This summer I read "On the Origin of the Species" from cover to cover
for the first time. I had not realised what a truely remarkable book it
is. It covers the dogs/wolves question in great detail. In some
respects my day job could be described as being an evolutionary
geneticist, and it is remarkable how much of the detail of what I work
on was predicted in Darwins book. He describes in great detail the
general principles of evolution, which are backed up by the DNA
sequences that I work on.
Interestingly, Darwin discusses how if you specifically breed for
variation in a specific characteristic (his example is pigieon beak
length) then this shows greater variablity in future variations. He also
discusses how some things show a remarkable fixedness over vast periods
of time. This suggests the possibility that evolution may proceed in
fits and starts: puncutated equilibrium, and yet he then talks very much
in terms of gradual and continuous evolution, which has become taken as
the defining feature of Darwinian evolution. Punctuated equilibrium is
seen as somethiong of a heresy.
I have always felt that punctuated equilibrium was far more consistent
with the evidence, both fossil records and from DNA, and I strongly
suspect that it is associated with the DNA rearrangements that occur
occasionally (I have been looking at a virus sequence where a section of
the sequence has become inverted). There was also a recent paper that
shows that one of the differences between the hooded crow and the black
crow, which can interbreed so is arguably a single species, is an
inversion of part of the DNA sequence. This will have occurred with
one individual (a punctuation of the equilibrium), and has subsequently
allowed the two crow races to drift away from each other, potentially
leading ultimately to two species.
Nigel
On 26/08/2014 17:21, David Roberson wrote:
Correct me if Iam wrong Jojo, but I suspect you are looking for a case
where a beginning species evolves into a second species that can no
longer share genes with the original mother species, but can reproduce
among its new members.
My first thoughts were how dogs were derived from wolves, but I
believe that they can still breed together. I suppose my dog is a
wolf in disguise.
Mules are close to what you are seeking, but they are a combination of
two different species and sterile in most cases(all but one that I
have read about).
I suppose a beginning search would include different animal species
that mate among themselves but do not bear young as a result. I do
not keep up with such statistics and perhaps some on the list are
knowledgeable in the subject and can enlighten us. If these different
mating species have the same number of chromosomes then perhaps once
they shared a common ancestor species. At least this would seem to be
a good way to seek examples of current evolution if it can be found.
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: Sunil Shah <[email protected]>
To: vortex-l <[email protected]>
Sent: Tue, Aug 26, 2014 8:27 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots
I really don't know if "new diseases" counts as an example of
evolution to you,
but a quick search came up with this
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK45714/
A weird example of this I suppose, is this contagious cancer.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140123141742.htm
I was rather awestruck by the implications of such a disease (the fact
that it
carries the genome of the ORIGINAL bearer!)
But I will also agree, that contagious cancer isn't a
disease-spreading "species"
(a virus or bacterium). So we could disqualified it from the "new
diseases" suggestion.
/Sunil
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 17:27:46 +0800
Baloney, if you "know" the subject as you claim, and there are
thousands of books; then it should not be a problem for you to give me
ONE example.
Just one example of an observed macro-evolution event where we can see
one species change into another. JUST ONE...
Jojo
----- Original Message -----
*From:* Jed Rothwell <mailto:[email protected]>
*To:* [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
*Sent:* Tuesday, August 26, 2014 10:51 AM
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots
Jojo Iznart <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
To Jed and the rest of Darwinian Evolutionists here:
I have a simple question:
1. What is your best evidence of Darwinian Evolution occuring?
There are thousands of books full of irrefutable proof that
Darwinian evolution is occurring. For you, or anyone else, to
question it is exactly like questioning Newton's law of gravity,
or the fact that bacteria causes disease.
I am not going to debate this. Anyone who denies basic science on
this level is grossly ignorant. These nonsensical distinctions
between macro- and micro-level evolution have no basis in fact.
They are the product of religious creationism, which is
sacrilegious nonsense, since it posits God as a cosmic deceiver
who filled every nook and cranny of life with proof of evolution
just as a trick to fool us.
If you want to learn about evolution and biology, read a textbook.
Don't annoy people who know the subject.
I will not try to spoon-feed you facts about nature that you
should have learned in 3rd grade. Anyone who makes the kind of
ridiculous assertions about evolution that you make is beyond my
help. I spent far too much time trying to educate people about
cold fusion. When people have no idea of how the laws of
thermodynamics operate, or the difference between power and
energy, there is no chance they can understand cold fusion. It is
a waste of time trying to explain it. I have uploaded papers on
cold fusion, including some guides for beginners. Other people
have uploaded beginner's guides to evolution. Learn from them, or
wallow in ignorance. Your choice. As Arthur Clarke used to say:
over and out!
- Jed
