Re: Is Sean Pitman a delusional madman?

On Oct 28, 10:56 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

[snip]

I have fired some shots. Sean apparently has no interest. Sean is only
concerned with the microscopic world or gene-centricism. Change at the
genetic level does not support the main claim of Darwinism:
speciation.

Speciation involves and requires genetic changes in a population.
But, unlike your implication that this genetic change involves
*morphological* change, *real* biologists recognize that speciation
involves the small subset of possible genetic changes required for
some degree of reproductive isolation. Such changes *can* be
morphological, but they certainly need not be. There are many
examples of reproductively isolated populations in nature that are
morphologically very similar but cannot produce viable offspring
(e.g., allopolyploid species, polyploid species). *And* that, as a
consequence and prediction, there *can* be degrees of reproductive
isolation. And that means that some, but not all, speciation events
(among the most recent ones) will show incomplete and imperfect
isolation.

You need to read up on speciation to learn the terms and supporting
evidence for it if you are going to use the supposed impossibility of
speciation as the centerpiece of your forthcoming (always forthcoming)
irrefutable argument against evolution. Hard to argue against
something you don't know much about.

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

Speciation (if you are using the reproductive isolation definition)
requires, ta-dah, some reproductive isolation mechanisms. These can
either be pre-zygotic (inability of the new species to produce a
zygote) or post-zygotic (inviability or infertility of hybrids
formed). These can include anything from simple physical barriers that
separate populations long enough that they accumulate enough
selectively neutral chromosome rearrangements to make any hybrid
formed (if the barrier were removed) infertile (e.g., horses and
donkeys) to simple mate preferences, living in different habitats,
having different mating rituals and times, (ligers and tigons only
exist in zoos).

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

As for intermediacy in degrees of reproductive isolation, we have ring
species and many examples of hybrids between species that have lower
reproductive fitness than the progeny of intraspecies matings (think
mule, which, once in a blue moon, can produce progeny).

We know change can flourish at the genetic level with
little or no morphological change occurring.

And that speciation does not require large (or any) morphological
changes.

Sean, like all gene-
centricists, is comparable to a submarine. At some point they must
surface and connect their claims with macro-reality. Evolution is not
about a change in gene frequencies. It is about Linnaean hierarchal
classification and the various lines of evidence interpreted to say
the hierarchy is horizontally connected-evolutionary (includes
branching). Data referenced by Jonathan Wells shows the utter falsity
of genetics based evolution (molecular phylogeny).

"Even when different molecules can be combined to give a single tree,
the result is often bizarre: A 1996 study using 88 protein sequences
grouped rabbits with primates instead of rodents; a 1998 analysis of
13 genes in 19 animal species placed sea urchins among the chordates;
and another 1998 study based on 12 proteins put cows closer to whales
than to horses" ("Icons of Evolution" 2000:51).

John Harshman engages damage control concerning the above.

IOW, points out that Wells is a dishonest dissembler.

The only
point I wish to stress is that evolution, speciation, macroevolution
is not supported or proven just because we discover that which was
always occurring (change at the genetic level). Of course Sean Pitman
only endorses "low level Evolution" (= microevolution).

So, let's focus on speciation, which, I agree is the crucial event in
the generation of the tree of life by common descent. The entire
tree, of course, is due to *repeated* speciation events, so *if* you
can demonstrate that speciation does not occur or that the predicted
consequences of speciation by reproductive isolation of populations
(specifically, the existence of occasional intermediacy in
reproductive isolation) do not occur, then you would have an argument
that common descent cannot occur. What is your evidence that genetic
differences are not involved in and cannot produce reproductive
isolation?

To me it seems
better for an IDist to advocate "designed change" accomplished by
mechanism(s) that reflect Intelligence since what results in reality
is design, organized complexity and adaptation.

Fine. What is your evidence for such "designed change" producing
speciation? And why would it sometimes produce intermediacy in
speciation?

[snip]

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Article: Speciations Defining Moment
    ... > Genetics and genomics enliven an old controversy on reinforcement ... > wedge between incipient species. ... professor in population genetics at the University of Edinburgh's ... > therefore allows speciation to be adaptive, ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Evolution is not a fact
    ... absolutely necessary for a speciation event." ... What worries me is that by defining species in such a way that only ... "You don't have reproductive isolation ... sympatric speciation (i.e., diverging selection means hybrid forms have ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Is Sean Pitman a delusional madman?
    ... (e.g., allopolyploid species, polyploid species). ...  And that means that some, but not all, speciation events ... requires, ta-dah, some reproductive isolation mechanisms. ... of genetics based evolution. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Species diversity through time
    ... groups with high speciation rates also have high ... tend to adapt to their environments, ... precisely because it would lead to reproductive isolation. ... species evolve differently under differing environmental ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: QUESTION #1
    ... that a supposedly newly evolved species is capable of interbreeding ... characteristic of speciation, don't you think that was the first thing ... If that reproductive isolation breaks down somehow later, ... American black bears, ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading