Posted on 11/02/2005 10:54:52 AM PST by PatrickHenry
I understand the basic genetic theory, but am shaving with occam's razor. Did anyone check?
Don't cut yourself.
Occam refers to two competitive scientific theories. I can't see another one. If you got ID in mind. Please keep it there. ID has no explanatory power.
I read the research this article is based on, if that's what you mean...
I find it highly unlikely a parasite or other external force is involved when they do controlled matings in the lab.
Even the researchers said that they found a mere 8000 years to be remarkable fast for the development of a new species.
Might the incompatibility be due to another organism, parasitic or otherwise, that the other frog population had not been exposed to affecting interpopulational fertility?
Moving them to a lab would not necessarily get rid of the parasites, virii, etc..
Did anyone check for that or were they in such a rush to have their ego step on someone's ID?
There is your other theory.
I asked, you flamed. Lovely science.
And here, all this time we thought it was the seismic data. Hmmmm. Have to have a talk with the guys in geophysics....
Thank you. I'll order it as soon as I can afford it, hopefully within the next two or three weeks.
The abstract doesn't allude to any relationship between speciation and evolution in this particular case. Does the full text do that, and if so, what does it say?
In a quote in the article, Hoskins admits to speculation, but the abstract doesn't mention that, so I'm curious about the extent of this speculation. But I'm not sure what questions to ask. I think I'd need to read their reasoning, and see what assumptions were used.
The article says there are significant differences between the males in the two populations, but only mentions two, neither of which seems major on the face. What does the full text say about this?
Also, does the full text provide any data about genetic differences between the two populations? Are there any genetic differences?
sounds like what can be demostrated with extant species (tiny steps) and your description of the fossil record are inconsistent.
First of all, generally, yes, it would, especially over several controlled matings, the ability to observe and assay embryos, in vitro fertilizations, etc.
Might the incompatibility be due to another organism, parasitic or otherwise, that the other frog population had not been exposed to affecting interpopulational fertility?
No. It's not fertility that's affected. It's a developmental problem in the offspring. Southern females and northern males have lots of babies - the babies don't (can't) develop into adults because of genetic deficiencies.
Consider also that their research is based on comparative molecular studies between the mitochondrial DNA of the northern frogs and the southern frogs. You mentioned Occam's razor. Is it more likely that an external force is causing such differences between them (especially developmental problems) or that the observable differential molecular sequence is causing a differential phenotype? :)
I can count on one hand the number of anti-evolutionists on these threads who even attempted to have all their ducks in a row before posting. You ain't one of them.
Here, extra legs and here Scientific American, page 2 mentions parasites other causes are noted.
It takes no great leap to find potential for attribution here, well outside of aberrantly rapid evolution. Isolated populations will be exposed to different environmental factors, including vegetation, chemicals (natural and manmade, the latter in precipitation or runoff) and quite possibly different pathogens. One population exposed to a chemical (natural or manmade) or a pathogen, be it viral, bacterial, fungal, or parasitic, will naturally successfully breed only those who can adapt to or are resistant to that pathogen or chemical and still produce viable young.
That change could handily occur in just a few generations, not even 8000 years.
The other population, not exposed, might not fare as well if the pathogen or traces of the chemical are transferred in the act of breeding and that population has little or no natural resistance to the pathogen.
You have to remember that the fossil record doesn't preserve every step in the evolutionary chain. Most dead animals & plants just rot away; only a tiny fraction of 1% are preserved as fossil imprints. It is a spotty, haphazard means of preservation; it can easily give the appearance of "discrete" steps. Many of the intermediary steps are either lost to the winds of time or remain under the ground, waiting to be uncovered.
You're spreading ignorance. Ignorance of science, ignorance of the facts in this case. For the sake of the lurkers, we need to combat it.
If we don't, then the willful ignorance may win - it's far easier and more seductive.
She also refuses to condemn the lies of the school board in this case. She expressed a limp "lying is wrong" but won't admit that the school board lied, which is a new level of dishonesty.
I'll give her this, though: she's recently admitted that she has no interest in facts. That's some bizarre honesty about dishonesty - I don't know quite where to fit that statement in my catergories of creationist lies.
all you have done is provided an explanation of why the fossil record doesn't match with extant demonstrations. if it is haphazard, it still shouldn't be selective, it should still provide evidence of the long chain of minute changes. These minute changes are the only demonstrable "evolution".
the fossil record, records dead things, the so-called "evolutionary chain" is one explanation (granted the most conventionally excepted explination) of the fossil record.
the bible told of mass extinction long before man (tried to divide it up into 6-7 mass extinctions)found the fossil record.
That's all I've attempted to do. To say it doesn't "match" extant demonstrations is really not a totally accurate statement; a more accurate statement would be that the fossil record doesn't (usually) provide enough information in and of itself to draw gross conclusions about the nature of minute evolutionary changes one way or the other.
These minute changes are the only demonstrable "evolution".
This is the only direct evolution we observe, true; but the consequences of evolutionary theory are observable on many more lines of evidence than just microevolutionary adaptation/change and the fossil record provide. Morphological similarities and variations amongst related species and biogeographical distribution provide a wealth of information. With the advent of genome sequencing, direct tests can also be made using statistical mutation rates to see how long distinct lineages have been separate.
the fossil record, records dead things, the so-called "evolutionary chain" is one explanation (granted the most conventionally excepted explination) of the fossil record.
I know of no other scientific explanation that provides such a consistent model of life.
the bible told of mass extinction long before man (tried to divide it up into 6-7 mass extinctions)found the fossil record.
There are definitely multiple mass extinctions in the past, the Permian extinction being the most catastrophic. This knowledge is provided by extant geological evidence pointing to the strata where the relevant fossils are found. (Again, other lines of inquiry seem to point to the same conclusions...)
As oil becomes more difficult to find, better exploration techniques help keep oil production economical. Seismic data gives us the reflectivity of different layers of strata, but it doesn't tell us the whole story. When looking for oil, micropaleontology helps us understand the environment at the time sediments were laid down, and this helps us determine which formations are likely to contain oil deposits. Micropalenontology is also helpful when looking for coal, for the same reason.
Sorry, geological evidence just doesn't accomodate one mass extinction. The fossils are deposited in multiple strata separated by hundreds of millions of years. Radiometry and sedimentation analysis of the surrounding rocks prove this. One catastrophe could not deposit huge numbers of layers of dirt, instantly condense them to rock, then deposit more layers of dirt that instantly turn into rock, etc. Not to mention that each strata in the column give radiometric dating rates that correspond to gradual accumulation. And the fact that particular fossils are only found in the appropriate strata (no method of deposition can explain that).
Things have really begun to slip for you evolutionists when junk science starts to look like "a welcome break".
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.