Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Picky female frogs drive evolution of new species in less than 8,000 years
UC Berkeley News Center ^ | 27 October 2005 | Robert Sanders

Posted on 11/02/2005 10:54:52 AM PST by PatrickHenry

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 241-260261-280281-300 ... 341-347 next last
To: Amish with an attitude
Things have really begun to slip for you evolutionists when junk science starts to look like "a welcome break".

You have the expertise to criticize the scientific research methods of these evolutionary biologists based on a press release? Impressive.

Science isn't junk just because you don't like the outcome.

261 posted on 11/03/2005 7:31:00 AM PST by Quark2005 (Science aims to elucidate. Pseudoscience aims to obfuscate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 260 | View Replies]

To: RunningWolf
Yeah, I believe the earth is flat and I believe you're a moron.

I forgot evos have no sense of humor.

I am a human being created to be a human being. Can't speak for you.

Honesty still isn't your strong suit, is it?

And I enjoy imaging the veins popping out of your neck every time you reply to me.

I don't call people morons, I don't accuse people of having no sense of humor, I don't call people inhuman, I don't call people liars, and I don't post just to get a rise out of folks. These examples are from this thread alone.

I can only come to the conclusion mlc9852 is trolling.

Now, if you have a point to make about my posts, make it.

262 posted on 11/03/2005 7:40:25 AM PST by Liberal Classic (No better friend, no worse enemy. Semper Fi.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 236 | View Replies]

To: Quark2005

I do admit succumbing to the moment by using a tactic from page one of the evoulutionists play book.

I guess it's time to banish me to placemarkerdom.


263 posted on 11/03/2005 7:42:29 AM PST by Amish with an attitude (An armed society is a polite society)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 261 | View Replies]

To: Quark2005

I would dare say you have NO IDEA what a "one catastrophe" could or could not do, one castatrophy, could have many different compositions weather,deluges,respites,deluges, earthquakes,tremors,earthquakes,eruptions,steamvents,respites, repeat. not to mention how this would effect radiometric decay(unknowable pressures,temperatures,leaching,etc..).multiple strata doesn't demand long ages.

fossil fish scream out rapid burial and preservation/hardening, the are preserved with no sign of decay.


264 posted on 11/03/2005 7:57:06 AM PST by flevit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 259 | View Replies]

To: flevit
I would dare say you have NO IDEA what a "one catastrophe" could or could not do, one castatrophy, could have many different compositions weather,deluges,respites,deluges, earthquakes,tremors,earthquakes,eruptions,steamvents,respites, repeat.

So you're a saying that the "catastrophe" that you hypothesize is violent enough to cause massive geological and meteorological upheaval but that it very neatly deposited tribolites and primitive cephalopods in Paleozoic strata, dinosaurs in Mesozoic strata, modern mammals in Cenozoic strata. Interesting.

...not to mention how this would effect radiometric decay(unknowable pressures,temperatures,leaching,etc..)

We know exactly what this would do to radioactive decay. It would cause varying unrelated isotopic dating methods to give disparate results. When this type of result is observed, there is not enough statistical certainty to give an exact date. However, when "calmer" processes such as slow sedimentation cause rock formation, different dating methods given a very statistically certain date, sometimes to a certainty of 0.3% in certain K-Ar dating processes. A catastrophic upheaval cannot explain why different isotopic dating methods would collude to give an exact dating result.

multiple strata doesn't demand long ages.

No, but the age it takes to deposit multiple strata leaves signs determinable not only from radiometric dating but sequence stratigraphy - this area belongs to the research field of sedimentology.

fossil fish scream out rapid burial and preservation/hardening, the are preserved with no sign of decay.

Rapid burial, yes. Rapid hardening? Fossilization takes hundreds of thousands of years. What mechanism do you propose that suddenly turns bone into solid rock?

I certainly hope you don't think we should replace modern biology and earth science education with this sort of reasoning. We're in serious trouble as scientifically advanced nation if that ever becomes the norm.

265 posted on 11/03/2005 8:17:11 AM PST by Quark2005 (Science aims to elucidate. Pseudoscience aims to obfuscate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 264 | View Replies]

To: Amish with an attitude
I do admit succumbing to the moment by using a tactic from page one of the evoulutionists play book.

You mean you actually did years of real research work, formulated hypotheses, wrote research papers, submitted them peer review and had them published in an actual respected journal, invited broader peer review and eventually had your groundbreaking results published in a respected journal like Nature or New Scientist? I'm interested in seeing your work.

266 posted on 11/03/2005 8:19:45 AM PST by Quark2005 (Science aims to elucidate. Pseudoscience aims to obfuscate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 263 | View Replies]

To: Liberal Classic; mlc9852
After reading your links the context to what was said to mlc, I disagree with your contention that mlc is trolling. Thats the way I see it you might see it different.

I already answered your demand and said that I am sure some of your posts are very good.

I don't know if you are a scientist or not but if you are, my point is I would like to see more science.

Wolf
267 posted on 11/03/2005 8:46:11 AM PST by RunningWolf (tag line limbo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 262 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe
Wrong question. Is it more likely that these frogs have taken a unusually fast track to evolve into separate species or is an external factor causing embryonic and 'early childhood' developmental problems for the populations? I believe it was a nematode or some such which was causing frogs to develop extra limbs and other malformations here in the states. Industrial pollution (pesticides?) got the rap first, but turned out to not be the case. For instance, in this article fungus is cited as a problem.

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.

A significant difference between the case you are citing and the frogs in the article is that your case is about a phenomenon that appeared within a single community of frogs and the article's case is about a split group that only exhibits the defect when interbred. However, your suggestion that exposure of one group to a pathogenic or parasitic environmental agent might have happened. In that case, it would have contributed to the environmental pressures that, through natural selection, favored genetic drift that was successful at overcoming this change to the environment.

However, while an infected parent might pass along a pathological infection to its offspring, it is unlikely that this would become a heritable entity. Especially if the infectious pathogen prevents viability.

In short, a pathogenic infection is more likely to have been a factor responsible for the genetic drift of one group than to have become a heritable trait itself.

268 posted on 11/03/2005 9:16:06 AM PST by Antonello
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 250 | View Replies]

To: Antonello

Lamarck lives!


269 posted on 11/03/2005 9:22:41 AM PST by furball4paws (One of the last Evil Geniuses, or the first of their return.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 268 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe; mlc9852
And here, all this time we thought it was the seismic data. Hmmmm. Have to have a talk with the guys in geophysics....

The OP, mlc852, on these threads has repudiated the earth sciences, because they show no evidence whatsoever for a global flood around 5,000 years ago. So she won't be interested in anything that the geophysics boys have to say any more than she is interested in hearing from the biologists. She also said, prior to that that her only argument is with evolution, so either (a) she is one confused bunny, or (b) she is one of the many creationists who calls all science that contradicts her religious beliefs "evolution". That particular inanity is more common than you might think. She has a lot of opinions about all kinds of stuff, but remains strangely (well, not strangely at all) evasive whenever the subject of creationists lying under oath in the courtroom comes up.

270 posted on 11/03/2005 9:25:40 AM PST by Thatcherite (Feminized androgenous automaton euro-weenie blackguard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 245 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite

Doh! Should have said misspeaking of course. It sounds so much less sinful. Misspeakers still get to heaven, I reckon.


271 posted on 11/03/2005 9:28:20 AM PST by Thatcherite (Feminized androgenous automaton euro-weenie blackguard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 270 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite
I thought they were IDers and not creationists, though I have a hard time keeping them straight. And why would you think the flood happened only 5,000 years ago? Could have been much longer, couldn't it? And I love science. I often post interesting science articles. I just don't buy evolution as in humans came from ape-like creatures. I have stated the same thing over and over yet you continue to state things I have never said. And you have the nerve to complain about others lying. Maybe they lied, maybe they didn't. Are you familiar with depositions before a trial and then what is stated at trial? Often different because people forget things. But we will see how the judge rules soon and then we can stop having these silly arguments.
272 posted on 11/03/2005 9:35:48 AM PST by mlc9852
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 270 | View Replies]

To: furball4paws; Smokin' Joe
Lamarck lives!

Is that a comment regarding the sentiment Smokin' Joe is demonstrating, or have I inadvertently suggested that the physical development of the parent is gifted to the child?

(Smokin' Joe pinged as a courtesy since I mentioned his name)

273 posted on 11/03/2005 9:36:12 AM PST by Antonello
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 269 | View Replies]

To: mlc9852
You: Sorry - I believe the flood happened and it was world-wide and that eventually Noah's ark will be found. Until then, I have faith.

Me: So your earlier statement that you just reject evolution was false. You reject geology, paleontology, hydraulics, soil mechanics, genetics, botany, zoology, amongst others. And you don't reject evolution, on the contrary you require it to have been operating at breakneck speed for the few-hundred years between the flood receding and widely-recorded history, since full biological diversity had already been restored by then.

You: You summed it up very well. Thanks.

Well, well well, lets see part of your most recent post on this issue:

And I love science. I often post interesting science articles. I just don't buy evolution as in humans came from ape-like creatures. I have stated the same thing over and over yet you continue to state things I have never said.

Everyone, living proof that a compulsive misspeaker needs a good memory.

274 posted on 11/03/2005 9:51:57 AM PST by Thatcherite (Feminized androgenous automaton euro-weenie blackguard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 272 | View Replies]

Misspeaking is a poor idea when all of your words are on record placemarker.


275 posted on 11/03/2005 9:53:28 AM PST by Thatcherite (Feminized androgenous automaton euro-weenie blackguard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 274 | View Replies]

To: Antonello
I was referring to an ongoing infection of a population, or resistance thereto. Similar to the resistance europeans had to smallpox, but the Indians did not, only affecting the ability of the species to interbreed. The separate populations may be separated by viral infection as well.

Inherited disease is not one of Lamark's ideas, iirc, any more than congenital syphilis.

276 posted on 11/03/2005 10:02:13 AM PST by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 273 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite

Where do you see a conflict?


277 posted on 11/03/2005 10:09:13 AM PST by mlc9852
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 274 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite

Do you see this as a political or scientific matter? I think it is more political for you.


278 posted on 11/03/2005 10:11:57 AM PST by mlc9852
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 274 | View Replies]

To: Antonello

"However, while an infected parent might pass along a pathological infection to its offspring, it is unlikely that this would become a heritable entity. "

Didn't mean to impugn you. Obviously if the acquired trait is passed down it's Lamarckian, so you pass with flying colors, but it's not easy to figure out if SJ agrees with that.

The best I can gather is that he thinks a pathological infection could be a force for Natural Selection, as well it might.

But one has to be real careful with parasites. If the parasite is relatively specific as its host(s) and it's too successful, then it dooms both its host and itself.


279 posted on 11/03/2005 10:16:27 AM PST by furball4paws (One of the last Evil Geniuses, or the first of their return.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 268 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe

But the genetic transmission of resistance to an infection would be Lamarckian, unless it was rooted in some genetically superior immune system. Then it wouldn't be specific to any particular disease.

P.S. I think you are referring to measles, not smallpox, with the American Indians. the American Indians never were exposed to measles until it was too late. Most Europeans had constant exposure to it and had developed an immune response. Bam! Not a natural resistance like partial sickle cell anemia does for Africans against malaria.


280 posted on 11/03/2005 10:25:33 AM PST by furball4paws (One of the last Evil Geniuses, or the first of their return.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 276 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 241-260261-280281-300 ... 341-347 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson