Drosophila speciation??

[martin]

A NEW SPECIES IS NEVER PRODUCED
The fruit flies always remain fruit flies.

After decades of study, without immediately killing or sterilizing them, 400 different mutational features have been identified in fruit flies. But none of these changes the fruit fly to a different species.

"Out of 400 mutations that have been provided by Drosophila melanogaster, there is not one that can be called a new species. It does not seem, therefore, that the central problem of evolution can be solved by mutations."—*Maurice Caullery, Genetics and Heredity (1964), p. 119.

*"Richard Goldschmidt fell into despair. The changes, he lamented, were so hopelessly micro [insignificant] that if a thousand mutations were combined in one specimen, there would still be no new species."—Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried (1971), p. 33.

A thousand known fruit-fly mutations placed in one individual—would still not produce a new species!

"In the best-known organisms, like Drosophila, innumerable mutants are known. If we were able to combine a thousand or more of such mutants in a single individual, this still would have no resemblance whatsoever to any type known as a [new] species in nature."—*Richard B. Goldschmidt, "Evolution, As Viewed by One Geneticist," American Scientist, January 1952, p. 94.

The obstinate, stubborn little creatures!

"Fruit flies refuse to become anything but fruit flies under any circumstances yet devised."—*Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong (1982), p. 61.

WHAT HAPPENS TO THE MUTATED FRUIT FLIES?
We have had opportunity to clearly learn what mutations do to a physical organism.

Fruit flies which receive mutations are always weakened in one way or another.

"The clear-cut mutants of Drosophila, with which so much of the classical research in genetics were done, are almost without exception inferior to wild-type flies in viability, fertility, longevity."—*Theodosius Dobzhansky, Heredity and the Nature of Man (1964), p. 126.

The mutated creatures die out, when placed out in nature with normal hardy specimens.

"A review of known facts about their ability to survive has led to no other conclusion than that they [the mutated offspring] are always constitutionally weaker than their parent form or species, and in a population with free competition they are eliminated . . Therefore they are never found in nature (e.g. not a single one of the several hundred [types] of Drosophila mutation), and therefore, they are able to appear only in the favorable environment of the experimental field or laboratory."—*H. Nilsson, Synthetische Artbildng (1957), p. 1186.

The classical example of the damaging effects of mutations is to be found in what scientists have done to fruit flies by inducing mutations in them.

"Most mutants which arise in any organism are more or less disadvantageous to their possessors. The classical mutants obtained in Drosophila usually show deterioration, breakdown, or disappearance of some organs. Mutants are known which diminish the quantity or destroy the pigment in the eyes, and in the body reduce the wings, eyes, bristles, legs. Many mutants are, in fact lethal to their possessors. Mutants which equal the normal fly in vigor are a minority, and mutants that would make a major improvement of the normal organization in the normal environments are unknown."—*Theodosius Dobzhansky, Evolution, Genetics, and Man (1955), p. 105.

No new-species fruit flies have ever resulted from sixty years of irradiation the poor creatures.

"It is a striking, but not much mentioned fact that, though geneticists have been breeding fruit flies for sixty years or more in labs all round the world—flies which produce a new generation every eleven days—they have never yet seen the emergence of a new species or even a new enzyme."—*Gordon R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery (1983), p. 48.

[RBH]

Is a collection of quote mines intended to be a discussion?

Do you know the conditions under which speciation occurs? Did those conditions hold in any of the experiments to which the mined quotations refer?

RBH

[martin]

Hi RBH,

Is a collection of quote mines intended to be a discussion?

It was intended to be a catalyst for discussion. Did you want to comment on any of the quotes?

Do you know the conditions under which speciation occurs?

I am not convinced that it does occure.

Did those conditions hold in any of the experiments to which the mined

I'm not sure what you are asking. Could you rephrase?

[FatherMithras]

Holy shit. Martin responded after opening a thread!!! You think you could stay this time, so all our pretty responses aren't waster?

[FatherMithras]

^ Dodd, D.M.B. (1989) "Reproductive isolation as a consequence of adaptive divergence in Drosophila pseudoobscura." Evolution 43:1308–1311.

In that experiment, we find...

Diane Dodd was also able to show allopatric speciation by reproductive isolation in Drosophila pseudoobscura fruit flies after only eight generations using different food types, starch and maltose.

[Djugashvillain]

Martin's first post is identical to one on his own message board. The discussion is probably worth reading to see where he is coming from.

http://com2.runboard.com/bmartinsworld.f1.t13

[Sounder]

It was intended to be a catalyst for discussion. Did you want to comment on any of the quotes?

Hey, congradulations, you found an experiment which didn't yield the expected result. Welcome to science.

Is that the kind of discussion you were looking for?

[RBH]

Is a collection of quote mines intended to be a discussion? It was intended to be a catalyst for discussion. Did you want to comment on any of the quotes?Nope. I prefer to comment on substantive material that demonstrates some understanding of what's quoted.

Do you know the conditions under which speciation occurs? I am not convinced that it does occure.Well, since speciation has been observed (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html), that's kind of a problem, no? It's called "ignoring evidence".Did those conditions hold in any of the experiments to which the mined I'm not sure what you are asking. Could you rephrase?Speciation doesn't occur merely as a function of mutations. Particular conditions have to be present (e.g., reproductive isolation of subpops, sustained selective pressure; etc.). Since your quotes are apparently intended to demonstrate that speciation in Drosophila hasn't occurred (though note FatherMithras's reference), I ask if those quotes refer to work in which the conditions necessary for speciation were present. If they weren't then none of those quotations means anything with respect to speciation.

Oh, and if you're not convinced that speciation has occurred, the Ark must have been one hellaciously stuffed barge. Even Kurt Wise isn't that extreme -- he thinks that new species were popping up daily right after the Ark grounded -- a sort of hyper-speciation episode. Somewhere there's an MP3 of a speech in which he argued that.

RBH

[Sounder]

Come to think of it, are these quotes even in reference to an experiment? And why are they all over 20 years old?

[flashbaby]

I thought for a creationist 20 years is current at least compared to the bronze age campfire stories they use normally.

[Mike Elphick]

Come to think of it, are these quotes even in reference to an experiment? And why are they all over 20 years old?
Because he cut and pasted them from here (http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/10mut10.htm). Why can't creationists think for themselves? Perhaps most of them are not encouraged to think, so all they can do is regurgitate what some other pathetic thoughtless victim has written. That's how it gets spread about, one web site copying another.

[Richard Forrest]

A NEW SPECIES IS NEVER PRODUCED
The fruit flies always remain fruit flies.

After decades of study, without immediately killing or sterilizing them, 400 different mutational features have been identified in fruit flies. But none of these changes the fruit fly to a different species.

"Out of 400 mutations that have been provided by Drosophila melanogaster, there is not one that can be called a new species. It does not seem, therefore, that the central problem of evolution can be solved by mutations."—*Maurice Caullery, Genetics and Heredity (1964), p. 119.

That quotation is 42 years old. We've made enormous advances in genetics since then

*"Richard Goldschmidt fell into despair. The changes, he lamented, were so hopelessly micro [insignificant] that if a thousand mutations were combined in one specimen, there would still be no new species."—Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried (1971), p. 33.

That quotation is 35 years old. We've made enormous advances in genetics since then



A thousand known fruit-fly mutations placed in one individual—would still not produce a new species!

"In the best-known organisms, like Drosophila, innumerable mutants are known. If we were able to combine a thousand or more of such mutants in a single individual, this still would have no resemblance whatsoever to any type known as a [new] species in nature."—*Richard B. Goldschmidt, "Evolution, As Viewed by One Geneticist," American Scientist, January 1952, p. 94.

That quotation is 54 years old. We've made enormous advances in genetics since then



The obstinate, stubborn little creatures!

"Fruit flies refuse to become anything but fruit flies under any circumstances yet devised."—*Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong (1982), p. 61.

That quotation is 24 years old. We've made enormous advances in genetics since then


WHAT HAPPENS TO THE MUTATED FRUIT FLIES?
We have had opportunity to clearly learn what mutations do to a physical organism.

Fruit flies which receive mutations are always weakened in one way or another.

"The clear-cut mutants of Drosophila, with which so much of the classical research in genetics were done, are almost without exception inferior to wild-type flies in viability, fertility, longevity."—*Theodosius Dobzhansky, Heredity and the Nature of Man (1964), p. 126.


That quotation is 42 years old. We've made enormous advances in genetics since then


The mutated creatures die out, when placed out in nature with normal hardy specimens.

"A review of known facts about their ability to survive has led to no other conclusion than that they [the mutated offspring] are always constitutionally weaker than their parent form or species, and in a population with free competition they are eliminated . . Therefore they are never found in nature (e.g. not a single one of the several hundred [types] of Drosophila mutation), and therefore, they are able to appear only in the favorable environment of the experimental field or laboratory."—*H. Nilsson, Synthetische Artbildng (1957), p. 1186.

That quotation is 49 years old. We've made enormous advances in genetics since then



The classical example of the damaging effects of mutations is to be found in what scientists have done to fruit flies by inducing mutations in them.

"Most mutants which arise in any organism are more or less disadvantageous to their possessors. The classical mutants obtained in Drosophila usually show deterioration, breakdown, or disappearance of some organs. Mutants are known which diminish the quantity or destroy the pigment in the eyes, and in the body reduce the wings, eyes, bristles, legs. Many mutants are, in fact lethal to their possessors. Mutants which equal the normal fly in vigor are a minority, and mutants that would make a major improvement of the normal organization in the normal environments are unknown."—*Theodosius Dobzhansky, Evolution, Genetics, and Man (1955), p. 105.

That quotation is 51 years old. We've made enormous advances in genetics since then



No new-species fruit flies have ever resulted from sixty years of irradiation the poor creatures.

"It is a striking, but not much mentioned fact that, though geneticists have been breeding fruit flies for sixty years or more in labs all round the world—flies which produce a new generation every eleven days—they have never yet seen the emergence of a new species or even a new enzyme."—*Gordon R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery (1983), p. 48.

That quotation is 33 years old. We've made enormous advances in genetics since then.

Nice to see that creationists are trying to keep up to date in their understanding of science.


Richard Forrest

[Tuvar Ane Ingolenen]

I thought for a creationist 20 years is current at least compared to the bronze age campfire stories they use normally.
'The older the better' would apply to scripture. They might not realize it doesn't apply to science.

[flashbaby]

The problem creationists have is that they can't tell the difference between scripture and science, fact and fiction nor debating tricks and evidence.

I could go on but I won't.

[Malachi151]

There are many reported cases of Drosophila speciation actually, I know of at least 8. The problem that creationists have with this is that, of course, they are all still fruit flies that look basically the same as wild-type Drosophila, so there isn't any obvious "change in form", they just no longer breed with each other. That's "speciation" though...

[doc_simon]

That quotation is 42 years old. We've made enormous advances in genetics since then

As far as I can tell, genetics research is moving so fast that could be rewritten as :

"That quotation is n small-time-units old. We've made enormous advances in genetics since then"

An interesting exercise would be to see when these papers were last cited by a scientific article.

[David B]

I wonder if the OP will be back to follow up his catalyst for discussion.

David B (hopes so, because he's learning from the thread)

[buckshot23]

Martin,

Speciation occurs. All it is that a group of animals branch off and can no longer reproduce with the main group any longer. They probably can reproduce but have lost interest. Anybody who has been married knows what I mean.:Cheeky:

[buckshot23]

Nice to see that creationists are trying to keep up to date in their understanding of science.

Richard Forrest
What's going on Richard? Long time no see. How have you been?

Anyways, can this quote now be pulled from rotation also.
“nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution”
How old is that one? 33 years?

How about this one?
The theory of evolution is altogether essential to the teaching of biology and its kindred sciences. To deny the teacher of biology the use of this most fundamental generalization of his science would make his teaching as chaotic as an attempt to teach
Whoops. Sorry out of context. Let me put it in fuller context.
The theory of evolution is altogether essential to the teaching of biology and its kindred sciences. To deny the teacher of biology the use of this most fundamental generalization of his science would make his teaching as chaotic as an attempt to teach ... physics without assuming the existence of the ether

[Gliptic]

buckshot23, if you haven't noticed, we don't use quotations as evidence of evolution's validity, so that is moot.

[martin]

Diane Dodd’s fruit fly experiment suggests that isolating populations in different environments (e.g., with different food sources) can lead to the beginning of reproductive isolation. These results are consistent with the idea that geographic isolation is an important step of some speciation events.

This is a far cry from proof of speciation.There is no new species that can reproduce. Now where is the proof of speciation?

[buckshot23]

This is a far cry from proof of speciation.There is no new species that can reproduce. Now where is the proof of speciation?
Martin there are species who seperate from the main population and do reproduce. This isn't a problem for creationists at all. They are a different type of fruitfly, nothing that shows that these types of events created the biodiversity on this planet.

[martin]

buckshot:Martin there are species who seperate from the main population and do reproduce. This isn't a problem for creationists at all. They are a different type of fruitfly, nothing that shows that these types of events created the biodiversity on this planet.

But speciation has never been observed, right?

[buckshot23]

buckshot:

But speciation has never been observed, right?
Yes it has. This isn't the event you think it is. It is almost like if a group of humans that break off from the rest of the world and decide that they only will mate with the same race of people. The can mate with others, genetically but they choose not to.

[buckshot23]

buckshot23, if you haven't noticed, we don't use quotations as evidence of evolution's validity, so that is moot.
Someone recently used one of those quotes to try and equate biology with evolution.

[martin]

Yes it has. This isn't the event you think it is. It is almost like if a group of humans that break off from the rest of the world and decide that they only will mate with the same race of people. The can mate with others, genetically but they choose not to.

No, busckshot, that's not speciation. speciation is when a new species is produced.

[buckshot23]

No, busckshot, that's not speciation. speciation is when a new species is produced.
Species is a human categorization. I agree nothing really new is being created through this, just a different version of an old species. My comparison is just for illustration to highlight that because a species stops breeding with another this doesn't mean it can't. AIG, ICR etc. accept speciation. There is no good reason at all to reject it.

[martin]

I'm not buying it, Buckshot. If there is really own one species as you say, then speciation is impossible.

[Monad]

A NEW SPECIES IS NEVER PRODUCED
The fruit flies always remain fruit flies.

Try visiting Hawaii:

http://www-geology.ucdavis.edu/~cowen/HistoryofLife/speciationmode.html

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/darwin/origin/flies.html

the fruit fly's there have diversified into over 800 species from one original species - the key factors include range of habitats, isolation (such as on an island), and time - in this case <700,000 years (which is the age of Hawaii) - very rapid in evolutionary terms but still a lot less than less than a <century of fruitfly research in the lab

even so Dobzhansky, Th., and O. Pavlovsky, 1971. "An experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila", Nature 23:289-292. identified a strain that had developed hybrid sterility and strong mating preferences for it's own strain - these are 2 key factors in the definition of speciation.

Dianne Dodd carried out other experiments testing a form of artificial allopatric speciation:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VC1fEvidenceSpeciation.shtml

Climate also seems to be a factor in fruitfly evolution:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/09/060901164253.htm

in this case we are able to observe these changes as they are occurring right now as a result of climate and environmental change.

We have also been able to observe changes occurring sufficient to create a new species in the case of apple fruit flies:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_maggot

which is also referred to in this overview of factors involved in speciation

http://biology200.gsu.edu/houghton'04/2107%20'06/lecture5new.html

[kingzfan2000]

That quotation is 42 years old. We've made enormous advances in genetics since then



That quotation is 35 years old. We've made enormous advances in genetics since then



That quotation is 54 years old. We've made enormous advances in genetics since then



That quotation is 24 years old. We've made enormous advances in genetics since then



That quotation is 42 years old. We've made enormous advances in genetics since then



That quotation is 49 years old. We've made enormous advances in genetics since then



That quotation is 51 years old. We've made enormous advances in genetics since then



That quotation is 33 years old. We've made enormous advances in genetics since then.

Nice to see that creationists are trying to keep up to date in their understanding of science.


Richard Forrest
So we have now seen fruit flies speciate into something other than fruit flies?

[RBH]

So we have now seen fruit flies speciate into something other than fruit flies?That's not speciation. That requires a series of speciation events in a lineage. Kingzfan would do well to drop the saltational assumption that infects hos remarks about evolution.

An excellent example is the Hawaiian Silversword Alliance (http://www.botany.hawaii.edu/FACULTY/CARR/silversword.htm). From a single ancestor, that group has diversified into a clade including at least three genera (http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/95/16/9402) of the family (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CompositaeCompositae[/url).

RBH

[Gliptic]

Someone recently used one of those quotes to try and equate biology with evolution.

Then it was superfluous since it's readily apparent that the overwhelming majority of biologists still agrees with "nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution".

[FatherMithras]

Of course we're never going to see speciation on the level of dinosaur t bird in a human lifetime. That'd be ridiculous. But the idea that weve never seen species become reproductively isolated is laughably incorrect, and a cursory google search should yield results that will enlighten anyone interested. The way we determine if speciation has occured enough time to do the quivalent of "this kind of fly" to "new kind of fly" is through comparative genetics, among other fields. For example, looking at fossils.

My comparison is just for illustration to highlight that because a species stops breeding with another this doesn't mean it can't.
Someone hasn't been doing their homework.

[buckshot23]

Someone hasn't been doing their homework.
How is what I wrote incorrect?

[FatherMithras]

How is what I wrote incorrect?

Well, you said that in speciation, animals simply refuse to mate together, and that they could do so and produce viable offspring. I believe it's here...

My comparison is just for illustration to highlight that because a species stops breeding with another this doesn't mean it can't.

Which, if you'd done any homework at all, and attempted to examine this claim, would easily be shown to be incorrect.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VC1gReproIsolation.shtml
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproductive_isolation

Found that in less than two minutes. Come on man!

[Russell's Teapot]

Try visiting Hawaii:

http://www-geology.ucdavis.edu/~cowen/HistoryofLife/speciationmode.html

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/darwin/origin/flies.html

the fruit fly's there have diversified into over 800 species from one original species - the key factors include range of habitats, isolation (such as on an island), and time - in this case <700,000 years (which is the age of Hawaii) - very rapid in evolutionary terms but still a lot less than less than a <century of fruitfly research in the lab
Patently obvious that goddidit :rolleyes: ;)

[buckshot23]

Well, you said that in speciation, animals simply refuse to mate together, and that they could do so and produce viable offspring. I believe it's here...
This isn't what I said at all! "Come on man" is right.
Which, if you'd done any homework at all, and attempted to examine this claim, would easily be shown to be incorrect.
I said something other than what you thought I did. I said...
My comparison is just for illustration to highlight that because a species stops breeding with another this doesn't mean it can't.
My comparison illustrates this point just fine. I in no way was saying that speciation is only cases like this. This is not universal claim. If a species stops breeding with its older species does not mean that it cannot breed with it.
Found that in less than two minutes. Come on man!
I am not sure how it is appropriate for me to research an unmade claim.

[FatherMithras]

I am not sure how it is appropriate for me to research an unmade claim.

Really?

It is almost like if a group of humans that break off from the rest of the world and decide that they only will mate with the same race of people. The can mate with others, genetically but they choose not to.


Speciation occurs. All it is that a group of animals branch off and can no longer reproduce with the main group any longer. They probably can reproduce but have lost interest.

So, yes, you in fact DID make the claim that speciation as we've observed it allows for the new species to interbreed, just that they "choose" not to. Not only that, you told a falsehood as shown here

They are a different type of fruitfly, nothing that shows that these types of events created the biodiversity on this planet.
Apparently comparative genetics is now in the category of "nothing".

[buckshot23]

Really?
Yes really.
So, yes, you in fact DID make the claim that speciation as we've observed it allows for the new species to interbreed, just that they "choose" not to.
Oh brother. Maybe " It is almost like..." and "probably" should have hinted that I wasn't making a direct comparison or universal claim.
Not only that, you told a falsehood as shown here


Apparently comparative genetics is now in the category of "nothing".
:huh: This is ridiculous. What does comparative genetics have to do with that statement? Furthermore even IF the fruitfly shows us something more than creating further types of fruitflies this still doesn't demonstrate that this is how the earth's biodiversity was created.

[FatherMithras]

This is ridiculous. What does comparative genetics have to do with that statement? Furthermore even IF the fruitfly shows us something more than creating further types of fruitflies this still doesn't demonstrate that this is how the earth's biodiversity was created.
What's ridiculous is how you couldn't see that comparative genetics would show us how closely related two organisms are and thus allow us to see if they were related, and how closely, giving us evidence of speciation, and along with all our other nice evidence, which includes fossils, geology, ad nauseum, it demonstrates beyond a reasonable doubt how earth's biodiversity was created, though as always, nothing is absolutely verified (just like in every other reasonable endeavor of science, questioning is left open.).

Oh brother. Maybe " It is almost like..." and "probably" should have hinted that I wasn't making a direct comparison or universal claim.Than making those comments was useless, as it brought nothing to the discussion.

I don't see why you always get up in arms once your semantic games are called out and refuted.

[buckshot23]

What's ridiculous is how you couldn't see that comparative genetics would show us how closely related two organisms are and thus allow us to see if they were related,
This in no way shows that these events created all biodiversity on this planet. Showing if something is related is not showing that ALL biodiversity was created through speciation events.

Than making those comments was useless, as it brought nothing to the discussion.

Like all of your posts are relevant and on topic.:huh: I was trying to explain to martin that these speciation events are not as significant as he seems to think. Maybe I failed but I tried.(see recent clinton interview):Cheeky:
I don't see why you always get up in arms once your semantic games are called out and refuted.
Sure you refuted me, thoroughly.:huh: You attacked a strawman version of what I said. That is the bottom line. I didn't say all speciation events are as I described above. You thought I did and attacked that. That is not a semantic game at all. I "get up in arms" when attributed with claims I didn't make. As would just about anybody on these fora.

[Y.B]

This in no way shows that these events created all biodiversity on this planet. Showing if something is related is not showing that ALL biodiversity was created through speciation events.

Observed speciation (to the point where two species can't reproduce even if they wanted to) doesn't alone show that all biodiversity on Earth was produced by speciation, but it is a mechanism needed for common descent to work at least in theory, and then we have to look at all the other evidence as well. The fossil record, molecular evidence etc. show beyond a reasonable doubt that common descent did happen, the question remains how it happened. Besides speciation as a mechanism, we can look at, for example, homeobox genes and see that their origin goes all the way to the pre-Cambrian. We can infer that there have been duplications of homeobox gene sets and diversification into different homeobox families all along the animal kingdom.

[FatherMithras]

This in no way shows that these events created all biodiversity on this planet. Showing if something is related is not showing that ALL biodiversity was created through speciation events.

I'd have to disagree. It does not show, with absolute certainty that speciation EXACTLY as it occured in this example resulted in the biodiversity of life. To be EXACT I'd have to say it is simply a pieve of evidence in the enormous list of evidences for speciation being the mechanism for the biodiversity of life, among other confirmed pieces of evidence.

Like all of your posts are relevant and on topic. I was trying to explain to martin that these speciation events are not as significant as he seems to think. Maybe I failed but I tried.(see recent clinton interview)

Well, it depends. This is a proof that the creationist falsehood (of certain groups, not all) about speciation never occuring in a significant way that could lead to new species forming is false.

Sure you refuted me, thoroughly. You attacked a strawman version of what I said. That is the bottom line. No, I didn't. What you offered was a strawman version of speciation, which I proceded to refute. You created the strawman, not me, which is why I only refuted your specific claims.

I didn't say all speciation events are as I described above. You thought I did and attacked that. That is not a semantic game at all.
What you wrote implied otherwise. From your above response I can see this may not have been what you intended. However, the context you wrote it in makes the comment insignificant, and has no point unless it's being used to refute the idea that two species can become genetically isolated. What's the point of mentioning that new species "Can but choose not to mate" in that context? If you meant "Sometimes" and you didn't put that in there, it indicates very highly that you didn't mean to put it there or imply it, especially in the context. If that wasn't your intention, than I'd simply ask you to be a bit more careful with your additions on such a topic with someone as lacking in information as martin. Look what he thought you said

I'm not buying it, Buckshot. If there is really own one species as you say, then speciation is impossible.
So I'm not the only one who was thinking that. The person you were addressing came to the exact same conclusion.

[buckshot23]

I'd have to disagree.
Of course you do.
It does not show
So far so good.:Cheeky:
, with absolute certainty that speciation EXACTLY as it occured in this example resulted in the biodiversity of life. To be EXACT I'd have to say it is simply a pieve of evidence in the enormous list of evidences for speciation being the mechanism for the biodiversity of life, among other confirmed pieces of evidence.
You do however basically agree with me. Whether you are EXACT or not these speciation events do not establish that through these events actually created biodiversity of this planet. Whether it is a "pieve" or not this still renders these events as interesting, but not indicative or demanding of universal common descent.

Well, it depends. This is a proof that the creationist falsehood (of certain groups, not all) about speciation never occuring in a significant way that could lead to new species forming is false.
No, I didn't. What you offered was a strawman version of speciation, which I proceded to refute. You created the strawman, not me, which is why I only refuted your specific claims.
Sorry you did. I did not claim ...
Well, you said that in speciation, animals simply refuse to mate together, and that they could do so and produce viable offspring. I believe it's here...
I was trying to build a case with martin and this was the first step. You then made this into a universal claim of all speciation events.
What you wrote implied otherwise.
Implied from what? An expectation that a YEC would make this claim? You then jumped in with this expectation and jumped to incorrect conclusions.
From your above response I can see this may not have been what you intended. However, the context you wrote it in makes the comment insignificant, and has no point unless it's being used to refute the idea that two species can become genetically isolated.
Which I have never tried to refute as I accept it.
What's the point of mentioning that new species "Can but choose not to mate" in that context?
I was trying to lay the foundation for martin. That in alot of these cases this is how it starts. Eventually they won't be able to procreate any longer.
If you meant "Sometimes" and you didn't put that in there, it indicates very highly that you didn't mean to put it there or imply it, especially in the context.
A fair criticism. However I didn't think it was needed to establish what I was trying to with martin.
If that wasn't your intention, than I'd simply ask you to be a bit more careful with your additions on such a topic with someone as lacking in information as martin. Look what he thought you said


So I'm not the only one who was thinking that. The person you were addressing came to the exact same conclusion.
I will try to be more careful. At the same time I would ask the same courtesy of you when telling me I don't know what I am talking about.

[FatherMithras]

You do however basically agree with me. Whether you are EXACT or not these speciation events do not establish that through these events actually created biodiversity of this planet. Whether it is a "pieve" or not this still renders these events as interesting, but not indicative or demanding of universal common descent.

Of course. No single example is ever indicative of a comprehensive theory. However, it does support the notion very nicely, and give a substantial amount of support for it that shouldn't be ignored.
I was trying to build a case with martin and this was the first step. You then made this into a universal claim of all speciation events.
As evidenced by Martin's responce, you did very poorly.

Implied from what? An expectation that a YEC would make this claim? You then jumped in with this expectation and jumped to incorrect conclusions.
Which I have never tried to refute as I accept it.

ditto. I've withdrawn said assertion, bute merely asked you to be more careful, as the people reading this understood differently.

I will try to be more careful. At the same time I would ask the same courtesy of you when telling me I don't know what I am talking about
Allright, though to be fair, in the context it was all a bit confusing! No excuses though, *apology offered in sincerity*

Martin coming back?