Quotes critical of evolution

Wowbagger said:
Rodney: Google "examples of speciation". You'll find observed examples of one species evolving from another, in several web sites on the results page.

Wikipedia's example of fruit flies is one.

This paper lists a bunch of plant examples, and a few animal examples: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

You can Google for plenty of others.
Click to expand...


Richard Milton takes apart Joseph Boxhorn's analysis. See http://www.alternativescience.com/talk.origins-speciations.htm
 
Rodney said:
Richard Milton takes apart Joseph Boxhorn's analysis. See http://www.alternativescience.com/talk.origins-speciations.htm
Click to expand...

From the linked article:
My bolding.
Milton's comments in red.

5.3 The Fruit Fly Literature

5.3.1 Drosophila paulistorum Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky (1971) reported a speciation event that occurred in a laboratory culture of Drosophila paulistorum sometime between 1958 and 1963. The culture was descended from a single inseminated female that was captured in the Llanos of Colombia. In 1958 this strain produced fertile hybrids when crossed with conspecifics of different strains from Orinocan. From 1963 onward crosses with Orinocan strains produced only sterile males. Initially no assortative mating or behavioral isolation was seen between the Llanos strain and the Orinocan strains. Later on Dobzhansky produced assortative mating (Dobzhansky 1972).

I had to read this twice to assure myself that it wasn't a practical joke. Boxhorn is saying that two fruit flies which he asserts are different species, successfully mate and produce offspring (thereby proving conclusively that they are not different species but the same species.) He calls the offspring 'hybrids' in an attempt to smuggle their 'different' species status in by the back door. Later some of the offspring exhibit 'behavioural isolation' (like Chihuahuas and Great Danes) but this is irrelevant as a sign of species status. So where, in all this, is there an instance of speciation -- or one species turning into another?
Click to expand...

Like Rodney, Milton seems to expect speciation to occur with a bang. He ignores the part that states that later crosses produced only sterile males. And the fact that early crosses produced hybrids is not evidence that the two populations are the same species. Lion and tiger crosses are called ligers. Liger males are sterile but liger females can mate with a male lion or tiger. Does this mean that lions and tigers are not separate species? Is calling a liger a 'hybrid' an attempt to smuggle their 'different' species status through the back door?
 
Last edited:
Foster Zygote said:
Like Rodney, Milton seems to expect speciation to occur with a bang. He ignores the part that states that later crosses produced only sterile males. And the fact that early crosses produced hybrids is not evidence that the two populations are the same species. Lion and tiger crosses are called ligers. Liger males are sterile but liger females can mate with a male lion or tiger. Does this mean that lions and tigers are not separate species? Is calling a liger a 'hybrid' an attempt to smuggle their 'different' species status through the back door?
Click to expand...


This is always an important point to bring up. Why are not these separate species if they bear all the properties of what we generally recognize as separate species? As you note, if these fruit flies aren't separate species then neither are lions and tigers. So either Milton must claim that lions and tigers are the same species or admit that the fruit flies are separate species.

Similarly, I was struck by his objection to the other fruit fly experiment. He claims it wasn't shown to be speciation because it was never shown that the fruit flies are physiolgically unable to reproduce. All that was shown is that they _chose NOT_ to mate with the other group. I figure, if a fruit fly decides it ain't going to mate with a member of a different group, you aren't going to be force them to in order to find out whether they can or not. What are you going to do? Show the male a little fruit fly porn and put a blindfold on the female so they can't see who they are doing it with?

Why does he think they "chose" not to mate with members of the other group? Perhaps there was something fundamentally different about them?
 
pgwenthold said:
This is always an important point to bring up. Why are not these separate species if they bear all the properties of what we generally recognize as separate species? As you note, if these fruit flies aren't separate species then neither are lions and tigers. So either Milton must claim that lions and tigers are the same species or admit that the fruit flies are separate species.

Similarly, I was struck by his objection to the other fruit fly experiment. He claims it wasn't shown to be speciation because it was never shown that the fruit flies are physiolgically unable to reproduce. All that was shown is that they _chose NOT_ to mate with the other group. I figure, if a fruit fly decides it ain't going to mate with a member of a different group, you aren't going to be force them to in order to find out whether they can or not. What are you going to do? Show the male a little fruit fly porn and put a blindfold on the female so they can't see who they are doing it with?

Why does he think they "chose" not to mate with members of the other group? Perhaps there was something fundamentally different about them?
Click to expand...

I would even say that fruit flies don't "choose" to do anything. They simply execute behavioral programs. If something in their programming prevents them from mating with another population then the two groups are every bit as reproductively incompatible as those that are genetically incapable of producing offspring.
 
Rodney, still noting with interest which posts you ignore or respond to. :rolleyes:
 
Rodney said:
Richard Milton takes apart Joseph Boxhorn's analysis. See http://www.alternativescience.com/talk.origins-speciations.htm
Click to expand...
It seems Milton's attempt to take apart that paper has already been taken apart, by other posters here.

Even if you choose to ignore the Talk Origins paper, did you even try Googling for more examples? I shouldn't have to do it for you, you are perfectly capable and smart enough to do at least that sort of minimal research on your own.
Don't force me to prove that last sentence wrong.
 
One of the most intranisgent YECs I have ever encountered on line is a guy who who claims that, alternately, all Habilis fossils are "fully ape" and that all Erectus/Ergaster fossils are "fully human," but that only a few hundredish "kinds" were on the Ark and all the diversity we see on Earth today and in the fossil record occured due to a mega-hyper-evolution that occured in the years following the Flood.

Interestingly enough, while he gloms onto Turkana Boy's skull as being "fully human", he doesn't have, and actually runs away from any discussion of HERV evidences saying he doesn't get why they present evidence of common ancestry. And for the life of me I can't recall him addressing the Chromosome 2 issue with anything other than ad hockery.

Forget the origin of life.
Forget Tiktaalik.
Forget therapsids.
Forget prosimians.
Why can't Creationists honestly address why we have a nearly complete skeleton of a tween with the brain size of a toddler and the jaw three times as large as any adult, HERV connections and an entire Chromosome that includes telomeres that matches that of our Chimpanzee cousins?

It would be one thing if the overwhelming evidence of common ancestry were limited to every other species but humans, but we have fossil, genetic and behavioral evidence connecting us to our fellow apes so the only reason for the denial must be emotional.
 
UnrepentantSinner said:
Why can't Creationists honestly address why we have a nearly complete skeleton of a tween with the brain size of a toddler and the jaw three times as large as any adult, HERV connections and an entire Chromosome that includes telomeres that matches that of our Chimpanzee cousins?
Click to expand...

They are scared off by the long complicated words.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom