Skip to comments.
New evidence that natural selection is a general driving force behind the origin of species
Vanderbilt University ^
| 23 February 2006
| Staff
Posted on 02/24/2006 4:12:32 AM PST by PatrickHenry
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100 ... 281-286 next last
To: PatrickHenry
Nice study, but over-hyped.
To: DesertSapper
Check out the caption for the first pic in the article: "...a type of leaf beetle that is in the process of transforming into a new species." This article's Darwinist author either doesn't agree with you or he has a working crystal ball.Who is correct? Inquiring minds want to know!
LOL... If one of your options is, "the reporter is an idiot," you will never go broke betting on that option.
To: CarolinaGuitarman
"Sorry if the truth hurts." Amazingly, I heard my 11-year-old son use that exact quote to make a point just yesterday.
That isn't an attack on your intellect - just your trite comment. I want believe that a macro-evo like you can hold a conversation with a Creationist like me without the whole thing devolving (ha ha) into name-calling. So far, not so good.
Congratulations. You read my previous post and managed to miss the whole point.
So, back to the issue at hand . . . was your statement correct and the author's assumption just a wish -or- was your statement wrong and the author's claim the truth?
63
posted on
02/24/2006 6:01:42 AM PST
by
DesertSapper
(I love God, family, country . . . and dead Islamofacist terrorists !!!)
To: Right Wing Professor
Nice study, but over-hyped. Agreed, but I get a lot of my new thread material from university press releases, and the boys in the news office are responsible for the hype. It sure beats posting the latest spin from creationist websites.
64
posted on
02/24/2006 6:26:49 AM PST
by
PatrickHenry
(Virtual Ignore for trolls, lunatics, dotards, scolds, & incurable ignoramuses.)
To: PatrickHenry
The specific question that Funk and his colleagues set out to answer is whether there is a positive link between the degree of adaptation to different environments by closely related groups and the extent to which they can interbreed, what biologists call reproductive isolation. By which the writer means "the extent to which they can't interbreed." He/she/they (Staff) did the same thing ealier, saying "... the relationship between natural selection and the ability to interbreed." "Inability to interbreed" made more sense.
65
posted on
02/24/2006 6:30:42 AM PST
by
VadeRetro
(Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
To: donh
A petri dish enables you to avoid such messy problems. Plus, of course, a "host mother" of sufficient size.
There's nothing they can't do these days!
66
posted on
02/24/2006 6:33:31 AM PST
by
muawiyah
(-)
To: Phil Connors
but... but... the Bible says God made the world in seven days!Seven of his days, 7000 billion or more of our days.
67
posted on
02/24/2006 6:33:47 AM PST
by
Dustbunny
(The Islam of the terrorists is not a religion it is a CULT whose leader is Satan.)
To: DesertSapper
" Congratulations. You read my previous post and managed to miss the whole point."
I got it. I just rejected it.
"So, back to the issue at hand . . . was your statement correct and the author's assumption just a wish -or- was your statement wrong and the author's claim the truth?"
Neither. Your understanding of both the article and my post was in error. Speciation isn't needed for natural selection to take place. That doesn't mean that natural selection can't lead to speciation. It just means that speciation does not equal natural selection.
68
posted on
02/24/2006 6:34:18 AM PST
by
CarolinaGuitarman
("There is grandeur in this view of life...")
To: phantomworker
It's a tautology, and a rather arbitrary one at that.
69
posted on
02/24/2006 6:34:39 AM PST
by
muawiyah
(-)
To: PatrickHenry
70
posted on
02/24/2006 6:37:41 AM PST
by
azhenfud
(He who always is looking up seldom finds others' lost change.)
To: PatrickHenry
Thankfully FReepSpeak is, at last, trademarked.
To: azhenfud
To: WildHorseCrash
A thought on life ~ it's so old, and so technologically advanced, that it really doesn't matter into which universe it is placed (or to which it travels of its own volition, or someone else's), it can, in some way, shape or form SURVIVE. This characteristic is what is misleading us concerning how it works.
73
posted on
02/24/2006 6:38:53 AM PST
by
muawiyah
(-)
To: PatrickHenry
I think FReepSpeak needs a spokesperson. Perhaps a Miss Peak.
74
posted on
02/24/2006 6:46:34 AM PST
by
js1138
(Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.)
To: Pontiac
50,000 years...a small drop in the bucket.
In addition, many dogs cannot produce viable offspring if mated with a wolf. I would say my Shitzu is not the same species as a dog.
As for man, the bigger you get, the longer it takes. And, if you think that Austrailian aboriginese and Swedish people don't show the results of geographic isolation - you're on a different planet.
Furthermore, many dog breeders destroy "non conforming" traits within the breed - they are trying to weed out the genes that would cause change.
75
posted on
02/24/2006 6:49:40 AM PST
by
KeepUSfree
(WOSD = fascism pure and simple.)
To: Pontiac
Zebras are more closely related to the Ass and can not successfully mate with the horse.Actually they can. It's called a "Zorse".
76
posted on
02/24/2006 6:53:03 AM PST
by
Shade2
To: PatrickHenry; Ichneumon
Funk and his colleagues saw a way to address this question by extending a method pioneered by two scientists in a now classic study of species formation in fruit flies published in 1989. The original method measured the way in which reproductive isolation varies with time. It proved to be very powerful and a number of other researchers applied it to additional species. This is one of the key lines of the whole article--the very link to speciation--but that's all they say about it. How can I understand what this new study means, if I don't understand the 1989 study? They don't give you much of a handle to find out more. It was done by "two scientists" in 1989, that much I know.
PH, do you have a link about that 1989 study? Icky, do you have a boilerplate about it?
To: Shade2
"Actually they can. It's called a "Zorse"."
A Zorse, like a mule, is sterile.
78
posted on
02/24/2006 7:13:40 AM PST
by
CarolinaGuitarman
("There is grandeur in this view of life...")
To: muawiyah
I'm sure it's me, but I can't make head or tails about what you're trying to say here. Sorry.
To: Physicist; Ichneumon
PH, do you have a link about that 1989 study? I can't find anything. It's up to Ich.
80
posted on
02/24/2006 7:36:43 AM PST
by
PatrickHenry
(Virtual Ignore for trolls, lunatics, dotards, scolds, & incurable ignoramuses.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100 ... 281-286 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson