Replies

The new study – published online in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences – provides empirical support for the proposition that natural selection is a general force behind the formation of new species by analyzing the relationship between natural selection and the ability to interbreed in hundreds of different organisms – ranging from plants through insects, fish, frogs and birds – and finding that the overall link between them is positive.

Funk and his colleagues realized that if they used the results of these studies and added an ecological dimension then they would have an approach capable of measuring the link between natural selection and reproductive isolation.

I can think of a couple of on going experiments that refute the natural selection evolution theory quite well.

The first is dogs. Man has removed dogs from the environment and breeding population of wolves for at least 50,000 years. The physical appearance and behavioral make up of dogs has become much different than that of wolves and yet they can breed quite well.

The second is man. Many instances of populations of human populations are isolated for thousands of years in diverse environments and yet when those populations are introduced to other populations breeding readily takes place.

Another would be horses with the same circumstances as dogs and the same out come.

Man has been doing what by Darwin’s theory says should produce new species that can not reproduce with the old species for tens of thousands of years yet man has failed to produce a new species. Dogs are still wolves in reality and horses are still horses.

"The first is dogs. Man has removed dogs from the environment and breeding population of wolves for at least 50,000 years. The physical appearance and behavioral make up of dogs has become much different than that of wolves and yet they can breed quite well."

1) That's artificial selection
2) Not all dogs can/will breed with wolves.
3) This artificial selection is a great support for natural selection

"The second is man. Many instances of populations of human populations are isolated for thousands of years in diverse environments and yet when those populations are introduced to other populations breeding readily takes place."

1) Natural selection isn't defined by speciation. It's defined by adaptation to the environment. There is nothing about the fact that people can interbreed that goes against this.
2) A few thousand years is a very short time for speciation to happen. Isolation is not a guarantee that speciation will happen.

"Man has been doing what by Darwin’s theory says should produce new species that can not reproduce with the old species for tens of thousands of years yet man has failed to produce a new species."

Darwin was well aware of selective breeding, far more than you. People have not been trying to make new species. And we have been at it for only a very short time even if we were. That being said, scientists have witnessed speciation.

But zebras are horses too ~ and there are different kinds of zerbras, even "negatives" and "positives". Still trying to figure out what sort of "magic force" natural selection is that it takes perfectly good animals who live out on a grassy plain, and gives some of 'em white stripes, and some of 'em brown stripes, and tells them to try to stay apart when breeding.

I'm more inclined to think genetic change is at work, and the gene flow isn't just from your mommy and daddy ~ some of it must come from infection by viruses that leave behind parts of themselves in your genome.

In fact, all I have to do is examine your genome very carefully to see if, voila, there are any viral genes in there. Think I'd have luck?

I can think of a couple of on going experiments that refute the natural selection evolution theory quite well.

The first is dogs.

I'd pay to see you try to cause a successful union between a Great Dane and a teacup poodle.

The second is Man.

Man is amongst the slowest breeders in the world, and there has been no significant biological isolation of note for humans on this planet, by comparison to our leasurely breeding speed.

the third is horses.

Do you know what jennies and mules are? I suggest you look it up if you don't.

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.