Hybridization issues in evolutionary theory

[erik simpson]

In the 18Nov16 issue of Science, a news feature "Shaking up the Tree of Life",
describes recent discovery of widespread hybridization in many species previously
considered discrete. The possibility is raised that it is a major contribution
to speciation itself.

Abstract:

n 2010 a comparison between a Neandertal genome and genomes from people today turned up evidence of ancient liaisons, a discovery that belied the common idea that animal species can't hybridize or, if they do, will produce infertile offspring—think mules. Such reproductive isolation is part of the classic definition of a species. This discovery brought credence to other work in plants, Darwin's finches in the Galápagos Islands, tropical butterflies, mosquitoes, and a few other animals showing that hybridization was not just common, but also important in shaping evolution. The techniques that revealed the Neandertal and Denisovan legacy in our own genome are now making it possible to peer into the genomic histories of many organisms to check for interbreeding. As more examples are discovered, researchers are questioning the definition of species and rethinking whether the tree of life is really a "net" of life.

[erik simpson]

Forgot the links:

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/354/6314/817
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/354/6314/818

[John Harshman]

This seems like serious hype to me, and another fine example of science
writers run amuck. The idea that animal species can't hybridize may be
common in some circles, but not among biologists. I don't think anyone
is questioning the definition of species. And we've known about hybrid
species for a very long time.

[Glenn]

"erik simpson" <eastsi...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:7b4cd2a0-a8ce-484f...@googlegroups.com...

Questioning the Tree of Life

https://www.leverhulme.ac.uk/sites/default/files/imported_pdfs/questioning%20the%20tree%20of%20life%20-%20jun%202008.pdf

https://biologydirect.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1745-6150-6-45

[RSNorman]

I have the full text, which is paywalled. It is serious but not
overly hyped. On first glance it does refer to a long history of
recognizing hybridization in nature: back to 1950 in plants and the
'80s and '90s in animals. It does say that field zoologists have long
recognized the frequency of hybrids but museum people have been more
refractory and insistent on discrete and separated species.

I think it really is true that many biologists have been far too
infatuated with Mayr's species notion as being absolute and total.
This is an attempt to get people to sign on to a much more loose and
flexible notion of species with very permeable boundaries as being
commonplace rather than interesting but insignificant exceptions.

The low cost and ease of genomic analysis will be very telling in the
future. The article describes that Galapagos finches of different
species on one island are more similar to each other genetically than
they are to conspecifics on different islands. It also talks about
two evolutionarily significant products of hybridization. First, back
crossing of hybrids to one parental type produces introgression,
introducting new alleles and thus greatly increasing variation within
the population in excess of what simple mutation and recombination
within the one population can do. It also describes how the hybrids
can then develop into new species on their own.

Again, the emphasis is not that these things are suddenly discovered
and will completely overturn all of evolutionary biology. It is
really that these things are far more common then most people have
realized and so should be brought into the picture of how evolution
progresses normally.

If you want the article, email me by removing the underscores in my
listed address. I will form an "informal seminar group" to share and
discuss the work.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 29 Nov 2016 22:16:40 -0800, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by John Harshman
<jhar...@pacbell.net>:

Just to be clear, since I've seen this both ways...

Is the current taxonomy "Homo sapiens sapiens" and "Homo
sapiens neanderthalensis", or is it "Homo sapiens" and "Homo
neanderthalensis"? ISTM if the first, interspecific
reproduction would not be an issue, since both would be
subspecies of "Homo sapiens", and therefore able to
crossbreed freely. The same non-issue seems to exist between
Canis lupus and Canis lupus familiaris. I don't know how
Canis latrans fits in, since they interbreed freely with
dogs even though a different species, other than your note
that such interspecific reproduction sometimes exists.

And has it been determined how the Denisovans fit in the
Homo structure?

Thanks.
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[John Harshman]

I know a lot of museum people, and I can't recognize that claim. I know
curators whose major area of study is hybrid zones.

> I think it really is true that many biologists have been far too
> infatuated with Mayr's species notion as being absolute and total.

Certainly Mayr didn't take that view. Can you suggest some examples?

> This is an attempt to get people to sign on to a much more loose and
> flexible notion of species with very permeable boundaries as being
> commonplace rather than interesting but insignificant exceptions.

This has been the case at least within ornithology for a very long time.

[RSNorman]

On Wed, 30 Nov 2016 11:29:58 -0800, John Harshman

The article describes the Grants' work finding that "almost 10% of all
bird species failed to respect species boundaries" and quotes Peter
Grant as saying "That flew in the face of current wisdom."

The article also writes:
A fair number of biologists remain uneasy with this picture of
unchecked gene swapping. “Some people are going way overboard in
saying that everything is hybridizing with everything else,” says Joel
Cracraft of the American Museum of Natural History in New York City.
“It’s a little hyperbol[ic] to say it’s wiping away species
boundaries.”

The Grants think the divide over the importance of hybridization and
its effect onspeciation is partly cultural. They and other field
biologists accept that a species can be legitimate even if it can
sometimes mate with others. In contrast, says Rosemary Grant, “Some
people in museums only [recognize] a species when it’s absolutely
certain there’s complete genetic incompatibility.” A species may have
to evolve for tens of millions of years before it can meet that
definition—if it happens at all.

[John Harshman]

I am unacquainted with this particular publication of the Grants. But it
hardly surprises me, and I don't see how it would surprise any
ornithologist. Hybridization between closely related species is common.
It can be hard to distinguish between one species and two. It's possible
that ornithology is a biased sample of biologists on this point.

> The article also writes:
> A fair number of biologists remain uneasy with this picture of
> unchecked gene swapping. “Some people are going way overboard in
> saying that everything is hybridizing with everything else,” says Joel
> Cracraft of the American Museum of Natural History in New York City.
> “It’s a little hyperbol[ic] to say it’s wiping away species
> boundaries.”

And Joel is right.

> The Grants think the divide over the importance of hybridization and
> its effect onspeciation is partly cultural. They and other field
> biologists accept that a species can be legitimate even if it can
> sometimes mate with others. In contrast, says Rosemary Grant, “Some
> people in museums only [recognize] a species when it’s absolutely
> certain there’s complete genetic incompatibility.” A species may have
> to evolve for tens of millions of years before it can meet that
> definition—if it happens at all.

I do not know of the people in museums that Grant is talking about. How
would people in museums even study genetic incompatibility, given that
they work with dead specimens that it's hard to get to mate? At best one
can see a specimen with intermediate characters and infer that it's a
hybrid. But I don't know of anyone who has ever used the existence of
such a specimen to lump two species. I don't think this cultural divide
really exists.

[John Harshman]

On 11/30/16 11:55 AM, RSNorman wrote:

Why didn't you tell me the article was by Elizabeth Pennisi? She's one
of the worst of the science journalists. She was, for example, also
prominent in the "death of junk DNA" flap.

[Glenn]

"John Harshman" <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote in message news:_MWdnQEUDoSvoKLF...@giganews.com...

Interesting that the world's top academic journal has had Elizabeth on staff for 20 years, yet an atheist evolutionist activist blogger on talk.origins calls her one of the worst science journalists. I wonder why.

[RSNorman]

On Wed, 30 Nov 2016 12:57:22 -0800, John Harshman

That just means she was a successful science journalist, as opposed to
being a successful scientist.

I don't think the actual article to be as objectionable as you
suggest. The realization about just how much hybridization there
really is out there is something rather new. It doesn't affect the
overall patterns of the branching of the tree but it can greatly
influence trying to sort out just what might lie at the roots of major
branches could look like.

[jillery]

On Wed, 30 Nov 2016 10:52:51 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:

To be fair, your example refers to an extinct population, which
complicates resolving to what degree that population and H.sapiens
could have been interfertile.
--
This space is intentionally not blank.

[John Harshman]

For certain definitions of "successful", I suppose.

> I don't think the actual article to be as objectionable as you
> suggest. The realization about just how much hybridization there
> really is out there is something rather new. It doesn't affect the
> overall patterns of the branching of the tree but it can greatly
> influence trying to sort out just what might lie at the roots of major
> branches could look like.

I disagree that there's anything new, but again that could conceivably
be my ornithological bias.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 30 Nov 2016 18:06:38 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

Well, yes, but the "assigned" taxonomy question remains, and
ISTM that the preferred grouping would indicate current
thinking regarding interfertility. Plus, unlike the case for
most extinct species, IIRC we have a fair amount of DNA
available.

I realize that the taxonomy of extinct species is
problematic, but my questions were about current
terminology, not hard fact.

[jillery]

On Thu, 01 Dec 2016 11:35:34 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>

I understand your concern is with assigned taxonomy. My point here is
your examples aren't really analogous, because you're comparing
hybrids from extant species and hybrids from an extinct species. The
grouping of extinct species necessarily relies on inferences from
comparative morphology. Only in rare cases is genetic or protein
evidence available, and even then are rarely definitive.

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 01 Dec 2016 23:02:36 -0500, the following appeared

No argument here. The Canis example was only a reference to
similar taxonomic "rewrites" in the near past, not intended
as a comparison to actual interfertility among various Homo
species/subspecies.

[jillery]

On Fri, 02 Dec 2016 10:31:31 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>

My impression is taxonomic rewrites happen regularly, and usually for
reasons having nothing to do with hybrids. Gould was famous for
rewriting the taxonomy of Cambrian organisms. More recently, Jack
Horner rewrote a dozen ceratopsians to just a few.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 03 Dec 2016 02:50:41 -0500, the following appeared

I'll take your word for those; I'm unfamiliar with either. I
was only curious regarding the current state of taxonomic
assignments in the Homo genus.

[Jonathan]

What a load of hooey, it's all wrong, just hot air.



s

[Jonathan]

You're completely wrong, missed by a mile.



s

[Jonathan]

You're full of it, everything you just said is entirely wrong.



s

[Jonathan]

You're so wrong, complete hooey.


s

[jillery]

On Sun, 4 Dec 2016 13:30:59 -0500, Jonathan <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:

>You're so wrong, complete hooey.

"Hooey" is your word, not mine.

Apparently you think it's clever to act like a spoiled brat.

[RSNorman]

There you are, John. We have both been declared to be utterly wrong.
I guess we should just throw in the towel and go home.

[Steady Eddie]

It only sheds light on your definition of "Species".
Why wouldn't someone question the delineation of the original Species into "Species", followed by the re-combination of the different "Species" into the original hereditary Species?
Does this mean that your definition of "Species" includes a temporary reproductive separation from other members of the Species?

[Steady Eddie]

Woah!
"However, new knowledge, particularly about microbes, seems to show that THE TREE MAY NOT, after all, be the exclusive pattern of EVOLUTIONARY relationships."

I'd say that's a powerful statement.

> https://biologydirect.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1745-6150-6-45

[John Harshman]

The odd thing is that we were disagreeing with each other. I'm not even
sure he read any of it.

[jillery]

On Sun, 4 Dec 2016 14:12:18 -0800, John Harshman

Since jonathan's replies almost never have anything to do with what he
replies to, it hardly matters whether he read them.

[Jonathan]

On 12/4/2016 2:43 PM, jillery wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Dec 2016 13:30:59 -0500, Jonathan <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> You're so wrong, complete hooey.
>
>
> "Hooey" is your word, not mine.
>

Well it is all unmitigated nonsense, btw what
does hybridization mean?

[jillery]

On Sun, 4 Dec 2016 18:31:32 -0500, Jonathan <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 12/4/2016 2:43 PM, jillery wrote:
>> On Sun, 4 Dec 2016 13:30:59 -0500, Jonathan <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> You're so wrong, complete hooey.
>>
>>
>> "Hooey" is your word, not mine.
>>
>
>
>
>Well it is all unmitigated nonsense, btw what
>does hybridization mean?

GIYF

[Öö Tiib]

> >>> You're full of it, everything you just said is entirely wrong.
> >>>
> >>>>

> >>>> I disagree that there's anything new, but again that could conceivably
> >>>> be my ornithological bias.
> >>>
> >>> You're completely wrong, missed by a mile.
> >>
> >> There you are, John. We have both been declared to be utterly wrong.
> >> I guess we should just throw in the towel and go home.
> >
> >The odd thing is that we were disagreeing with each other. I'm not even
> >sure he read any of it.
>
> Since jonathan's replies almost never have anything to do with what he
> replies to, it hardly matters whether he read them.

Jonathan does not know what the heck is hybridization so he enjoys
Dunning-Kruger effect about it. Thanks to so gained feeling of
superiority of his everybody else saying something about it seem
totally ignorant and wrong to him. :D

[Steady Eddie]

On Tuesday, 29 November 2016 23:25:01 UTC-6, erik simpson wrote:
> In the 18Nov16 issue of Science, a news feature "Shaking up the Tree of Life",
> describes recent discovery of widespread hybridization in many species previously
> considered discrete. The possibility is raised that it is a major contribution
> to speciation itself.
>
> Abstract:
>
> n 2010 a comparison between a Neandertal genome and genomes from people today turned up evidence of ancient liaisons, a discovery that belied the common idea that animal species can't hybridize or, if they do, will produce infertile offspring—think mules. Such reproductive isolation is part of the classic definition of a species. This discovery brought credence to other work in plants, Darwin's finches in the Galápagos Islands, tropical butterflies, mosquitoes, and a few other animals showing that hybridization was not just common, but also important in shaping evolution. The techniques that revealed the Neandertal and Denisovan legacy in our own genome are now making it possible to peer into the genomic histories of many organisms to check for interbreeding. As more examples are discovered, researchers are questioning the definition of species and rethinking whether the tree of life is really a "net" of life.

The comical part is where Darwinists declare the re-combination of an original Species to be a new case of Speciation.
Just demonstrates the unfalsifiability of Darwinian claims; what qualifies Darwinism as a Snare and a Racket.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 4 Dec 2016 13:30:59 -0500, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Jonathan <wr...@gmail.com>:

That seems to be your "idiotic post du jour".

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 04 Dec 2016 18:43:40 -0500, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

>On Sun, 4 Dec 2016 18:31:32 -0500, Jonathan <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On 12/4/2016 2:43 PM, jillery wrote:
>>> On Sun, 4 Dec 2016 13:30:59 -0500, Jonathan <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> You're so wrong, complete hooey.
>>>
>>>
>>> "Hooey" is your word, not mine.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Well it is all unmitigated nonsense, btw what
>>does hybridization mean?
>
>
>GIYF
>
>
>>> Apparently you think it's clever to act like a spoiled brat.

None of his posts today sound much like jonathan. For one
thing, I've never seen him able to restrict himself to
one-liners, or even (usually) one-pagers. Maybe a hijack?

[Burkhard]

Jonathan wrote:
> On 12/4/2016 2:43 PM, jillery wrote:
>> On Sun, 4 Dec 2016 13:30:59 -0500, Jonathan <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> You're so wrong, complete hooey.
>>
>>
>> "Hooey" is your word, not mine.
>>
>
>
>
> Well it is all unmitigated nonsense, btw what
> does hybridization mean?

Depends rather on the context. Here, it means in all likelihood a form
of speciation, more specifically, cross breeding between two different
species resulting in a new species that is reproductively isolated from
the parents.

[Paul Ciszek]

In article <9095861a-d8d4-4ad1...@googlegroups.com>,

The idea that the "tree" model does not describe bacteria (and archaea?)
well is nothing new. It has long been obvious that bacteria can swap
DNA with each other, without respect for species. This does not disprove
evolution via natural selection, it merely gives natural selection a
greater variety of genetics to select from.

Horizontal gene transfer between unrelated Eukaryotes or between
Eukaryotes and other domains is much more difficult, but happens
occasionally, usually with the help of viruses that splice genes
for a living.

--
Please reply to: | "Evolution is a theory that accounts
pciszek at panix dot com | for variety, not superiority."
Autoreply has been disabled | -- Joan Pontius

[jillery]

On Mon, 05 Dec 2016 10:33:44 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:

>On Sun, 04 Dec 2016 18:43:40 -0500, the following appeared
>in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
>
>>On Sun, 4 Dec 2016 18:31:32 -0500, Jonathan <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On 12/4/2016 2:43 PM, jillery wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 4 Dec 2016 13:30:59 -0500, Jonathan <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> You're so wrong, complete hooey.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Hooey" is your word, not mine.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Well it is all unmitigated nonsense, btw what
>>>does hybridization mean?
>>
>>
>>GIYF
>>
>>
>>>> Apparently you think it's clever to act like a spoiled brat.
>
>None of his posts today sound much like jonathan. For one
>thing, I've never seen him able to restrict himself to
>one-liners, or even (usually) one-pagers. Maybe a hijack?

If only. My impression is jonathan is throwing a hissy fit over the
static he's getting from his non sequitur replies and off-topic posts.

[Jonathan]

On 12/5/2016 12:33 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Sun, 04 Dec 2016 18:43:40 -0500, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
>
>> On Sun, 4 Dec 2016 18:31:32 -0500, Jonathan <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/4/2016 2:43 PM, jillery wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 4 Dec 2016 13:30:59 -0500, Jonathan <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> You're so wrong, complete hooey.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Hooey" is your word, not mine.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Well it is all unmitigated nonsense, btw what
>>> does hybridization mean?
>>
>>
>> GIYF
>>
>>
>>>> Apparently you think it's clever to act like a spoiled brat.
>
> None of his posts today sound much like jonathan. For one
> thing, I've never seen him able to restrict himself to
> one-liners, or even (usually) one-pagers. Maybe a hijack?
>

I was parroting Jillery, for instance criticizing
without knowing the first thing about the topic
at hand. A specialty of hers along with the
ten word posts.



s

[jillery]

Of course, what you claim to be the topic, is almost never the topic,
and thus the source of your tantrums.

And my 10-word posts are for those like yourself who show their
attention-span limits their comprehension to short sentences. But in
your case it appears even 10 words are too long for you to handle.

You're welcome.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 5 Dec 2016 20:25:02 -0500, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Jonathan <wr...@gmail.com>:

>On 12/5/2016 12:33 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Sun, 04 Dec 2016 18:43:40 -0500, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
>>
>>> On Sun, 4 Dec 2016 18:31:32 -0500, Jonathan <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 12/4/2016 2:43 PM, jillery wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 4 Dec 2016 13:30:59 -0500, Jonathan <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> You're so wrong, complete hooey.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Hooey" is your word, not mine.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well it is all unmitigated nonsense, btw what
>>>> does hybridization mean?
>>>
>>>
>>> GIYF
>>>
>>>
>>>>> Apparently you think it's clever to act like a spoiled brat.
>>
>> None of his posts today sound much like jonathan. For one
>> thing, I've never seen him able to restrict himself to
>> one-liners, or even (usually) one-pagers. Maybe a hijack?
>>
>
>
>I was parroting Jillery

Don't give up your day job...

[jillery]

On Tue, 06 Dec 2016 12:14:13 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:

>On Mon, 5 Dec 2016 20:25:02 -0500, the following appeared in
>talk.origins, posted by Jonathan <wr...@gmail.com>:
>
>>On 12/5/2016 12:33 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>> On Sun, 04 Dec 2016 18:43:40 -0500, the following appeared
>>> in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 4 Dec 2016 18:31:32 -0500, Jonathan <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 12/4/2016 2:43 PM, jillery wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 4 Dec 2016 13:30:59 -0500, Jonathan <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You're so wrong, complete hooey.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Hooey" is your word, not mine.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Well it is all unmitigated nonsense, btw what
>>>>> does hybridization mean?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> GIYF
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> Apparently you think it's clever to act like a spoiled brat.
>>>
>>> None of his posts today sound much like jonathan. For one
>>> thing, I've never seen him able to restrict himself to
>>> one-liners, or even (usually) one-pagers. Maybe a hijack?
>>>
>>
>>
>>I was parroting Jillery
>
>Don't give up your day job...

Jonathan's replies are the first official examples of Ignoratio
Elenchi.

[Jonathan]

On 12/5/2016 11:08 PM, jillery wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Dec 2016 20:25:02 -0500, Jonathan <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 12/5/2016 12:33 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>> On Sun, 04 Dec 2016 18:43:40 -0500, the following appeared
>>> in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 4 Dec 2016 18:31:32 -0500, Jonathan <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 12/4/2016 2:43 PM, jillery wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 4 Dec 2016 13:30:59 -0500, Jonathan <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You're so wrong, complete hooey.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Hooey" is your word, not mine.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Well it is all unmitigated nonsense, btw what
>>>>> does hybridization mean?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> GIYF
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> Apparently you think it's clever to act like a spoiled brat.
>>>
>>> None of his posts today sound much like jonathan. For one
>>> thing, I've never seen him able to restrict himself to
>>> one-liners, or even (usually) one-pagers. Maybe a hijack?
>>>
>>
>>
>> I was parroting Jillery, for instance criticizing
>> without knowing the first thing about the topic
>> at hand. A specialty of hers along with the
>> ten word posts.
>
>
> Of course, what you claim

Off topic response



s

[Jonathan]

The simple fact you rarely understand what I'm talking
about is a reflection on your lack of education about
my hobby.



s

[jillery]

You mangling my replies only shows it's you who can't comprehend even
a ten-word reply.

[jillery]

It takes no education at all to recognize that your hobbies are
spamming and trolling, which also take no education.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 6 Dec 2016 20:39:12 -0500, the following appeared in

I rarely understood what Professor Irwin Corey was talking
about, which seems significantly relevant to your statement.

[Steady Eddie]

LOL - no response! Of course not.

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 9 Dec 2016 05:52:39 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Steady Eddie
<1914o...@gmail.com>:

How many times must someone post "You're a scientific
illiterate, and your statement makes no sense" in response
to nonsensical statements from a scientific illiterate?

[Steady Eddie]

"That's funny..."
Darwindom has been caught out on a grievous abuse of its position as "scientific trustees to the world" by a simple layman, and all you can come up with is insults.
I wonder whether this may be a "Eureka!" moment.

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 9 Dec 2016 10:16:47 -0800 (PST), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by Steady Eddie
<1914o...@gmail.com>:

>On Friday, 9 December 2016 11:30:01 UTC-6, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Fri, 9 Dec 2016 05:52:39 -0800 (PST), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Steady Eddie
>> <1914o...@gmail.com>:
>>
>> >On Monday, 5 December 2016 09:10:02 UTC-6, Steady Eddie wrote:
>> >> On Tuesday, 29 November 2016 23:25:01 UTC-6, erik simpson wrote:
>> >> > In the 18Nov16 issue of Science, a news feature "Shaking up the Tree of Life",
>> >> > describes recent discovery of widespread hybridization in many species previously
>> >> > considered discrete. The possibility is raised that it is a major contribution
>> >> > to speciation itself.
>> >> >
>> >> > Abstract:
>> >> >
>> >> > n 2010 a comparison between a Neandertal genome and genomes from people today turned up evidence of ancient liaisons, a discovery that belied the common idea that animal species can't hybridize or, if they do, will produce infertile offspring—think mules. Such reproductive isolation is part of the classic definition of a species. This discovery brought credence to other work in plants, Darwin's finches in the Galápagos Islands, tropical butterflies, mosquitoes, and a few other animals showing that hybridization was not just common, but also important in shaping evolution. The techniques that revealed the Neandertal and Denisovan legacy in our own genome are now making it possible to peer into the genomic histories of many organisms to check for interbreeding. As more examples are discovered, researchers are questioning the definition of species and rethinking whether the tree of life is really a "net" of life.
>> >>
>> >> The comical part is where Darwinists declare the re-combination of an original Species to be a new case of Speciation.
>> >> Just demonstrates the unfalsifiability of Darwinian claims; what qualifies Darwinism as a Snare and a Racket.
>> >
>> >LOL - no response! Of course not.
>>
>> How many times must someone post "You're a scientific
>> illiterate, and your statement makes no sense" in response
>> to nonsensical statements from a scientific illiterate?

>"That's funny..."

Is it? My sig quotes an actual scientist and describes a
major pathway toward scientific progress. And BTW, he was
also a "Darwinist" in the sense in which you apparently use
the term.

>Darwindom has been caught out on a grievous abuse of its position as "scientific trustees to the world" by a simple layman, and all you can come up with is insults.

Your contention above, starting with "The comical part...",
shows that you have no idea what you're talking about;
specifically, it doesn't address the content of Erik's
referenced quote but instead fabricates the claim that
"...Darwinists declare the re-combination of original
Species to be a new case of Speciation". I believe that,
combined with your posting history, is sufficient to justify
my question.

>I wonder whether this may be a "Eureka!" moment.

Depends. Did you shout it while running down the street
naked after discovering a basic fact of science?

[jillery]

On Sat, 10 Dec 2016 10:50:58 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>

I read the first part of your question, and thought I would have to
gouge out my eyes. Then I read your second part, and realized that
event was virtually impossible.

[Steady Eddie]

Are you telling me that you haven't seen it published that Darwinists declare the re-combination of original
Species to be a new case of Speciation? It's common trope in Darwindom these days.

> >I wonder whether this may be a "Eureka!" moment.
>
> Depends. Did you shout it while running down the street
> naked after discovering a basic fact of science?
> --
>
> Bob C.
>
> "The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
> the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
> 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
>
> - Isaac Asimov

Haven't you ever?

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 10 Dec 2016 17:57:23 -0800 (PST), the following

Why do I suspect that, given your observed lack of any sort
of scientific education and your rejection of actual
scientific evidence here in t.o, that you've managed to
misinterpret yet *another* article you've skimmed for
cherries to pick?

Just what do you think is being claimed?

1) Two incipient species re-merged before speciation to
re-form what was essentially the same parent species?

I doubt that would be especially startling to a biologist.

2) Two descendant species remained interfertile, at least to
some extent, and their offspring *also* turned out to be
interfertile (with each other; no participation of the
parent species for some reason) and interbred, forming over
time what amounted to a third descendant species?

I suspect that even *if* such as scenario were discovered in
nature and verified, it would be unique or nearly so, and
thus would hardly form a "staple of Darwinism".

But since it's such a "common trope" you should have no
trouble providing a few references from scientific journals;
three should do nicely.

>> >I wonder whether this may be a "Eureka!" moment.
>>
>> Depends. Did you shout it while running down the street
>> naked after discovering a basic fact of science?

>Haven't you ever?

Nope. Got a copy of the arrest report?

[Steady Eddie]

I believe the latter is what the cited article is about.

> I suspect that even *if* such as scenario were discovered in
> nature and verified, it would be unique or nearly so, and
> thus would hardly form a "staple of Darwinism".

I understand the above citation to be talking about just such a case when it says:
"This discovery brought credence to other work in plants, Darwin's finches in the Galápagos Islands, tropical butterflies, mosquitoes, and a few other animals showing that hybridization was not just common, but also important in shaping evolution."

> But since it's such a "common trope" you should have no
> trouble providing a few references from scientific journals;
> three should do nicely.

You only have to ask the authors of the cited work; they gave 3 examples, and describe it as "common" and "important in shaping evolution".

[eridanus]

El miércoles, 30 de noviembre de 2016, 20:00:01 (UTC), RSNorman escribió:
> On Wed, 30 Nov 2016 11:29:58 -0800, John Harshman
> <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> >On 11/30/16 9:45 AM, RSNorman wrote:
> >> On Tue, 29 Nov 2016 22:16:40 -0800, John Harshman
> >> <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:

> >>
> >>> On 11/29/16 9:23 PM, erik simpson wrote:
> >>>> In the 18Nov16 issue of Science, a news feature "Shaking up the Tree of Life",
> >>>> describes recent discovery of widespread hybridization in many species previously
> >>>> considered discrete. The possibility is raised that it is a major contribution
> >>>> to speciation itself.
> >>>>
> >>>> Abstract:
> >>>>
> >>>> n 2010 a comparison between a Neandertal genome and genomes from
> >>>> people today turned up evidence of ancient liaisons, a discovery that
> >>>> belied the common idea that animal species can't hybridize or, if
> >>>> they do, will produce infertile offspring—think mules. Such
> >>>> reproductive isolation is part of the classic definition of a
> >>>> species. This discovery brought credence to other work in plants,
> >>>> Darwin's finches in the Galápagos Islands, tropical butterflies,
> >>>> mosquitoes, and a few other animals showing that hybridization was
> >>>> not just common, but also important in shaping evolution. The
> >>>> techniques that revealed the Neandertal and Denisovan legacy in our
> >>>> own genome are now making it possible to peer into the genomic
> >>>> histories of many organisms to check for interbreeding. As more
> >>>> examples are discovered, researchers are questioning the definition
> >>>> of species and rethinking whether the tree of life is really a "net"
> >>>> of life.
> >>>

> >>> This seems like serious hype to me, and another fine example of science
> >>> writers run amuck. The idea that animal species can't hybridize may be
> >>> common in some circles, but not among biologists. I don't think anyone
> >>> is questioning the definition of species. And we've known about hybrid
> >>> species for a very long time.
> >>

> >> I have the full text, which is paywalled. It is serious but not
> >> overly hyped. On first glance it does refer to a long history of
> >> recognizing hybridization in nature: back to 1950 in plants and the
> >> '80s and '90s in animals. It does say that field zoologists have long
> >> recognized the frequency of hybrids but museum people have been more
> >> refractory and insistent on discrete and separated species.
> >
> >I know a lot of museum people, and I can't recognize that claim. I know
> >curators whose major area of study is hybrid zones.
> >
> >> I think it really is true that many biologists have been far too
> >> infatuated with Mayr's species notion as being absolute and total.
> >
> >Certainly Mayr didn't take that view. Can you suggest some examples?
> >
> >> This is an attempt to get people to sign on to a much more loose and
> >> flexible notion of species with very permeable boundaries as being
> >> commonplace rather than interesting but insignificant exceptions.
> >
> >This has been the case at least within ornithology for a very long time.
> >
> >> The low cost and ease of genomic analysis will be very telling in the
> >> future. The article describes that Galapagos finches of different
> >> species on one island are more similar to each other genetically than
> >> they are to conspecifics on different islands. It also talks about
> >> two evolutionarily significant products of hybridization. First, back
> >> crossing of hybrids to one parental type produces introgression,
> >> introducting new alleles and thus greatly increasing variation within
> >> the population in excess of what simple mutation and recombination
> >> within the one population can do. It also describes how the hybrids
> >> can then develop into new species on their own.
> >>
> >> Again, the emphasis is not that these things are suddenly discovered
> >> and will completely overturn all of evolutionary biology. It is
> >> really that these things are far more common then most people have
> >> realized and so should be brought into the picture of how evolution
> >> progresses normally.
> >>
> >> If you want the article, email me by removing the underscores in my
> >> listed address. I will form an "informal seminar group" to share and
> >> discuss the work.
> >>
>
> The article describes the Grants' work finding that "almost 10% of all
> bird species failed to respect species boundaries" and quotes Peter
> Grant as saying "That flew in the face of current wisdom."
>
> The article also writes:
> A fair number of biologists remain uneasy with this picture of
> unchecked gene swapping. “Some people are going way overboard in
> saying that everything is hybridizing with everything else,” says Joel
> Cracraft of the American Museum of Natural History in New York City.
> “It’s a little hyperbol[ic] to say it’s wiping away species
> boundaries.”
>
> The Grants think the divide over the importance of hybridization and
> its effect onspeciation is partly cultural. They and other field
> biologists accept that a species can be legitimate even if it can
> sometimes mate with others. In contrast, says Rosemary Grant, “Some
> people in museums only [recognize] a species when it’s absolutely
> certain there’s complete genetic incompatibility.” A species may have
> to evolve for tens of millions of years before it can meet that
> definition—if it happens at all.

species very similar in appearance can be acceptable that they would be
able to interbreed. While nobody is going to speak about hybridization
among animals quite different like cow and a turtle, or a cow and a lion.
We should not be dogmatic.
eri

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 12 Dec 2016 06:06:33 -0800 (PST), the following

OK.

>> I suspect that even *if* such as scenario were discovered in
>> nature and verified, it would be unique or nearly so, and
>> thus would hardly form a "staple of Darwinism".
>
>I understand the above citation to be talking about just such a case when it says:
>"This discovery brought credence to other work in plants, Darwin's finches in the Galápagos Islands, tropical butterflies, mosquitoes, and a few other animals showing that hybridization was not just common, but also important in shaping evolution."

Could be. I know that the finches have gone toward
speciation several times due to resource issues, then
reverted (Weiner's "The Beak of the Finch" is a good
reference); what I don't know is whether any of those times
resulted in actual speciation followed by hybridization
resulting in what was considered a new species. IIRC it was
more like scenario 1.

>> But since it's such a "common trope" you should have no
>> trouble providing a few references from scientific journals;
>> three should do nicely.
>
>You only have to ask the authors of the cited work; they gave 3 examples, and describe it as "common" and "important in shaping evolution".

OK again. While my impression that such events as
specifically described in my scenario 2 are uncommon, I'm
willing to accept I was wrong.

What I'm having difficulty understanding is why you think
this is a problem, as was obvious in your post in which you
stated:

"The comical part is where Darwinists declare the
re-combination of an original Species to be a new case of
Speciation. Just demonstrates the unfalsifiability of
Darwinian claims; what qualifies Darwinism as a Snare and a
Racket."

Exactly how does such a scenario qualify as "unfalsifiable",
if one accepts that species boundaries are intrinsically
"squishy" in many areas, which they are, as shown by the
existence of both sterile and non-sterile hybrids between
closely-related species? Speciation is not a light switch.

And AIUI, whether it's a "new case of speciation" would
depend primarily on the resultant species' interfertility
with the original parent species.

[Steady Eddie]

In perhaps most cases where Darwinists declare "Speciation", the Species didn't "Speciate" in the first place by any ;reasonable; way.
What part of that do you not understand?

[jillery]

On Thu, 15 Dec 2016 19:19:03 -0800 (PST), Steady Eddie
<1914o...@gmail.com> wrote:


>In perhaps most cases where Darwinists declare "Speciation", the Species didn't "Speciate" in the first place by any ;reasonable; way.
>What part of that do you not understand?

Right here would have been a good place for you to have cited even one
example of what you're talking about above, and why you think that
example doesn't qualify as speciation.

[Steady Eddie]

"A hefty finch with an outsized head is the poster child for A RECENTLY RECOGNIZED SOURCE OF NEW
SPECIES: HYBRIDIZATION. For decades biologists have explored how cross-species matings can
accelerate evolution by introducing genetic novelty into the parent lineages. But they now realize that the
hybrid offspring themselves can thrive and set off on their own evolutionary path. The bird was first
noticed in 1981 and it and its descendants have kept to themselves for generations now, still singing the
unusual song and breeding only among their own kind. They don't quite represent a new species yet, but
BETWEEN 4% AND 10% OF PLANT SPECIES APPEAR TO HAVE ARISEN THIS WAY. And researchers are
finding new examples among birds, insects, fish, and marine mammals."
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/354/6314/818

Try to keep up.

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 15 Dec 2016 19:19:03 -0800 (PST), the following

You failed to address this in any meaningful way.

<snip irrelevantia>

>In perhaps most cases where Darwinists declare "Speciation", the Species didn't "Speciate" in the first place by any ;reasonable; way.

Care to give some examples of what you consider
"unreasonable" speciation? "In perhaps most cases",
specifically including this one, those who reject evolution
don't even understand what evolutionary theory says.

>What part of that do you not understand?

Pretty much all of it, exactly as you seem to not understand
evolution or speciation.

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 05:56:49 -0800 (PST), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by Steady Eddie
<1914o...@gmail.com>:

>On Friday, 16 December 2016 00:05:01 UTC-7, jillery wrote:
>> On Thu, 15 Dec 2016 19:19:03 -0800 (PST), Steady Eddie
>> <1914o...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >In perhaps most cases where Darwinists declare "Speciation", the Species didn't "Speciate" in the first place by any ;reasonable; way.
>> >What part of that do you not understand?
>>
>>
>> Right here would have been a good place for you to have cited even one
>> example of what you're talking about above, and why you think that
>> example doesn't qualify as speciation.

>"A hefty finch with an outsized head is the poster child for A RECENTLY RECOGNIZED SOURCE OF NEW
>SPECIES: HYBRIDIZATION. For decades biologists have explored how cross-species matings can
>accelerate evolution by introducing genetic novelty into the parent lineages. But they now realize that the
>hybrid offspring themselves can thrive and set off on their own evolutionary path. The bird was first
>noticed in 1981 and it and its descendants have kept to themselves for generations now, still singing the
>unusual song and breeding only among their own kind. They don't quite represent a new species yet, but
>BETWEEN 4% AND 10% OF PLANT SPECIES APPEAR TO HAVE ARISEN THIS WAY. And researchers are
>finding new examples among birds, insects, fish, and marine mammals."
>http://science.sciencemag.org/content/354/6314/818

And this is a problem...why? I described in a previous post
to you how hybridization *could* result in a new species,
essentially what the cite above says, but you failed to
actually address it, just as you fail to address what this
cite says.

"Species", as I noted in that post, can be a slippery
concept, but one of the main tests is interfertility between
populations.

>Try to keep up.

You might want to take your own advice, and address my
previous post *and* the content of your cited reference.

[erik simpson]

Why argue with this guy? Eddie has never demonstrated the ability to read for
comprehension anything more complicated that the instructions that come with a
toaster.

[Steady Eddie]

Come on, Bob. I will not respond to posts where you snip parts of my argument. Why would you do that?
Are you afraid that someone else might see what I wrote?

[Steady Eddie]

I was talking to Jillery, not you.
You see, she needs 'special attention'.

[jillery]

On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 05:56:49 -0800 (PST), Steady Eddie

<1914o...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Friday, 16 December 2016 00:05:01 UTC-7, jillery wrote:
>> On Thu, 15 Dec 2016 19:19:03 -0800 (PST), Steady Eddie
>> <1914o...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >In perhaps most cases where Darwinists declare "Speciation", the Species didn't "Speciate" in the first place by any ;reasonable; way.
>> >What part of that do you not understand?
>>
>>
>> Right here would have been a good place for you to have cited even one
>> example of what you're talking about above, and why you think that
>> example doesn't qualify as speciation.
>

>"A hefty finch with an outsized head is the poster child for A RECENTLY RECOGNIZED SOURCE OF NEW
>SPECIES: HYBRIDIZATION. For decades biologists have explored how cross-species matings can
>accelerate evolution by introducing genetic novelty into the parent lineages. But they now realize that the
>hybrid offspring themselves can thrive and set off on their own evolutionary path. The bird was first
>noticed in 1981 and it and its descendants have kept to themselves for generations now, still singing the
>unusual song and breeding only among their own kind. They don't quite represent a new species yet, but
>BETWEEN 4% AND 10% OF PLANT SPECIES APPEAR TO HAVE ARISEN THIS WAY. And researchers are
>finding new examples among birds, insects, fish, and marine mammals."
>http://science.sciencemag.org/content/354/6314/818
>

Once again, you conveniently ignored the hard part, to say why you
think hybridization doesn't qualify as speciation.

But at least you gave an example. Now you get to explain how you
think hybridization qualifies as an example of the "most cases" you
asserted previously.


>Try to keep up.


Keeping up with you isn't the problem here. Instead, it's keeping you
moving along a coherent line of reasoning.

[jillery]

On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 13:03:11 -0800 (PST), Steady Eddie

The veracity of your comments is independent of who you talk to. Why
are you so afraid to back up your claims?

>> >Try to keep up.
>>
>> You might want to take your own advice, and address my
>> previous post *and* the content of your cited reference.
>> --
>>
>> Bob C.
>>
>> "The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
>> the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
>> 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
>>
>> - Isaac Asimov

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 13:00:50 -0800 (PST), the following

What I snipped was, as noted, irrelevant to the question,
and did not address what I wrote. If you wish, re-insert it
in your response and I'll show you *why* it's irrelevant.

And you *still* haven't addressed what I wrote.

>> >In perhaps most cases where Darwinists declare "Speciation", the Species didn't "Speciate" in the first place by any ;reasonable; way.

>> Care to give some examples of what you consider
>> "unreasonable" speciation? "In perhaps most cases",
>> specifically including this one, those who reject evolution
>> don't even understand what evolutionary theory says.

[Crickets...]

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 13:03:11 -0800 (PST), the following

So? If you wish to have a private conversation take it to
email; this is a public discussion group, and the question
remains valid. To reiterate, why do you see the content of
your cited article as a problem for evolutionary theory?

>You see, she needs 'special attention'.

Not that I've seen.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 17 Dec 2016 10:46:35 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:

So, you don't? OK