21 replies to this topic

[Matthew_28_28]

Introduction:

I was graciously invited to participate in these forums by VenomShocker, who happens to attend the same Pentecostal Church that I do.  VenomShocker and I met at the University of Alberta, where he sat in on a Creationism class I took.  

The professor I studied under for both of my Creationism classes is Dr. Denis Lamoureux, who not only has his divinity degree but two doctorates.  One is in biology and one is in dentistry.  His experience and insight has only added to a part-time advocation ive had on this topic; he has formally debated Michael Behe and Philip Johnson and has personal friendships with many of the Young Earth Creationists.  This introduction to his experiences with these pioneers has been very valuable.  You really get a sense of what the forefront of the movement is, and where it will proceed in the future.

My background is one steeped not only in the physical but also the historical sciences.  Add a passion for religious studies and philosophy, and this seems to be the topic that draws me in.   Enough preamble though, let's dig in.

SPECIATION:

I've done a quick review of the evolution conversations here.  Speciation (and or the lack of it) seems to be one of the foundations of Jonathan's skepticism with evolution.

Speciation deals with reproductive isolation.  Jonathan (or do you prefer VenomShocker, just let me know) is not completely sold on the idea of habitat, behavioural, or temporal isolation being speciation.  He asked me on the phone personally for examples of Mechanical and Gametic Isolation or Postzygotic barriers.

For the less technically inclined, these are examples of speciation where:

a) Can't reproduce due to anatomic differences
B) Can't reproduce due to gamete incompatibility
c) The hybrid zygote doesnt produce a fertile adult (and that this is a result of observed, and not assumed, speciation)

What does this rule out?  

Horses and donkeys creating mules. This speciation was not observed, and is only assumed.  This inference only holds weight if you have examples of postzygotic barriers developing empirically.

Postzygotic Barrier Example:

Lab Rat Worm: Nereis acuminata.  6 pairs of worms are taken from Long Beach, where they go to Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute.  20 years later, they go back to the beach, and find two species of worms there.  They cross the Woods Hole worms with the two species found there.  The goal was to determine which species the Woods Hole worms were. To their surprise, the worm, which upon all inspection was the same to P2 and only slightly different than P1, was unable to produce offspring that survived until adulthood.  Isolated cause was a small difference in karyotype.  P1 and P2 crosses survived measurably decently (75%+).
**Weinberg, J. R., et al., Evolution 46: 1214-1220.**

Mechanical Isolation Example:

Erebia rossii and Erebia disa.  These are Alpine butterflies that are genetically very similar, sharing 99.8% coding DNA.  However, they have genital organs that are different enough that breeding cannot occur.  Examples of attempted matings have been observed, yet no successful copulations have been.  THE MOLECULAR STUDY OF BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION, Chapter 3, pp. 46-59 (F. Ayala, Ed.), Sinauer Associates, Inc., Sunderland, Massachusetts; EVOLUTION WITHIN POPULATIONS, Ann. Mo. Bot. Garden 63: 248-261

Gamete Isolation Example: (Polyploidy provides 50-60 similar examples, this is probably the best imo)

Tragopogon mirus and Tragopogon miscellus.  These are tetraploid hybrids of tragopogon pratensis and Tragopogon porrifolius.  Differences in the plant stigma (From chromosomal differences) prevent pollinization.  References are innumerable.

But as we speak, this argument is really becoming moot.  The largest Creationist organization in the world, Answers in Genesis (Answersingenesis.com) has implicitly folded any argument against speciation. In fact, they now incorporate it into their Young Earth theory to defend the wide variety of species seen on Earth. Source: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/...aq/dont_use.asp

Hope this clears up any confusion on speciation of these kinds not occurring.

Edited by Matthew_28_28, 12 June 2004 - 10:27 PM.

[Ozmeister]

Welcome to the boards   

I saw you reference to Young Earth Creationists.......frankly I'm sick and tired of people trying to justify their religious beliefs by distorting another field of inquiry's findings into suiting themselves. It's tantamount to charlatanism. I also get sick and tired of arguing with them when I happen to.......frankly it's the same as belting your head up against a brick wall. No matter what you say, it makes no difference to them. Personally, if they want to believe in their own little delusions, that's fine by me. But when they try and push those delusions onto others as being scientifically and educationally viable, then that's an entirely different matter.

Religion and creationism should stay right where it is......in theology classes at universities or Sunday schools for the general populace, not being taught as viable alternatives to scientific inquiry in schools. Because they're not......you have one method of study based on hard evidence and theory. The other is nothing more than blind faith (when it's believed as literal truth) in stories, which for most of their history, were handed down orally by illiterate semi-barbaric tribal peoples. These stories after countless years were written down (and not in their original forms, mind you) by people, who whilst they were literate (and only a shade more civilised), had very little true understanding of the nature of the world they lived in.

That some well credentialed and respected scientists would want to actively support this type of nonsense escapes me. It's as bad as the academic and personal hubris which, unfortunately, infects many scientists. They act like priests and high arbiters of knowledge whom you must pay deference to, when in fact it's nothing more than ego driven personal ideology/dogma which is talking. Neither is science. But neither is creationism a science, and it shouldn't be taught as such.

Anyway, sorry for the ramble there........your post was very good and I hope clears up a few things for those that are still a little confused about evolution and speciation

[Venomshocker]

Hey yea, at the University of alberta, where me and Matthew both attended, creationsim and things related to it are taught in theology classes. But it is good to be well grounded in science, before taking a course like that. Cuz yea, talking to young earth creationists can sometimes be like talking to a brick wall. And then it does become a matter of theology and not science. And thats why its a good reason to keep creationism in theology classes.

The link Mattew put up is an excellent link by one of the leading creationist organizations, that  makes a long list of all the problems associated with young earth creationism. I especially like the preamble at the top of the webpage.

[Venomshocker]

Now, for my quibits. Hahaha, im gonna need a real thorough understanding of evolution before I can ever believe in it. Please let me remind you I have never stated evolution is impossible, its just that I dont see any real good scientific evidence backing it up. I am skeptical, and I wish to understand this a little more fully rather than sucumb to blind faith and believe the theory of evolution cuz a scientist said so. I need the proof laid out before me.

With the Postzygotic Barrier Example relating to Lab Rat Worms, I dont see how a new species has evolved. "was unable to produce offspring that survived until adulthood" The worms are still producing offspring, and technically what does it matter if they reach adulthood or not.Genetic diversity in species, often leads to some living longer than others.There is no ground there for speciation. I dont see any real evidence of a new species. And if "P1 and P2 crosses survived measurably decently (75%+)." then P1 and P2 wouldnt be 2 seperate species now would they?

With the Mechanical Isolation Example regarding Alpine butterflies gneital organ differences really dosent cut it for me. PsychicPenguin had posted some stuff on this before, and certain breeds of dog can actually mate, but the womb is to small to hold the cross-breed, and a sucessful birth seems impossible. A crude example comes to mind, and that is, take 2 1000lb people, and they may not be able to reproduce, do to ah some blatant difficulties. The point is, there is anatomical variety within species to great degrees, in some more than others, and I dont believe thats a good enough reason, to use that as a measure to decide one species form the next. Using invitro-fertilization, it would most likely still be possible to get offspring.

And Matthew, you told me, that the AnswerinGenesis organization, is really supporting the ideas of speciation and therefore EvolutionaryCreationism, could you please, show me what literature their using to back up those claims???

[Ozmeister]

Creationists annoy me......they take what they've been told at literal, face value, without actually thinking things through. It's like what one theologian I know of said...."Once they have you by the "short and curlies", you've left your brain in the parking lot". Instead of using that brain and the (supposed) intelligence they were given, they sit there and take everything in as if they were being spoon-fed like babies. And when they do use their noggins, they still don't think things through. I seriously doubt very many, if any, of them know of the nature of God or existence other than what they've been spoon-fed by the religion they belong to.

I have nothing against a belief (or to be more correct, experiential knowledge and not revelation) in God (or higher intelligence, call it what you will). But I find it galling to see people profess a belief in something they know little or nothing about because they either won't or can't look and think for themselves. They want someone to do all the thinking and work for them.....it's nothing more than laziness of spirit.

[Ozmeister]

[Venomshocker]

   hahahaha   

That is pretty funny.  
I can just imagine it.......

[Ozmeister]

[Ozmeister]

I wish I could draw better, I'd make a cartoon of it. But it's more the sort of cartoon that Gary Larson would come up with
  

[Matthew_28_28]

The key to being a new species is being viable.  Now when i say that none are surviving until adulthood, I am not saying that they are living full lives (as far as worms go).  They are literally malformed, growth stunted, destined to die larvae. They are not genetically compatible enough to produce offspring that live.  This is reproductive isolation, because reproduction is more than just having kids. Its having kids which can have kids. Otherwise the species would die out in one generation.

As for P1 and P2, they possess sexual isolation.  Meaning, they wont mate willingly with each other.  For the purposes of the cross, they forced them to.  This is speciation (it does the same thing as other forms of isolation) it just does it in a different way.  On the phone you had asked for other types of speciation, or as I remember: "That they cannot physically reproduce with each other."

Which is why your 2nd issue, that is, with the alpines, confuses me.  You asked for an example where they could not physically mate with each other. This is as clear of an example of that as I can offer.  If you want them to have no offspring at all, then that brings up my example of Gamete isolation.  

Gamete Isolation in animals is quite rare and takes a long time.  Its more a method of plant speciation.  As we can see quite clearly in the animal kingdom, it can take quite a bit of genetic separation for animals to achieve gamete isolation.  It instead usually follows this order:

1. Sterile offspring (Fruitflies, Mules, Ligers, etc.)
2. Malformed offspring (Our worm example)
3. Gamete isolation (which by this time, isnt an issue because other forms of genetic isolation have taken place)

By the time #3 is arrived at, so many other forms of isolation exist that people dont bother artifically inseminating them.  The reason why?  No one is interested in the results and its considered cruel and unethical.  

As for the speciation link from answersingenesis, i gave the link at the bottom of my post previously.  Here it is again, and find Speciation.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/...aq/dont_use.asp

There is a link that lists their reasons for accepting Speciation.  They are Young Earth Creationists though, and they dont believe in evolution. They believe in Kinds at a higher level of the taxonomic key and only believe in speciation within kinds.  

I need to sleep, more Catalyst work tomorrow. Bleh.

Cheers,

Matthew

[Venomshocker]

[Stellar]

Oz, u know what pisses me off the most? I bet it pisses you off too! The watch<->watch creator argument. I've never seen a more flawed up argument than that... and it amazes me that some people are fooled by it! I can apply the same argument to God.

[Matthew_28_28]

Yes, horses and donkeys are two different species.

My reference to the lab worms is in the original post at the bottom.

Wood Hole worms had 0% viable offspring with either P1 or P2.

The inability to reproduce due to genetics (that is, your genotype) explains all types of isolation.  I thought you wanted more than that, so thats why i provided those specific examples.

Ahh, thats true. With flies and worms and such they generally dont care.  Problem is, no one cares enough to anti-up the costs to check.  And in the cases where they would care (faeroe island mice for example) it is considered unethical (due to the lack of a medically applicable reason for checking).  The standards are that stringent for animal testing when you are dealing with artificial insemination and live young (and no one, again, is interested enough to anti-up the cash)

Matthew

[Venomshocker]

[Matthew_28_28]

Toxicology experiments are probably what led to their speciation.  Animals adapt to new environments, its the driving force of speciation and evolution.  No doubt that this forced environment change was the guiding force.  (We could wait 20,000 years for climate changes for it to happen naturally, but humans like to expedite).

i dont own a copy of "Evolution".  Its a periodical...I can probably access it once fall semester starts, as you should be able to as well.

The experiment was not meant to be controlled for speciation.  Frankly, no one has the time nor the energy to invest funds in speciation events...its not something that is doubted within the community given so many exampled speciation events. (No university will spend money to re-invent the wheel, so to speak).

Given that worms are:

a) picky
B) that P2 and WH worms tried to mate
c) that they are almost completely genetically identical

Its very unlikely that WH didnt come from one of them.  You'd need:

a) a worm extinction (and miraculously the only surviving example is in the WH lab)
B) another worm species thats almost exactly the same to move in beside it.

But the real big kicker is that they probably referenced (I'm guessing here but my argument is strong enough that the onus should be on you) old ecological literature for worm species within that area.  Thus there isnt a 20 year window.  The literature probably existed before they grabbed the worms.  This means that your only explanation left is that they grabbed the only worms of a new species and that no one else knew about it.  That and its almost completely identical to P2 and tries to reproduce with it.  The reasoning is simple: they wouldnt have had the money put up to discover native worm species just for this reason alone.  Again, people dont pay to discover speciation.  Its just not an issue in the academy :)

Matthew

Edited by Matthew_28_28, 14 June 2004 - 06:13 AM.