itself. Speciation occurs over many generations.

[Tribune7]

I spent 3 paragraphs articulating my opinion in my last post.

but I believe laws, and the established punishments for breaking them, should be devised using a more logical reasoning system. One more in keeping with the magnitude of how a given criminal act damages others.

You say you believe this. Can you say why you believe this?

Some might warrant a restriction of privileges, others might be a matter for civil restitution. And while I can envision some crimes, such as murder, as being so grievous as to warrant the surrender of life, nothing on that list meets this definition to me.

In other words, these punishments violate your sensibility. Where does this sensibility come from?

Not to mention that the more casually death is applied, the easier it is for someone with an ulterior motive to conceivably twist common actions to construe that someone committed a crime worthy of death.

Why would you think this is a bad thing?