Ecological Speciation in Action
All-seeing-I
and "willow leaf beetles" may be in the process of dividing into two
new species: Each prefers to feed and lay eggs on their own "host
plant," where they grow and survive best.
Although there is some intermixing, the beetles show a decided
preference for mates from the same host. While maple and willow
beetles are visually indistinguishable, the current degree of their
divergence is highlighted by the willow beetles' willingness to starve
to death rather than feed on the maple leaves readily consumed by
their maple beetle cousins."
[]
"Additionally, the scientists examined what happens when the hybrids
mate with pure willow beetles and pure maple beetles. The hybrids all
receive half their genes from one parent and half from the other. So,
when a hybrid mates with a willow beetle, the genome of their
offspring, called backcrosses, have 75 percent willow beetle and 25
percent maple beetle genes. Similarly, when a hybrid is mated with a
maple beetle, the genome of their offspring is 75 percent maple beetle
and 25 percent willow beetle."
http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20091001214747data_trunc_sys.shtml
I thought I had found a real example of speciation divergence.
But in the end, all they really have is another variation of the
'beetle'. Kinda like breeding a wolf and a dog.
oh well.
Do people actually get paid to spend 15 years breeding beetles only to
report it is speciation? I think I picked the wrong major in college,
sheesh...
Mike Dworetsky
Hamburgerology?
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)
Boikat
> "Their past observations have suggested that such "maple leaf beetles"
> and "willow leaf beetles" may be in the process of dividing into two
> new species: Each prefers to feed and lay eggs on their own "host
> plant," where they grow and survive best.
>
> Although there is some intermixing, the beetles show a decided
> preference for mates from the same host. While maple and willow
> beetles are visually indistinguishable, the current degree of their
> divergence is highlighted by the willow beetles' willingness to starve
> to death rather than feed on the maple leaves readily consumed by
> their maple beetle cousins."
>
> []
>
> "Additionally, the scientists examined what happens when the hybrids
> mate with pure willow beetles and pure maple beetles. The hybrids all
> receive half their genes from one parent and half from the other. So,
> when a hybrid mates with a willow beetle, the genome of their
> offspring, called backcrosses, have 75 percent willow beetle and 25
> percent maple beetle genes. Similarly, when a hybrid is mated with a
> maple beetle, the genome of their offspring is 75 percent maple beetle
> and 25 percent willow beetle."
>
> http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20091001214747data_trunc_sys.shtml
>
> I thought I had found a real example of speciation divergence.
You did, fool. You're just too willfully ignorant to realize it,
mainly because you've already decided speciation doesn't happen.
>
> But in the end, all they really have is another variation of the
> 'beetle'. Kinda like breeding a wolf and a dog.
Willful idiocy.
>
> oh well.
>
> Do people actually get paid to spend 15 years breeding beetles only to
> report it is speciation? I think I picked the wrong major in college,
> sheesh...
Riding past a college on "the short bus" does not equal "going to
college", much less mjoring in anything.
Boikat
Devils Advocaat
wrote:
Or Flipapattinomics under Prof Náměstí Kalhoty
John Harshman
> "Their past observations have suggested that such "maple leaf beetles"
> and "willow leaf beetles" may be in the process of dividing into two
> new species: Each prefers to feed and lay eggs on their own "host
> plant," where they grow and survive best.
>
> Although there is some intermixing, the beetles show a decided
> preference for mates from the same host. While maple and willow
> beetles are visually indistinguishable, the current degree of their
> divergence is highlighted by the willow beetles' willingness to starve
> to death rather than feed on the maple leaves readily consumed by
> their maple beetle cousins."
>
> []
>
> "Additionally, the scientists examined what happens when the hybrids
> mate with pure willow beetles and pure maple beetles. The hybrids all
> receive half their genes from one parent and half from the other. So,
> when a hybrid mates with a willow beetle, the genome of their
> offspring, called backcrosses, have 75 percent willow beetle and 25
> percent maple beetle genes. Similarly, when a hybrid is mated with a
> maple beetle, the genome of their offspring is 75 percent maple beetle
> and 25 percent willow beetle."
>
>
> http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20091001214747data_trunc_sys.shtml
>
>
> I thought I had found a real example of speciation divergence.
>
> But in the end, all they really have is another variation of the
> 'beetle'. Kinda like breeding a wolf and a dog.
The beetle? There are more species of beetle than of all other animals
put together. If beetles are a single "kind", then radical "speciation
divergence" is possible, whatever that term is supposed to mean.
> oh well.
>
> Do people actually get paid to spend 15 years breeding beetles only to
> report it is speciation? I think I picked the wrong major in college,
> sheesh...
You went to college?
Friar Broccoli
.
Dead on. Absolutely brilliant.
TomS
<2-udnSNmn9j...@giganews.com>, John Harshman stated..."
Creationists don't seem to care very much when it comes to non-humans.
They don't care if there is evolution between different flies, as being
within the "fly kind", and I've seen them brushing off evolution within
the "bacteria kind".
>
>> oh well.
>>
>> Do people actually get paid to spend 15 years breeding beetles only to
>> report it is speciation? I think I picked the wrong major in college,
>> sheesh...
>
>You went to college?
>
There are plenty of things which are quite important to study, which
are ridiculed by the ignorant. Think of the study of the genetics of
fruit flies. Or of the factorization of integers.
--
---Tom S.
the failure to nail currant jelly to a wall is not due to the nail; it is due to
the currant jelly.
Theodore Roosevelt, Letter to William Thayer, 1915 July 2
jillery
> "On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 06:08:59 -0800, in article
>
> - Show quoted text -
/sarcasm/
Damn atheist factorizationists!
/sarcasm/
Greg G.
>
> - Show quoted text -
How did integers evolve? What good is half an integer?
Nick Keighley
> I thought I had found a real example of speciation divergence.
>
> But in the end, all they really have is another variation of the
> 'beetle'. Kinda like breeding a wolf and a dog.
but most beetle "kinds" won't inter-breed. It is reasonable to say
they are distinct species.
All-seeing-I
WTF do -you- call it then?
A beetle is a beetle even if you get so say they are different.
I do not see the bettles evolving into anything else other then
another kind of bettle, do you?
> > oh well.
>
> > Do people actually get paid to spend 15 years breeding beetles only to
> > report it is speciation? I think I picked the wrong major in college,
> > sheesh...
>
> You went to college?
Which one.
Jim
and a plant is a plant, an animal is an animal. Thus, any differences
between any two animals can be attributed to simple variation within a
kind, right? WTF is a 'kind'?
>
> I do not see the bettles evolving into anything else other then
> another kind of bettle, do you?
Since I suspect the variation within beetles exceeds that within
mammals, I suppose it is fair to then allow 'variation within mammal
kind' to explain the diversity of mammals, and to accept evolution as
the cause.
Cripes, why not just lump all of Arthropoda into 'bug kind', and
everything too small to see with the naked eye as 'germ kind'.
<snip>
Friar Broccoli
.
.
> A beetle is a beetle even if you get so say they are different.
>
> I do not see the bettles evolving into anything else other then
> another kind of bettle, do you?
So if evolution/speciation within the Beetle kind is OK; is it also OK
within the Mammal kind? If not, why should those two kinds be treated
differently?
Will in New Haven
Over time, though, fish-kind evolved into land animals, which are
quite a different kind. You say you don't see it and I have to show it
to you? Well, I don't. I am not here to convince you.
I am here to laugh at you.
--
Will in New Haven
All-seeing-I
wrote:
It is reasonable to say they developed reproductive isolation
If the dog and wolf develop reproductive isolation are they magically
no longer canids?
Fiery
You mean the same way that chimps and humans are still Hominids even
though they developed reproductive isolation?
Caranx latus
Both would still be canids. Reproductive isolation has nothing to do
with inherited characteristics, and they are canids because of their
inherited characteristics.
All-seeing-I
Don't be so obtuse.
The bible says "each after his own kind". So, it does not simply say
"kind".
Two fruit trees can be grafted together to make a third kind of fruit
or variation of the original two.
Can you graft a fruit tree and a nut tree together?
Both are trees. Why not?
They are not -->after -->their-->own -->kind.
That's why.
This is not rocket science.
You may have a new variation of the beetle now, but, the new beetle
happens to be after his own kind, ---the two original beetles.
Nothing beyond this has ever been witnessed to take place on this
planet.
But please feel free to show otherwise. Please feel free to show how a
population of fish can give rise to anything other then ---more fish.
Please Show your work.
GO!
____________________________________
All-seeing-I
So mammals inherited their characteristics from fish?
hahahahah!!
All-seeing-I
While you are laughing, can you explain the process that took fish to
mammels with some examples?
Show Your Work:
GO!!
Caranx latus
> On Jan 16, 11:35嚙窮m, Jim <jimwille...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 16, 12:19嚙緘m, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
> > between any two animals can be attributed to simple variation within a
>
> > > I do not see the bettles evolving into anything else other then
> > > another kind of bettle, do you?
>
> > Since I suspect the variation within beetles exceeds that within
> > mammals, I suppose it is fair to then allow 'variation within mammal
> > kind' to explain the diversity of mammals, and to accept evolution as
> > the cause.
>
> > Cripes, why not just lump all of Arthropoda into 'bug kind', and
> > everything too small to see with the naked eye as 'germ kind'.
>
> Don't be so obtuse.
>
> The bible says "each after his own kind". So, it does not simply say
> "kind".
>
> Two fruit trees can be grafted together to make a third kind of fruit
> or variation of the original two.
You might care to review what grafting accomplishes. It isn't a way to
produce a new variety of fruit.
<snip>
Caranx latus
Some of their characteristics, yes, but not all. Bilateral symmetry,
vertebral column, general morphology (exclusive of limbs), and
probably quite a number of other characteristics as well. The general
structure of the mammalian limbs comes from the basal tetrapods, and
there are lots of characteristics that derive from other transitional
species that appeared between fish and mammals.
All-seeing-I
God created both so it is natural they share characteristics or common
design. However, it is not clearly established with conclusive
evidence that man is a hominid.
1) Man could be a variation of hominid
2) Man could be a special creation
3) Man could be a hybrid
1,2,3 According to science, religion and ancient texts respectively
Caranx latus
I've just looked at the defining characteristics of a hominid:
<http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/sciences/Zoology/
Animalclassification/PrimateTaxonomy/Hominids.htm>
and I can assure you that I am one.
--- begin quote ---
1. teeth: small front teeth (canines and incisors) and very large
molars relative to other primate species;
(The reduced canine size is associated with the absence of a
diastema, a gap between the canine and the premolar, which accomadates
a large canine in ape and monkey species. The large molars may be an
adaptation to a diet based on relatively hard vegetable foods such as
nuts, berries, and grains that were abundant in the grasslands.)
2. posture: bipedalism, involving numerous anatomical adaptations
including:
1. a fully erect stance and gait,
2. shortening of the arms relative to the legs,
3. restructuring of the pelvic bones for weight bearing,
4. restructuring of the foot or weight bearing, involving the
loss of toe opposability;
3. hands: increased manual dexterity involving a lengthening of the
thumb;
4. brain: increase in brain size, especially in the frontal lobes;
5. face: reduction in the musculature and bone mass of the skull
and face involving a flattening of the muzzle area.
--- end quote ---
If these characteristics don't apply to you, interesting questions
will need to be asked.
All-seeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -
OK. List the steps it tool for a population of fish to give rise to a
population of mammals.
Please show your work.
Caranx latus
> population of mammals.
>
> Please show your work.
We've been through this before, [M]adape. You didn't pay attention
then. How should I expect that this time will be any different?
However, I will make you a deal. Your request is a request for
evidence. I will provide that evidence to you after you've identified
the original Sumerian text that describes the use of IVF.
All-seeing-I
[cut what is already at the link]
> If these characteristics don't apply to you, interesting questions
> will need to be asked.
Was that a stab at dry humor? --good job.
Aparantly you do not understand.
1) Man could be a variation of hominid
2) Man could be a special creation
3) Man could be a hybrid
1,2,3 According to science, religion and ancient texts respectively
All three would allow for man to have characteristics of a Hominid but
not be a full Hominid. With the exception of number 1. Number one
would mean that evolutionary theory is correct and man is just a
variation of hominid.
But number 1 is highly unlikely. The physical characteristics may be
the same, but the mental, emotional and intelligence levels are not.
Unless you think apes can amass enough knowledge to fly to the moon by
natural means alone. Is that what you believe?
Do you actually believe that apes acquired enough knowledge by natural
means alone to fly to the moon?
THAT is funny.
However, numbers 2 and 3 would explain the vast differences in
cognitive abilities.
Caranx latus
Just like we could have the characteristics of an animal, but not be a
full animal? Just like we could have the characteristics of a
craniate, but not be a full craniate? Just like we could have the
characteristics of a vertebrate, but not be a full vertebrate? Just
like we could have the characteristics of a tetrapod, but not be a
full tetrapod? Just like we could have the characteristics of a
amniote, but not be a full amniote? Just like we could have the
characteristics of a mammal, but not be a full mammal? Just like we
could have the characteristics of a primate, but not be a full
primate?
> With the exception of number 1. Number one
> would mean that evolutionary theory is correct and man is just a
> variation of hominid.
>
> But number 1 is highly unlikely.
Just because you say so? Don't think I can accept that. In fact, #1 is
the most likely of the three scenarios, given the evidence that we
have for any of them.
> The physical characteristics may be
> the same, but the mental, emotional and intelligence levels are not.
I like the way that you cherry pick the characteristics that most
define us a human and use those to declare that we have no
relationship to any other organism, simply because they don't share
those characteristics. If you were a giraffe, you'd probably have
written something like:
"The physical characteristics may be the same, but the neck
length and the capacity of the heart to pump blood to the brain
are not."
All species have something that sets them apart from other species,
even those to which they are closely related. You're cherry picking.
> Unless you think apes can amass enough knowledge to fly to the moon by
> natural means alone. Is that what you believe?
Inasmuch as humans are apes, yes, *some* apes have indeed done just
that. Not all apes, though. Just those that we designate as humans.
And not all of them either. Amassing knowledge is not a characteristic
of individuals or species, but of cultures.
> Do you actually believe that apes acquired enough knowledge by natural
> means alone to fly to the moon?
>
> THAT is funny.
>
> However, numbers 2 and 3 would explain the vast differences in
> cognitive abilities.
Just because you say so, eh? Not good enough by a long shot.
All-seeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -
Actually you backed out last time. You claimed you did not have the
time but you would soon.
Still waiting.
Can you show the steps fish took to give rise to humans? Can you show
your work with some transitionals? I'll even accept transitionals as
far apart as every 500000 years as long as there is a clear chain of
events shown fish becoming humans.
And the FULL sumerian version has been posted already.
jillery
> How did integers evolve?
Incrementally.
> What good is half an integer?
As much good as half a piece of chalk.
alextangent
It will come as a surprise to plant biologists if it can't be done.
Grafting two plants together is pretty easy (a method of asexual
reproduction, btw).
Noah would be surprised too; he didn't take trees on the Ark; did he
have a tree-kind seed in his pocket? They'd all be the same "kind" as a
result.
> This is not rocket science.
Right. It's horticulture.
>
> You may have a new variation of the beetle now, but, the new beetle
> happens to be after his own kind, ---the two original beetles.
>
> Nothing beyond this has ever been witnessed to take place on this
> planet.
>
> But please feel free to show otherwise. Please feel free to show how a
> population of fish can give rise to anything other then ---more fish.
>
> Please Show your work.
>
> GO!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_human_evolution
Probably been posted before, but as you seem to be unable to find
anything apart from wingnut websites, worth repeating.
>
>
> ____________________________________
>
Caranx latus
>
> > Damn atheist factorizationists!
>
> > /sarcasm/
>
Is that a rational question?
Caranx latus
> time but you would soon.
You might actually be right about that. I was thinking about:
<http://groups.google.ca/group/talk.origins/msg/23df8e2763dd041f?
hl=en>
which was an answer to your dinosaur-dog relationship incredulity.
> Still waiting.
>
> Can you show the steps fish took to give rise to humans? Can you show
> your work with some transitionals?
I probably can.
> I'll even accept transitionals as
> far apart as every 500000 years as long as there is a clear chain of
> events shown fish becoming humans.
Just to be clear here... You're asking for a coverage period of
approximately 375 million years in 1/2 million year increments? Do you
agree that you are asking for a list of 750 species? What is it that
you think would compel me to produce a list of that length? Given your
tendency to disregard information like this, why do you honestly think
that I would invest any significant amount of time producing it.
Increase the increment to 5 million years (75 species) and I'll
consider it.
It would also be a gesture of your good faith and intellectual
integrity if you would provide information to me when I ask for it.
> And the FULL sumerian version has been posted already.
I apparently missed it. Could you please link me to the post?
Devils Advocaat
And are imaginary numbers just mythical beasts?
jillery
And doing a great job of it, too.
> I am here to laugh at you.
>
> --
> Will in New Haven
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > oh well.
>
> > > > Do people actually get paid to spend 15 years breeding beetles only to
> > > > report it is speciation? I think I picked the wrong major in college,
> > > > sheesh...
>
> > > You went to college?
>
> > Which one.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
All-seeing-I
OK. What other species has invented a computer, learned to heal it's
sick and flew to the moon?
If you think humans developed these skills and cognative abilities
based on the extraordinary odds of natual processes then of course you
will accept number 1 as an explaination for man's origins.
If not, then you will accept numbers 2 or 3
Caranx latus
Another good illustration of cherry picking, and again you've chosen
activities that are largely cultural in nature rather than being
endemic to a species.
> If you think humans developed these skills and cognative abilities
> based on the extraordinary odds of natual processes then of course you
> will accept number 1 as an explaination for man's origins.
>
> If not, then you will accept numbers 2 or 3
Perhaps this is so. If it is, then surely it matters how you compare
the likelihoods of these events, doesn't it? In my case, I rely on
physical evidence, and physical evidence overwhelmingly supports #1,
and provides no support at all for #2 or #3.
You claim to rely on textual evidence, but only that which was written
in antiquity. If that were true, then you would find support for #2 or
#3, but not for #1. There are two problems with this claim however.
The first problem is that you do rely on modern textual evidence, but
only if someone has told you that it is based on the writings of the
ancients. An example of this is the claim about the relationship
between the Sumerians and IVF. This is a modern claim, with no support
in the ancient texts. But because someone has told you that it is
supported, you believe it.
The second problem is that you *do* value physical evidence to some
degree, as can be seen from your attempts to throw back any number of
false or misleading claims about physical evidence to this group
(homology, lengths of T rex teeth, etc). It is abundantly clear,
however, that you have no rational basis on which to judge the
validity of such claims, since you seem never to accept any claim that
runs even slightly counter to your beliefs.
Greg G.
Do you have an example of this. It has been done with flowers where
the root stock grew up through the scion but the plant produced the
flowers of the scion, the root stock and a strange combination.
>
> Can you graft a fruit tree and a nut tree together?
>
> Both are trees. Why not?
Good question. Can you?
>
> They are not -->after -->their-->own -->kind.
>
> That's why.
You can graft tomatoes onto potato plants with the root sock growing
potatoes and the scion producing tomatoes.
>
> This is not rocket science.
Right. The Chinese have been doing it for 22 centuries.
It is just a matter of combining good roots with a good scion that
produces the fruit, vegetable, flower, or shrub you want. The more
closely related the plants are, the more likely the fluids exchange
compatibility will be.
>
> You may have a new variation of the beetle now, but, the new beetle
> happens to be after his own kind, ---the two original beetles.
Humans and chimpanzees are much more similar to one another
morphologically and chemically than rhinocerous beetles are like
fireflies.
>
> Nothing beyond this has ever been witnessed to take place on this
> planet.
Nobody has been around long enough to witness it. Besides, things can
happen whether the events are witnessed or not, and the evidence shows
that they did happen.
>
> But please feel free to show otherwise. Please feel free to show how a
> population of fish can give rise to anything other then ---more fish.
>
> Please Show your work.
>
> GO!
>
> ____________________________________
Mudskippers! They are fish that can do what most fish cannot do, so
they are more than fish.
John Harshman
That would depend on what you mean by your special phrase. What do you
mean by it?
> A beetle is a beetle even if you get so say they are different.
So speaks a vast and arrogant ignorant of the living world.
> I do not see the bettles evolving into anything else other then
> another kind of bettle, do you?
Indeed I don't, because any descendant of a beetle would be called a
beetle, regardless of what it looked like. I don't see any vertebrate
evolving into anything else other than another kind of vertebrate either.
>>> oh well.
>>> Do people actually get paid to spend 15 years breeding beetles only to
>>> report it is speciation? I think I picked the wrong major in college,
>>> sheesh...
>> You went to college?
>
> Which one.
Was that a question? If you had been to college, you would presumably
have learned a bit about punctuation. But assuming the punctuation, what
college were you talking about?
John Harshman
Not true. If you graft one fruit tree onto another, it makes exactly the
fruit belonging to the grafted branch.
> Can you graft a fruit tree and a nut tree together?
>
> Both are trees. Why not?
Because, as has been explained to you many, many times, "fruit tree" and
"nut tree" are not taxonomic terms, and do not represent relationships.
I would bet, however, that you could graft an almond branch onto a peach
tree.
> They are not -->after -->their-->own -->kind.
>
> That's why.
Are you saying that "fruit trees" are one kind, and "nut trees" are
another? Can you in fact graft an apple to a peach? (I don't know the
answer.)
> This is not rocket science.
It isn't biology either.
> You may have a new variation of the beetle now, but, the new beetle
> happens to be after his own kind, ---the two original beetles.
So your claim is that all the beetles in the world are descended from
one original pair of beetles. Wow. It's only your complete igonrance of
science that lets you say this and yet deny that other animals are related.
> Nothing beyond this has ever been witnessed to take place on this
> planet.
>
> But please feel free to show otherwise. Please feel free to show how a
> population of fish can give rise to anything other then ---more fish.
>
> Please Show your work.
>
> GO!
No problem. Pick any slowly-evolving gene you like. Construct a nested
hierarchy using that gene. You will find that tetrapods, including
humans, are nested within the category "fish" on that hierarchy.
Therefore tetrapods most parsimoniously did evolve from fish.
John Harshman
> On Jan 16, 9:20 am, Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>> On 16 Jan, 11:23, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>> But in the end, all they really have is another variation of the
>>> 'beetle'. Kinda like breeding a wolf and a dog.
>> they are distinct species.
>
> It is reasonable to say they developed reproductive isolation
That's the definition of speciation. If they developed reproductive
isolation, they are separate species.
> If the dog and wolf develop reproductive isolation are they magically
> no longer canids?
Multiple wrong assumptions there. First, no magic is involved. Second,
they are still canids. Canidae is a family, not a species. They are,
however, different species of canids.
John Harshman
> On Jan 16, 12:06 pm, Fiery <ognje...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 16, 6:56 pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jan 16, 9:20 am, Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 16 Jan, 11:23, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>>>>> I thought I had found a real example of speciation divergence.
>>>>> But in the end, all they really have is another variation of the
>>>>> 'beetle'. Kinda like breeding a wolf and a dog.
>>>> but most beetle "kinds" won't inter-breed. It is reasonable to say
>>>> they are distinct species.
>>> It is reasonable to say they developed reproductive isolation
>>> If the dog and wolf develop reproductive isolation are they magically
>>> no longer canids?
>> You mean the same way that chimps and humans are still Hominids even
>> though they developed reproductive isolation?
>
> God created both so it is natural they share characteristics or common
> design. However, it is not clearly established with conclusive
> evidence that man is a hominid.
Actually, yes "man" is, by definition.
> 1) Man could be a variation of hominid
> 2) Man could be a special creation
No, that doesn't explain the nested hierarchy among hominids, other
primates, and all life.
> 3) Man could be a hybrid
What kind of a hybrid? What do you mean by "hybrid" here? A hybrid is an
individual with parents of different varieties or species. What are the
two species you claim "man" could be a hybrid of?
> 1,2,3 According to science, religion and ancient texts respectively
Science has actual support for this, you know. We should be able to
distinguish among these three hypotheses based on examining the genomes
of the relevant animals. And so we can. When we do that, options 2 and 3
are falsified, leaving only option 1.
Boikat
> On Jan 16, 8:08�am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > All-seeing-I wrote:
> > > "Their past observations have suggested that such "maple leaf beetles"
> > > and "willow leaf beetles" may be in the process of dividing into two
> > > new species: Each prefers to feed and lay eggs on their own "host
> > > plant," where they grow and survive best.
>
> > > Although there is some intermixing, the beetles show a decided
> > > preference for mates from the same host. While maple and willow
> > > beetles are visually indistinguishable, the current degree of their
> > > divergence is highlighted by the willow beetles' willingness to starve
> > > to death rather than feed on the maple leaves readily consumed by
> > > their maple beetle cousins."
>
> > > []
>
> > > "Additionally, the scientists examined what happens when the hybrids
> > > mate with pure willow beetles and pure maple beetles. The hybrids all
> > > receive half their genes from one parent and half from the other. So,
> > > when a hybrid mates with a willow beetle, the genome of their
> > > offspring, called backcrosses, have 75 percent willow beetle and 25
> > > percent maple beetle genes. Similarly, when a hybrid is mated with a
> > > maple beetle, the genome of their offspring is 75 percent maple beetle
> > > and 25 percent willow beetle."
>
> > >http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20091001214747data_trunc_sys.shtml
>
>
> > > But in the end, all they really have is another variation of the
> > > 'beetle'. Kinda like breeding a wolf and a dog.
>
> > put together. If beetles are a single "kind", then radical "speciation
> > divergence" is possible, whatever that term is supposed to mean.
>
> WTF do -you- call it then?
>
> A beetle is a beetle even if you get so say they are different.
>
> another kind of bettle, do you?
Of course it's going to be a new *species* of beetle. Are you
expecting something impossible, like a new species of dragonfly?
>
> > > oh well.
>
> > > Do people actually get paid to spend 15 years breeding beetles only to
> > > report it is speciation? I think I picked the wrong major in college,
> > > sheesh...
>
> > You went to college?
>
> Which one
So, how many colleges did you work for as a janitor?
Boikat
Boikat
> On Jan 16, 11:35嚙窮m, Jim <jimwille...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 16, 12:19嚙緘m, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
> > between any two animals can be attributed to simple variation within a
>
> > > another kind of bettle, do you?
>
> > mammals, I suppose it is fair to then allow 'variation within mammal
> > kind' to explain the diversity of mammals, and to accept evolution as
> > the cause.
>
> > Cripes, why not just lump all of Arthropoda into 'bug kind', and
> > everything too small to see with the naked eye as 'germ kind'.
>
> Don't be so obtuse.
>
> The bible says "each after his own kind". So, it does not simply say
> "kind".
"Kind" is a meaningless term in biology.
>
> Two fruit trees can be grafted together to make a third kind of fruit
> or variation of the original two.
Idiot.
>
> Can you graft a fruit tree and a nut tree together?
>
> Both are trees. Why not?
Dumbass.
>
> They are not -->after -->their-->own -->kind.
"kind" of what?
>
> That's why.
>
> This is not rocket science.
No. It's biology, and something that is apparently beyond your
limited ability to grasp.
>
> You may have a new variation of the beetle now, but, the new beetle
> happens to be after his own kind, ---the two original beetles.
Yet different. Geee.
>
> Nothing beyond this has ever been witnessed to take place on this
> planet.
Speciation has been observed. Not your "bizzaro" version, however.
>
> But please feel free to show otherwise. Please feel free to show how a
> population of fish can give rise to anything other then ---more fish.
That's been explained to you before, you dishonest little cretin.
>
> Please Show your work.
>
> GO!
Not that it will do any good, since you are too dishonest, and to
afraid, to look:
http://www.uky.edu/KGS/education/Devonian.htm
Now, do your Monnnkeey-boy dance of denial.
Boikat
Boikat
> On Jan 16, 12:06�pm, Fiery <ognje...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 16, 6:56�pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 16, 9:20�am, Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > On 16 Jan, 11:23, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > I thought I had found a real example of speciation divergence.
>
> > > > > But in the end, all they really have is another variation of the
> > > > > 'beetle'. Kinda like breeding a wolf and a dog.
>
> > > > but most beetle "kinds" won't inter-breed. It is reasonable to say
> > > > they are distinct species.
>
> > > It is reasonable to say they developed reproductive isolation
>
> > > If the dog and wolf develop reproductive isolation are they magically
> > > no longer canids?
>
> > You mean the same way that chimps and humans are still Hominids even
> > though they developed reproductive isolation?
>
> God created both so it is natural they share characteristics or common
> design.
Evidence?
> However, it is not clearly established with conclusive
> evidence that man is a hominid.
Mighty Zarquad!
>
> 1) Man could be a variation of hominid
> 2) Man could be a special creation
> 3) Man could be a hybrid
>
> 1,2,3 According to science, religion and ancient texts respectively
And 2 and 3 have no supporting evidence, so don't really count for
much, except entertainment value. "Entertainment" is a relative term.
Boikat
Boikat
> However, it is not clearly established with conclusive
> evidence that man is a hominid.
Boikat
RAM
According to bio/social sciences:
4) Man could be a species evolved to respond to threats in the
environment but also with a need for prolonged social/emotional
support. These competing emotional needs can lead to irrational
adjustments and the development of emotionally laden religious
institutions that distort social adjustments and become
dysfunctional. Thus creationism (whether Vedic, Christian or
Islamic). This can be found in the creationist agenda which allows
for (and often encourages) emotionally laden beliefs to dictate
reality and the denial of any science findings that conflict with
strongly held religious myths/beliefs about special creation of
humans, a global flood and a young earth.
Boikat
<snip>
>
> OK. What other species has invented a computer, learned to heal it's
> sick and flew to the moon?
No other species has the physical or mental capability to develope the
technology, and even the more inteligent, may not even have the
ability to imagine the concepts.
>
> If you think humans developed these skills and cognative abilities
> based on the extraordinary odds of natual processes then of course you
> will accept number 1 as an explaination for man's origins.
Due largly to the supporting evidence.
>
> If not, then you will accept numbers 2 or 3
Because all that sciency stuff takes too much effort, right?
R Brown
"All-seeing-I" <ap...@email.com> wrote in message
news:madman-4499a569-51cf-...@a15g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 16, 8:08 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> All-seeing-I wrote:
>> > "Their past observations have suggested that such "maple leaf beetles"
>> > and "willow leaf beetles" may be in the process of dividing into two
>> > new species: Each prefers to feed and lay eggs on their own "host
>> > plant," where they grow and survive best.
>>
>> > Although there is some intermixing, the beetles show a decided
>> > preference for mates from the same host. While maple and willow
>> > beetles are visually indistinguishable, the current degree of their
>> > divergence is highlighted by the willow beetles' willingness to starve
>> > to death rather than feed on the maple leaves readily consumed by
>> > their maple beetle cousins."
>>
>> > []
>>
>> > "Additionally, the scientists examined what happens when the hybrids
>> > mate with pure willow beetles and pure maple beetles. The hybrids all
>> > receive half their genes from one parent and half from the other. So,
>> > when a hybrid mates with a willow beetle, the genome of their
>> > offspring, called backcrosses, have 75 percent willow beetle and 25
>> > percent maple beetle genes. Similarly, when a hybrid is mated with a
>> > maple beetle, the genome of their offspring is 75 percent maple beetle
>> > and 25 percent willow beetle."
>>
>> >http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20091001214747data_trunc_sys.shtml
>>
>>
>> > But in the end, all they really have is another variation of the
>> > 'beetle'. Kinda like breeding a wolf and a dog.
>>
>> put together. If beetles are a single "kind", then radical "speciation
>> divergence" is possible, whatever that term is supposed to mean.
>
> WTF do -you- call it then?
>
> A beetle is a beetle even if you get so say they are different.
>
> another kind of bettle, do you?
>
coleopterans share with other arthropods?
>> > oh well.
>>
>> > Do people actually get paid to spend 15 years breeding beetles only to
>> > report it is speciation? I think I picked the wrong major in college,
>> > sheesh...
>>
>> You went to college?
>
> Which one.
>
>
bpuharic
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>"Their past observations have suggested that such "maple leaf beetles"
>and "willow leaf beetles" may be in the process of dividing into two
>new species: Each prefers to feed and lay eggs on their own "host
>plant," where they grow and survive best.
>
>Although there is some intermixing, the beetles show a decided
>preference for mates from the same host. While maple and willow
>beetles are visually indistinguishable, the current degree of their
>divergence is highlighted by the willow beetles' willingness to starve
>to death rather than feed on the maple leaves readily consumed by
>their maple beetle cousins."
>
>[]
>
>"Additionally, the scientists examined what happens when the hybrids
>mate with pure willow beetles and pure maple beetles. The hybrids all
>receive half their genes from one parent and half from the other. So,
>when a hybrid mates with a willow beetle, the genome of their
>offspring, called backcrosses, have 75 percent willow beetle and 25
>percent maple beetle genes. Similarly, when a hybrid is mated with a
>maple beetle, the genome of their offspring is 75 percent maple beetle
>and 25 percent willow beetle."
>
>
>http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20091001214747data_trunc_sys.shtml
>
>
>I thought I had found a real example of speciation divergence.
>
>But in the end, all they really have is another variation of the
>'beetle'. Kinda like breeding a wolf and a dog.
since you gotta walk before you can run, you've found a 'transitional
species'
just as darwin predicted
something evolution predicts
and creationism doesn't
bpuharic
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
>While you are laughing, can you explain the process that took fish to
>mammels with some examples?
>
>
>Show Your Work:
>
notice he doesn't show how creationism works
for 2000 years it's failed. it's a theological trailer park
bpuharic
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
..
>>
>> > But in the end, all they really have is another variation of the
>> > 'beetle'. Kinda like breeding a wolf and a dog.
>>
>> The beetle? There are more species of beetle than of all other animals
>> put together. If beetles are a single "kind", then radical "speciation
>> divergence" is possible, whatever that term is supposed to mean.
>
>WTF do -you- call it then?
>
>A beetle is a beetle even if you get so say they are different.
a beetle is a species. so is a human. if all beetles are one 'kind'
then, since humans and beetles are different species, just as beetles
are different species, humans are beetles
>
>I do not see the bettles evolving into anything else other then
>another kind of bettle, do you?
in 15 years?
you creationists...dumb as a bag of hammers
and i'm still waiting for your proof of demons and angels
bpuharic
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
>The bible says "each after his own kind". So, it does not simply say
>"kind".
>
no one knows what a 'kind' is. you yourself have claimed it can mean
'land' kinds or 'sea' kinds...or other similar trash
>Two fruit trees can be grafted together to make a third kind of fruit
>or variation of the original two.
>
>Can you graft a fruit tree and a nut tree together?
>
>Both are trees. Why not?
gee humans and mice are both mammals. you saying we're just the same
'kind'?
this is why 'kind' is meaningless
bpuharic
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
>1) Man could be a variation of hominid
we're not a VARIATION of a hominid, we ARE a hominid
>2) Man could be a special creation
and we could all have been created 5 secs ago with all our memories
intact
>3) Man could be a hybrid
>
>
>1,2,3 According to science, religion and ancient texts respectively
>
>All three would allow for man to have characteristics of a Hominid but
>not be a full Hominid. With the exception of number 1. Number one
>would mean that evolutionary theory is correct and man is just a
>variation of hominid.
what is a 'full' hominid?
creationists have, for 2000 years, not answered a SINGLE question
about their idiotic ideas.
bpuharic
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>On Jan 16, 9:20�am, Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>> On 16 Jan, 11:23, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>> > I thought I had found a real example of speciation divergence.
>>
>> > But in the end, all they really have is another variation of the
>> > 'beetle'. Kinda like breeding a wolf and a dog.
>>
>> but most beetle "kinds" won't inter-breed. It is reasonable to say
>> they are distinct species.
>
>It is reasonable to say they developed reproductive isolation
>
>If the dog and wolf develop reproductive isolation are they magically
>no longer canids?
>\\
is there ANYTHING you understand about evolution?
i read your posts...as a scientist who's not an evolutionary
biologist...
and i'm stunned at the level of ignorance creationism breeds.
no wonder christianity is a dying religion
bpuharic
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
>God created both so it is natural they share characteristics or common
>design. However, it is not clearly established with conclusive
>evidence that man is a hominid.
and if they were completely different you could say god made them
completely different
that's the wonderful thing about 'god did it'. it explains everything
so explains nothing
>
>1) Man could be a variation of hominid
>2) Man could be a special creation
>3) Man could be a hybrid
>
>1,2,3 According to science, religion and ancient texts respectively
no one accepts your view of ancient texts. this is 'ghostbusters' as a
documentary
bpuharic
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
>OK. What other species has invented a computer, learned to heal it's
>sick and flew to the moon?
this is called the 'selection' effect. it's circular reasoning
1. we were created by god
2. god is smart
3 we're smart
4 therefore we're created by god
and for 2000 years creationists haven't gotten beyond this
kindergarden logic
>
R Brown
> On Jan 16, 12:34 pm, Caranx latus <kar...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> On Jan 16, 1:17 pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > > On Jan 16, 12:56 pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > On Jan 16, 9:20 am, Nick Keighley
>> > > > <nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com>
>> > > > wrote:
>>
>> > > > > On 16 Jan, 11:23, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > I thought I had found a real example of speciation divergence.
>>
>> > > > > > But in the end, all they really have is another variation of
>> > > > > > the
>> > > > > > 'beetle'. Kinda like breeding a wolf and a dog.
>>
>> > > > > but most beetle "kinds" won't inter-breed. It is reasonable to
>> > > > > say
>> > > > > they are distinct species.
>>
>> > > > It is reasonable to say they developed reproductive isolation
>>
>> > > > If the dog and wolf develop reproductive isolation are they
>> > > > magically
>> > > > no longer canids?
>>
>> > > with inherited characteristics, and they are canids because of their
>> > > inherited characteristics.
>>
>> > So mammals inherited their characteristics from fish?
>>
>> Some of their characteristics, yes, but not all. Bilateral symmetry,
>> vertebral column, general morphology (exclusive of limbs), and
>> probably quite a number of other characteristics as well. The general
>> structure of the mammalian limbs comes from the basal tetrapods, and
>> there are lots of characteristics that derive from other transitional
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> population of mammals.
>
> Please show your work.
>
impossible to list every generation that existed between fish and tetrapods
or mammals for that matter. But nothing less will satisfy a creationist.
Why? Because they know it can't be done (not that it even needs to be done)
and it's their sole refuge against the obvious: evolution happened.
Fuck 'em. Who cares what they think? If brains were gas they wouldn't have
enough to drive a mini-bike around the inside of a cheerio.
>
bpuharic
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
>Can you show the steps fish took to give rise to humans? Can you show
>your work with some transitionals? I'll even accept transitionals as
>far apart as every 500000 years as long as there is a clear chain of
>events shown fish becoming humans.
>
>And the FULL sumerian version has been posted already.
>
can you show me the steps god used to created humans?
no...i thought not.
just as you guys used to say demons caused earthquakes, disease, etc.
didn't work out for you did it?
bpuharic
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>On Jan 16, 12:11�pm, Caranx latus <kar...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>So mammals inherited their characteristics from fish?
>
so mammals had their characteristics created by god??
HAHAHHAHAHAH!!!
Devils Advocaat
> and "willow leaf beetles" may be in the process of dividing into two
> new species: Each prefers to feed and lay eggs on their own "host
> plant," where they grow and survive best.
>
> Although there is some intermixing, the beetles show a decided
> preference for mates from the same host. While maple and willow
> beetles are visually indistinguishable, the current degree of their
> divergence is highlighted by the willow beetles' willingness to starve
> to death rather than feed on the maple leaves readily consumed by
> their maple beetle cousins."
>
> []
>
> "Additionally, the scientists examined what happens when the hybrids
> mate with pure willow beetles and pure maple beetles. The hybrids all
> receive half their genes from one parent and half from the other. So,
> when a hybrid mates with a willow beetle, the genome of their
> offspring, called backcrosses, have 75 percent willow beetle and 25
> percent maple beetle genes. Similarly, when a hybrid is mated with a
> maple beetle, the genome of their offspring is 75 percent maple beetle
> and 25 percent willow beetle."
>
> http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20091001214747data_trunc_sys.shtml
>
>
> But in the end, all they really have is another variation of the
> 'beetle'. Kinda like breeding a wolf and a dog.
>
>
> Do people actually get paid to spend 15 years breeding beetles only to
> report it is speciation? I think I picked the wrong major in college,
> sheesh...
Try and pay attention ... the term is divergent speciation NOT
speciation divergence ... you have been told this several times
already.
Just to remind you of the definition of species as coined by Ernst
Mayr "a population or group of populations whose members have the
potential to interbreed and produce fertile offspring".
If a single species divides into two separate populations and they
become reproductively isolated, then that is a perfect example of
divergent speciation.
Referring to different species in a genus or family as being of the
same "kind", which is NOT a scientific term by the way (another fact
you seem to have forgotten), doesn't stop divergent speciation from
being a reality.
Do try and keep up.
Burkhard
I don't know who my ancestors were prior to 1741. This probably means
I either do not exist, or my family came into being spontaneously at
around 1740 through special creation by alien gods in a spacecraft
All-seeing-I
All-seeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -
Then list one every 10 MILLION years.
is THAT so hard if the fossil record supports the theory, as Darwin
himself said it should?
bpuharic
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
as an objective outside observer, i notice this too. creaetionists
play 'god of the gaps' ALOT. it's one of their favorite arguments
at the same tiime they NEVER answer ANY questions about how
creationism works. not a single one. ever.
Devils Advocaat
> On Jan 16, 12:34�pm, Caranx latus <kar...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 16, 1:17�pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
>
> > > > On Jan 16, 12:56�pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jan 16, 9:20�am, Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > On 16 Jan, 11:23, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > I thought I had found a real example of speciation divergence.
>
> > > > > > > But in the end, all they really have is another variation of the
> > > > > > > 'beetle'. Kinda like breeding a wolf and a dog.
>
> > > > > > but most beetle "kinds" won't inter-breed. It is reasonable to say
> > > > > > they are distinct species.
>
> > > > > It is reasonable to say they developed reproductive isolation
>
> > > > > If the dog and wolf develop reproductive isolation are they magically
> > > > > no longer canids?
>
> > > > Both would still be canids. Reproductive isolation has nothing to do
> > > > with inherited characteristics, and they are canids because of their
> > > > inherited characteristics.
>
> > > So mammals inherited their characteristics from fish?
>
> > Some of their characteristics, yes, but not all. Bilateral symmetry,
> > vertebral column, general morphology (exclusive of limbs), and
> > probably quite a number of other characteristics as well. The general
> > structure of the mammalian limbs comes from the basal tetrapods, and
> > there are lots of characteristics that derive from other transitional
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> population of mammals.
>
> Please show your work.
Try reading Neil Shubin's book "Your Inner Fish", what you want to
know is laid out in that book in plain English.
John Harshman
> I can't spell "Chez Watt" because I'm a cracK-hEAD catagory....
That's what you have? A spelling flame? You are the very last person who
should attempt a spelling flame. And it's "category".
Boikat
> I can't spell "Chez Watt" because I'm a cracK-hEAD catagory....
>
Everyone already knows you're a crack head. And?
Boikat
Boikat
Sure. Right after you provide.the physical remains of a) one of your
Sumerian aliens, b) one of their spacecraft, and c) any other evience
you have that can demonstrate you not a troll.
>
> is THAT so hard if the fossil record supports the theory,
If there were a list of transitionals for every 10 million years,
you'd demand one for every 5 million, then every million, then every
500 thousand, then every ten thousand, then every thousand,
eventually, a fossil for every generation.
Sorry, Monnnkeey-boy, but it appears reality is disinclined to
acquiesce to your request.
> as Darwin
> himself
How would you know? All you know about what Darwin wrote comes from
cretaionists' shit holes.
> said it should?-
And does. At least as far as anyone with a grasp of the ToE, rge
evidence, and reality goes. I guess you lose on all three counts in
that respect.
Boikat
Devils Advocaat
> On Jan 16, 1:33�pm, Caranx latus <kar...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 16, 2:08�pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 16, 12:45�pm, Caranx latus <kar...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jan 16, 1:36�pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jan 16, 12:06 pm, Fiery <ognje...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Jan 16, 6:56 pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Jan 16, 9:20 am, Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com>
> > > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On 16 Jan, 11:23, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > I thought I had found a real example of speciation divergence.
>
> > > > > > > > > But in the end, all they really have is another variation of the
> > > > > > > > > 'beetle'. Kinda like breeding a wolf and a dog.
>
> > > > > > > > but most beetle "kinds" won't inter-breed. It is reasonable to say
> > > > > > > > they are distinct species.
>
> > > > > > > It is reasonable to say they developed reproductive isolation
>
> > > > > > > If the dog and wolf develop reproductive isolation are they magically
> > > > > > > no longer canids?
>
> > > > > > though they developed reproductive isolation?
>
> > > > > evidence that man is a hominid.
>
> > > > > 2) Man could be a special creation
> > > > > 3) Man could be a hybrid
>
> > > > > 1,2,3 According to science, religion and ancient texts respectively
>
> > > > � � <http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/sciences/Zoology/
> > > > Animalclassification/PrimateTaxonomy/Hominids.htm>
> > > > and I can assure you that I am one.
>
> > > [cut what is already at the link]
>
> > > �> If these characteristics don't apply to you, interesting questions
>
> > > > will need to be asked.
>
> > > Was that a stab at dry humor? --good job.
>
> > > Aparantly you do not understand.
>
> > > 1) Man could be a variation of hominid
> > > 2) Man could be a special creation
> > > 3) Man could be a hybrid
>
> > > 1,2,3 According to science, religion and ancient texts respectively
>
> > > not be a full Hominid.
>
> > full animal? Just like we could have the characteristics of a
> > craniate, but not be a full craniate? Just like we could have the
> > characteristics of a vertebrate, but not be a full vertebrate? Just
> > like we could have the characteristics of a tetrapod, but not be a
> > full tetrapod? Just like we could have the characteristics of a
> > amniote, but not be a full amniote? Just like we could have the
> > characteristics of a mammal, but not be a full mammal? Just like we
> > could have the characteristics of a primate, but not be a full
> > primate?
>
> > > With the exception of number 1. Number one
> > > would mean that evolutionary theory is correct and man is just a
> > > variation of hominid.
>
>
> > Just because you say so? Don't think I can accept that. In fact, #1 is
> > the most likely of the three scenarios, given the evidence that we
> > have for any of them.
>
> > > The physical characteristics may be
> > > the same, but the mental, emotional and intelligence levels are not.
>
> > I like the way that you cherry pick the characteristics that most
> > define us a human and use those to declare that we have no
> > relationship to any other organism, simply because they don't share
> > those characteristics. If you were a giraffe, you'd probably have
> > written something like:
> > � � "The physical characteristics may be the same, but the neck
> > � � length and the capacity of the heart to pump blood to the brain
> > � � are not."
>
> > All species have something that sets them apart from other species,
> > even those to which they are closely related. You're cherry picking.
>
> > > Unless you think apes can amass enough knowledge to fly to the moon by
> > > natural means alone. Is that what you believe?
>
> > Inasmuch as humans are apes, yes, *some* apes have indeed done just
> > that. Not all apes, though. Just those that we designate as humans.
> > And not all of them either. Amassing knowledge is not a characteristic
> > of individuals or species, but of cultures.
>
> > > Do you actually believe that apes acquired enough knowledge by natural
> > > means alone to fly to the moon?
>
> > > THAT is funny.
>
> > > However, numbers 2 and 3 would explain the vast differences in
> > > cognitive abilities.
>
> > Just because you say so, eh? Not good enough by a long shot.
>
> OK. What other species has invented a computer, learned to heal it's
> sick and flew to the moon?
Could you build and fly a rocket to the moon?
Have you ever produced a new cure for any illness?
Could you invent and build a computer from scratch?
May I respectfully suggest therefore that you don't credit the entire
species with the achievements of a few.
>
> If you think humans developed these skills and cognative abilities
> based on the extraordinary odds of natual processes then of course you
> will accept number 1 as an explaination for man's origins.
>
> If not, then you will accept numbers 2 or 3
>
Christopher Denney
[snip]
>
> The bible says "each after his own kind". So, it does not simply say
> "kind".
>
> or variation of the original two.
Many plants can be grafted.
> Can you graft a fruit tree and a nut tree together?
Yes
> Both are trees. Why not?
You can.
> They are not -->after -->their-->own -->kind.
Grafting has nothing to do with reproduction.
> That's why.
Ha ha, error boy.
> This is not rocket science.
Rocket science is fun too.
> You may have a new variation of the beetle now, but, the new beetle
> happens to be after his own kind, ---the two original beetles.
>
> Nothing beyond this has ever been witnessed to take place on this
> planet.
>
Each generation produces something very close to itself; you fail
utterly to understand that after a enough generations things can be
different, that generation 1 may not be very much like generation 80,
while each is only slightly different than it's adjacent generation.
{snip]
hersheyh
> "Their past observations have suggested that such "maple leaf beetles"
> and "willow leaf beetles" may be in the process of dividing into two
> new species: Each prefers to feed and lay eggs on their own "host
> plant," where they grow and survive best.
>
> Although there is some intermixing, the beetles show a decided
> preference for mates from the same host. While maple and willow
> beetles are visually indistinguishable, the current degree of their
> divergence is highlighted by the willow beetles' willingness to starve
> to death rather than feed on the maple leaves readily consumed by
> their maple beetle cousins."
>
> []
>
> "Additionally, the scientists examined what happens when the hybrids
> mate with pure willow beetles and pure maple beetles. The hybrids all
> receive half their genes from one parent and half from the other. So,
> when a hybrid mates with a willow beetle, the genome of their
> offspring, called backcrosses, have 75 percent willow beetle and 25
> percent maple beetle genes. Similarly, when a hybrid is mated with a
> maple beetle, the genome of their offspring is 75 percent maple beetle
> and 25 percent willow beetle."
>
> http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20091001214747data_trunc_sys.shtml
>
I am operationally defining species here as a population of organisms
that, in nature, do not normally share a common gene pool. That is,
gene flow is barred or severely restricted between the populations.
Like all species definitions, there are examples of intermediate gene
flow where gene flow is restricted to varying degrees between two
populations. This sometimes leads to real arguments about whether
certain populations represent 'species', 'subspecies', or merely
'local varieties'. Such nomenclature difficulties always arise when
the underlying phenomenon is quantitatively variable in some way
rather than clearly qualitatively distinct. All species definitions
involve imposing dichotomies on an underlying quantitative variation.
But you have no operational definition of species or kind at all. You
simply toss out kindergarten terms, often taxonomically irrelevant
terms like 'evergreen' or 'fruit tree' or 'fruit fly', but sometimes
merely popular terms for larger groupings than species, like 'beetle'
or 'fly' or 'worm' or 'canis'.
Species intermediacy is *expected* for some populations (those
currently undergoing speciation) in evolutionary theory. It is not an
expectation from qualitative creation of specific species.
The mechanisms of speciation include ecological isolating mechanisms
(populations mating at different times and/or different places, as in
this case) in addition to mechanisms that prevent mating and
mechanisms that prevent producing fertile offspring. Over time,
ecologically isolated species are also likely to become isolated by
one of the other mechanisms (or have their unique features go
extinct). Before that occurs we often have intermediacy in species
formation. Such intermediates are important to understanding the
process of species formation.
> But in the end, all they really have is another variation of the
> 'beetle'. Kinda like breeding a wolf and a dog.
'Beetles' are the largest order of *all* animal orders, not a
'species'. This ignorant statement is the equivalent of saying that
all primates (Old and New World monkeys, lemurs, and humans and other
apes) are a single 'species'! Not all "beetles" can form hybrids
(intermediates) like the maple and willow beetles. Many beetles are
clearly completely reproductively isolated from other beetles, not
just reproductively isolated by ecological isolation, but also by
mating incompatability and developmental incompatibility. So you are
again using kindergarten taxonomy to cover up your ignorance. Why not
just use kindergarten terms like 'bug' or 'kittie' or 'horsie' or
'worm'? That is the level you are working at.
>
> oh well.
>
> Do people actually get paid to spend 15 years breeding beetles only to
> report it is speciation?
It represents a transitional stage in species formation. One that
should not exist according to your ideas. Because most species events
are already in place, with reproductive isolation completed between
the closest living members (as, most likely, is the case for humans
and chimps -- the homind lineage has involved several major speciation
steps with little evidence of interfertility in nature; in fact, it is
possible that there was limited interfertility between neanderthals
and cro magnon man), examination of the relatively rarer cases of
species intermediacy is informative about the mechanisms of
speciation.
> I think I picked the wrong major in college,
> sheesh...
Was that the drum major you picked on? I think you chose the right
major by avoiding anything in the sciences. It is clear that you
don't have the brains for it. What is irritating is that you post as
if you do know something about science.
Christopher Denney
Yup
> 2) Man could be a special creation
Magic, not science.
> 3) Man could be a hybrid
Of what? Besides, you can only hybridize things that are pretty close
to start with.
> 1,2,3 According to science, religion and ancient texts respectively
1 came from naturally developed knowledge, 2 & 3 are made up stories.
> All three would allow for man to have characteristics of a Hominid but
> not be a full Hominid. With the exception of number 1. Number one
> would mean that evolutionary theory is correct and man is just a
> variation of hominid.
Um, according to my dictionary, humans are hominids by definition.
i.e.
Any of various primates of the family Hominidae, whose only living
members are modern humans. Hominids are characterized by an upright
gait, increased brain size and intelligence compared with other
primates, a flattened face, and reduction in the size of the teeth and
jaw. Besides the modern species Homo sapiens, hominids also include
extinct species of Homo (such as H. erectus) and the extinct genus
Australopithecus.
In some classifications, the family Hominidae also includes the
anthropoid apes.
> But number 1 is highly unlikely. The physical characteristics may be
> the same, but the mental, emotional and intelligence levels are not.
> Unless you think apes can amass enough knowledge to fly to the moon by
> natural means alone. Is that what you believe?
People are not born with knowledge, you have to learn that. One of the
cool things that [most] humans can do is build on the knowledge of
those that have gone before, thus progressing our [scientific]
knowledge of the world around us.
> Do you actually believe that apes acquired enough knowledge by natural
> means alone to fly to the moon?
Humans have complex brains, knowledge came after.Giraffes have really
long necks, not every species gets to have a unique attribute, some
do.
> THAT is funny.
>
> However, numbers 2 and 3 would explain the vast differences in
> cognitive abilities.
2 and three 3 would also explain centaurs and mermaids.
Since they are just stories too.
hersheyh
> On Jan 16, 11:35�am, Jim <jimwille...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 16, 12:19�pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 16, 8:08�am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>
> > Cripes, why not just lump all of Arthropoda into 'bug kind', and
> > everything too small to see with the naked eye as 'germ kind'.
>
> Don't be so obtuse.
He isn't being obtuse. You are. By calling 'beetle' a 'kind' with
only minor variations, you are essentially saying that humans (a
primate) is a lemur with only minor variations. You just don't know
that that is what you are saying. Coleoptera (fancy sciencey
terminology for 'beetle') is an "order" in the taxonomy invented
initially by the creation scientist Linneaus. 'Primate' is the
"order" in which he put humans. Both groups contain many "species"
that are completely reproductively isolated (by multiple mechanisms)
as well as some that are 'in process' of becoming two different
species and are at various stages in this process, from local
variation to subspecies to partially isolated species.
> The bible says "each after his own kind". So, it does not simply say
> "kind".
>
> Two fruit trees can be grafted together to make a third kind of fruit
> or variation of the original two.
No. Grafting species produces a chimera, a plant with (often) a root
stock species and a stem and flowering species, not a new
'variation'. Certainly not one that is heritable. This is not the
same as *hybridization*.
>
> Can you graft a fruit tree and a nut tree together?
Sometimes. Almond and peach. But not almond and oak. Nor peach and
mango.
> Both are trees. Why not?
The degree of evolutionary and thus taxonomic relatedness affects the
ability of trees to accept grafts from other species of tree. For
evolutionarily *closely* related species like almond and peach (or
apple and pear), grafting works. For evolutionarily distant species,
it doesn't. Whether the tree produces nuts or fruits (these terms
have different definitions in science than the common ones based on
how or whether humans use them for food; in botany, all nuts are dry
fruits) is irrelevant.
> They are not -->after -->their-->own -->kind.
>
> That's why.
>
> This is not rocket science.
No. It is biology. A science you know little about, and what you do
know is mostly wrong. I.e., you have negative biological knowledge.
> You may have a new variation of the beetle now, but, the new beetle
> happens to be after his own kind, ---the two original beetles.
Point in case. Species formation involves one original beetle
producing a new species of beetle which is reproductively isolated
from the original or its succeeding species. There are no *two*
original beetles.
> Nothing beyond this has ever been witnessed to take place on this
> planet.
>
> But please feel free to show otherwise. Please feel free to show how a
> population of fish can give rise to anything other then ---more fish.
>
> Please Show your work.
>
> GO!
Which step in the standard evolution from fish to human do you think
is impossible?
>
> ____________________________________
Free Lunch
<christoph...@gmail.com> wrote in talk.origins:
>On Jan 16, 10:12�am, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>[snip]
>>
>> The bible says "each after his own kind". So, it does not simply say
>> "kind".
>>
>> Two fruit trees can be grafted together to make a third kind of fruit
>> or variation of the original two.
>
>Many plants can be grafted.
But, contrary to the ignorant suppositions of ASI, they do not created a
third kind of fruit. Grafting allows the strongest root system to be
joined to the preferred fruit. ASI, once again, shows that he has no
idea what he is talking about.
>
>> Can you graft a fruit tree and a nut tree together?
>
>Yes
Really? All of the grafting I am familiar with is of different strains
of the same species or very closely related species.
>> Both are trees. Why not?
>
>You can.
How far apart can they be genetically to take?
>> They are not -->after -->their-->own -->kind.
>
>Grafting has nothing to do with reproduction.
>
>> That's why.
>
>Ha ha, error boy.
>
>> This is not rocket science.
>
>Rocket science is fun too.
>
>> You may have a new variation of the beetle now, but, the new beetle
>> happens to be after his own kind, ---the two original beetles.
Of course that is not how we get new beetles.
>> Nothing beyond this has ever been witnessed to take place on this
>> planet.
ASI has made it clear that he is not in any position to make such a
statement since he has made it quite clear that he is not only very
ignorant, but proud of his ignorance.
Desertphile
<boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> In the catagory of, "Your school wishes to refund your money."
> > However, it is not clearly established with conclusive
> > evidence that man is a hominid.
Ouch! Fuck that hurts the brain. I wanna vote for this now,
please, fifty-three times.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Devils Advocaat
> On Jan 16, 11:35�am, Jim <jimwille...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 16, 12:19�pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 16, 8:08�am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > "Their past observations have suggested that such "maple leaf beetles"
> > > > > and "willow leaf beetles" may be in the process of dividing into two
> > > > > new species: Each prefers to feed and lay eggs on their own "host
> > > > > plant," where they grow and survive best.
>
> > > > > Although there is some intermixing, the beetles show a decided
> > > > > preference for mates from the same host. While maple and willow
> > > > > beetles are visually indistinguishable, the current degree of their
> > > > > divergence is highlighted by the willow beetles' willingness to starve
> > > > > to death rather than feed on the maple leaves readily consumed by
> > > > > their maple beetle cousins."
>
> > > > > []
>
> > > > > "Additionally, the scientists examined what happens when the hybrids
> > > > > mate with pure willow beetles and pure maple beetles. The hybrids all
> > > > > receive half their genes from one parent and half from the other. So,
> > > > > when a hybrid mates with a willow beetle, the genome of their
> > > > > offspring, called backcrosses, have 75 percent willow beetle and 25
> > > > > percent maple beetle genes. Similarly, when a hybrid is mated with a
> > > > > maple beetle, the genome of their offspring is 75 percent maple beetle
> > > > > and 25 percent willow beetle."
>
> > > > >http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20091001214747data_trunc_sys.shtml
>
> > > > > I thought I had found a real example of speciation divergence.
>
> > > > > 'beetle'. Kinda like breeding a wolf and a dog.
>
> > > > put together. If beetles are a single "kind", then radical "speciation
> > > > divergence" is possible, whatever that term is supposed to mean.
>
> > > WTF do -you- call it then?
>
> > > A beetle is a beetle even if you get so say they are different.
>
> > between any two animals can be attributed to simple variation within a
> > kind, right? �WTF is a 'kind'?
>
> > > I do not see the bettles evolving into anything else other then
> > > another kind of bettle, do you?
>
> > mammals, I suppose it is fair to then allow 'variation within mammal
> > kind' to explain the diversity of mammals, and to accept evolution as
> > the cause.
>
> > Cripes, why not just lump all of Arthropoda into 'bug kind', and
> > everything too small to see with the naked eye as 'germ kind'.
>
> Don't be so obtuse.
>
> "kind".
Which version of the Bible, and how about chapter and verse for this
assertion?
Most versions I have read do not precede the phrase "after his (their
or its) kind" with the word "each".
>
> Two fruit trees can be grafted together to make a third kind of fruit
> or variation of the original two.
>
> Can you graft a fruit tree and a nut tree together?
>
> Both are trees. Why not?
>
> They are not -->after -->their-->own -->kind.
>
> That's why.
Surely all trees are of the tree "kind", after all you insist that all
beetles are of the same kind, but each and every beetle is a separate
species of beetle, and most cannot interbreed to produce fertile
offspring, therefore they must be different kinds.
>
> This is not rocket science.
And its not even biology, as "kind" is not a scientific term.
>
> You may have a new variation of the beetle now, but, the new beetle
> happens to be after his own kind, ---the two original beetles.
It isn't just a variation, if they cannot interbreed they are
different species.
>
> Nothing beyond this has ever been witnessed to take place on this
> planet.
Are you suggesting speciation doesn't happen?
If so present your evidence that it doesn't.
>
> But please feel free to show otherwise. Please feel free to show how a
> population of fish can give rise to anything other then ---more fish.
>
> Please Show your work.
>
> GO!
>
> ____________________________________
R Brown
anyone, be they creationist or scientist. The picture isn't perfect, no
scientist ever claimed it was, but there's more than enough (way more than
enough!) to satisfy the scientific mind. There will never, I repeat never,
be enough to satisfy the creationist mind. It's that simple.
Your problem, as a creationist, is that those damn paleontologists just
won't stop digging! With the amount of hand waving you guys have to do every
time they find something you're going to take flight pretty soon!
Life evolved. The rest is details. Get used to it.
>
TomS
<dd996e4f-3d85-4ef8...@e16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>, hersheyh
stated..."
>
>On Jan 16, 1:12�pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 16, 11:35�am, Jim <jimwille...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jan 16, 12:19�pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > On Jan 16, 8:08�am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>
>[snip]
>>
>> > Cripes, why not just lump all of Arthropoda into 'bug kind', and
>> > everything too small to see with the naked eye as 'germ kind'.
>>
>> Don't be so obtuse.
>
>He isn't being obtuse. You are. By calling 'beetle' a 'kind' with
>only minor variations, you are essentially saying that humans (a
>primate) is a lemur with only minor variations. You just don't know
>that that is what you are saying. Coleoptera (fancy sciencey
>terminology for 'beetle') is an "order" in the taxonomy invented
>initially by the creation scientist Linneaus. 'Primate' is the
>"order" in which he put humans. Both groups contain many "species"
>that are completely reproductively isolated (by multiple mechanisms)
>as well as some that are 'in process' of becoming two different
>species and are at various stages in this process, from local
>variation to subspecies to partially isolated species.
>
>> The bible says "each after his own kind". So, it does not simply say
>> "kind".
ASI is *still* saying that the Bible says this?!
The simple fact is that it doesn't. I've checked with bible.cc, and
*none* of the English translations that it searches has the phrase
"each after his own kind".
Of course, there may be some obscure translation, and ASI might
vindicate himself by citing the Version, Book, Chapter and Verse.
But I've repeatedly given him the chance to do that, and he is
unwilling or unable or both.
--
---Tom S.
the failure to nail currant jelly to a wall is not due to the nail; it is due to
the currant jelly.
Theodore Roosevelt, Letter to William Thayer, 1915 July 2
Christopher Denney
> On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 08:38:11 -0800 (PST), Christopher Denney
>
> >On Jan 16, 10:12�am, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
> >[snip]
>
> >> The bible says "each after his own kind". So, it does not simply say
> >> "kind".
>
> >> Two fruit trees can be grafted together to make a third kind of fruit
> >> or variation of the original two.
>
> >Many plants can be grafted.
>
> But, contrary to the ignorant suppositions of ASI, they do not created a
> third kind of fruit. Grafting allows the strongest root system to be
> joined to the preferred fruit. ASI, once again, shows that he has no
> idea what he is talking about.
>
>
>
> >> Can you graft a fruit tree and a nut tree together?
>
> >Yes
>
> Really? All of the grafting I am familiar with is of different strains
> of the same species or very closely related species.
The example I found was of almond and apricot.
> >> Both are trees. Why not?
>
> >You can.
>
> How far apart can they be genetically to take?
Much farther apart than for pollination, I expect.
Free Lunch
<christoph...@gmail.com> wrote in talk.origins:
>On Jan 17, 9:12�am, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 08:38:11 -0800 (PST), Christopher Denney
>> <christopher.den...@gmail.com> wrote in talk.origins:
>>
>> >On Jan 16, 10:12�am, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>> >[snip]
>>
>> >> The bible says "each after his own kind". So, it does not simply say
>> >> "kind".
>>
>> >> Two fruit trees can be grafted together to make a third kind of fruit
>> >> or variation of the original two.
>>
>> >Many plants can be grafted.
>>
>> But, contrary to the ignorant suppositions of ASI, they do not created a
>> third kind of fruit. Grafting allows the strongest root system to be
>> joined to the preferred fruit. ASI, once again, shows that he has no
>> idea what he is talking about.
>>
>>
>>
>> >> Can you graft a fruit tree and a nut tree together?
>>
>> >Yes
>>
>> Really? All of the grafting I am familiar with is of different strains
>> of the same species or very closely related species.
>
>The example I found was of almond and apricot.
Okay. Thanks.
>> >> Both are trees. Why not?
>>
>> >You can.
>>
>> How far apart can they be genetically to take?
>
>Much farther apart than for pollination, I expect.
Sounds like.
Bob Casanova
spelling flame. Duh."
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
All-seeing-I
In the "I'm Rubber You are Glue" catagory:
LT
> "On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 09:04:59 -0800 (PST), in article
I believe the translation that says this actually says "Each after ITS
own kind". Not that it matters. There's as many Bible versions as
there are words in it, and frankly it is entirely irrelevant what the
Bible says when discussing science anyway. ASI just doesn't get that,
and since he's ineducable on anything, he never will.
LT
hersheyh
> On Jan 16, 1:12�pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
>
> > But please feel free to show otherwise. Please feel free to show how a
> > population of fish can give rise to anything other then ---more fish.
Modern fish populations will always be the ancestral group from which
any new organism arises in the future.
What evolution proposes is that modern tetrapods (including but not
limited to humans) arose from an *ancestral* organism to which we
apply the non-scientific term 'fish' (which in the past was applied to
any sea-dwelling organism: "shellfish", "starfish", "cuttlefish")
because of its similarity in form, function, and habitat to existing
aquatic vertebrates. The name 'tetrapod' was applied to organisms
that became, at least occasionally, four-limbed non-aquatic species
that lifted their body off the ground when moving. That doesn't mean
that there are no *intermediate* forms that are both aquatic and fishy
in form and tetrapod that make those terms inadequate. *Names* used
to divide groups do not always work perfectly because reality is not
always a clear-cut dichotomy. *Most* living organisms can be divided
into 'tetrapod' or 'fish', making those names useful. But that
doesn't mean all organisms can be.
>
> > Please Show your work.
>
> > GO!
>
> Which step in the standard evolution from fish to human do you think
> is impossible?
>
This is the important point, isn't it? You probably don't know enough
biology to even name the differences between human and modern fish,
much less the knowledge of development and comparative anatomy to know
which changes are important. Evolution and selection are excellent
ways to change superficial form by modifying existing structure.
Which is why, for example, we retain traces of the ancestral fishes
bone structure in our spines and limbs. Development and comparative
anatomy also shows how features like our 4-chambered heart arose from
2-chamber hearts and swim bladders arose from lungs which arose from
outpouching from the gut (rather than from gills). But go ahead,
which feature of modern humans shows no sign of any possible
intermediacy from what exists in fish by looking at the evidence of
fossils, comparative anatomy, and development. Most of our features
are *modifications* of systems that already existed in the ancestral
fish from which the first tetrapods arose.
TomS
<3ec570b3-004c-4c6c...@c34g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, LT
stated..."
>I believe the translation that says this actually says "Each after ITS
>own kind". Not that it matters. There's as many Bible versions as
>there are words in it, and frankly it is entirely irrelevant what the
>Bible says when discussing science anyway. ASI just doesn't get that,
>and since he's ineducable on anything, he never will.
>
>LT
>
I would have to see the name of the translation before I would
believe it.
The simplest explanation is that ASI misremembered and is unwilling
to admit a mistake.
TomS
<3ec570b3-004c-4c6c...@c34g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, LT
stated..."
>
>I believe the translation that says this actually says "Each after ITS
>own kind". Not that it matters. There's as many Bible versions as
>there are words in it, and frankly it is entirely irrelevant what the
>Bible says when discussing science anyway. ASI just doesn't get that,
>and since he's ineducable on anything, he never will.
>
>LT
>
I would have to see the name of the translation before I would
believe it.
The simplest explanation is that ASI misremembered and is unwilling
to admit a mistake.
TomS
<3ec570b3-004c-4c6c...@c34g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, LT
stated..."
>
>I believe the translation that says this actually says "Each after ITS
>own kind". Not that it matters. There's as many Bible versions as
>there are words in it, and frankly it is entirely irrelevant what the
>Bible says when discussing science anyway. ASI just doesn't get that,
>and since he's ineducable on anything, he never will.
>
>LT
>
I would have to see the name of the translation before I would
believe it.
The simplest explanation is that ASI misremembered and is unwilling
to admit a mistake.
Bob Casanova
spelling flame I started, even after being led by the hand":
Cory Albrecht
> On Jan 16, 11:41 am, Will in New Haven
> <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 16, 12:19 pm, All-seeing-I<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jan 16, 8:08 am, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>> "Their past observations have suggested that such "maple leaf beetles"
>>>>> and "willow leaf beetles" may be in the process of dividing into two
>>>>> new species: Each prefers to feed and lay eggs on their own "host
>>>>> plant," where they grow and survive best.
>>
>>>>> Although there is some intermixing, the beetles show a decided
>>>>> preference for mates from the same host. While maple and willow
>>>>> beetles are visually indistinguishable, the current degree of their
>>>>> divergence is highlighted by the willow beetles' willingness to starve
>>>>> to death rather than feed on the maple leaves readily consumed by
>>>>> their maple beetle cousins."
>>
>>>>> []
>>
>>>>> "Additionally, the scientists examined what happens when the hybrids
>>>>> mate with pure willow beetles and pure maple beetles. The hybrids all
>>>>> receive half their genes from one parent and half from the other. So,
>>>>> when a hybrid mates with a willow beetle, the genome of their
>>>>> offspring, called backcrosses, have 75 percent willow beetle and 25
>>>>> percent maple beetle genes. Similarly, when a hybrid is mated with a
>>>>> maple beetle, the genome of their offspring is 75 percent maple beetle
>>>>> and 25 percent willow beetle."
>>
>>>>> http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20091001214747data_trunc_sys.shtml
>>
>>
>>>>> But in the end, all they really have is another variation of the
>>>>> 'beetle'. Kinda like breeding a wolf and a dog.
>>
>>>> put together. If beetles are a single "kind", then radical "speciation
>>>> divergence" is possible, whatever that term is supposed to mean.
>>
>>> WTF do -you- call it then?
>>
>>> A beetle is a beetle even if you get so say they are different.
>>
>>> another kind of bettle, do you?
>>
>> quite a different kind. You say you don't see it and I have to show it
>> to you? Well, I don't. I am not here to convince you.
>>
>> I am here to laugh at you.
>>
>> --
>> Will in New Haven
>
> While you are laughing, can you explain the process that took fish to
> mammels with some examples?
>
>
> Show Your Work:
Tiktaalik. Morganucodon.
> GO!!
>
>
>
>
>
>
Cory Albrecht
> Can you graft a fruit tree and a nut tree together?
Tell me, using only your favourite ancient texts as references - is an
almond of the nut kind?
Also, regardless of whether you answer "yes" or "no", could you please
give a few examples of trees that are of the nut kind and short
description of why?
Thanks in advance.
Cory Albrecht
> On Jan 16, 12:11 pm, Caranx latus<kar...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> On Jan 16, 12:56 pm, All-seeing-I<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jan 16, 9:20 am, Nick Keighley<nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>
>>>> On 16 Jan, 11:23, All-seeing-I<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>> But in the end, all they really have is another variation of the
>>>>> 'beetle'. Kinda like breeding a wolf and a dog.
>>
>>>> they are distinct species.
>>
>>> It is reasonable to say they developed reproductive isolation
>>
>>> If the dog and wolf develop reproductive isolation are they magically
>>> no longer canids?
>>
>> Both would still be canids. Reproductive isolation has nothing to do
>> with inherited characteristics, and they are canids because of their
>> inherited characteristics.
>
> So mammals inherited their characteristics from fish?
Some of those characteristics, yes.
> hahahahah!!
Go look up why you hiccup, and what embryonic tissues the parts of your
body involved in hiccupping derive from..
Boikat
> On Jan 16, 8:08�am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > All-seeing-I wrote:
> > > "Their past observations have suggested that such "maple leaf beetles"
> > > and "willow leaf beetles" may be in the process of dividing into two
> > > new species: Each prefers to feed and lay eggs on their own "host
> > > plant," where they grow and survive best.
>
> > > Although there is some intermixing, the beetles show a decided
> > > preference for mates from the same host. While maple and willow
> > > beetles are visually indistinguishable, the current degree of their
> > > divergence is highlighted by the willow beetles' willingness to starve
> > > to death rather than feed on the maple leaves readily consumed by
> > > their maple beetle cousins."
>
> > > []
>
> > > "Additionally, the scientists examined what happens when the hybrids
> > > mate with pure willow beetles and pure maple beetles. The hybrids all
> > > receive half their genes from one parent and half from the other. So,
> > > when a hybrid mates with a willow beetle, the genome of their
> > > offspring, called backcrosses, have 75 percent willow beetle and 25
> > > percent maple beetle genes. Similarly, when a hybrid is mated with a
> > > maple beetle, the genome of their offspring is 75 percent maple beetle
> > > and 25 percent willow beetle."
>
> > >http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20091001214747data_trunc_sys.shtml
>
>
> > > But in the end, all they really have is another variation of the
> > > 'beetle'. Kinda like breeding a wolf and a dog.
>
> > put together. If beetles are a single "kind", then radical "speciation
> > divergence" is possible, whatever that term is supposed to mean.
>
> WTF do -you- call it then?
>
> A beetle is a beetle even if you get so say they are different.
>
> I do not see the bettles evolving into anything else other then
> another kind of bettle, do you?
So, your definition of "kind" is "species.
>
> > > oh well.
>
> > > Do people actually get paid to spend 15 years breeding beetles only to
> > > report it is speciation? I think I picked the wrong major in college,
> > > sheesh...
>
> > You went to college?
>
> Which one.-
How many were you kicked out of?
Boikat
LT
> "On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 03:58:05 -0800 (PST), in article
That is indeed the most likely explanation.
> --
> ---Tom S.
> the failure to nail currant jelly to a wall is not due to the nail; it is due to
> the currant jelly.
> Theodore Roosevelt, Letter to William Thayer, 1915 July 2
LT