Anti-Creationists......time to speak your clout

  • Thread starter Thread starter New Editor
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species

In biology, a ring species is a connected series of neighboring populations, each of which can interbreed with closely sited related populations, but for which there exist at least two "end" populations in the series, which are too distantly related to interbreed, though there is a potential gene flow between each "linked" species. Such non-breeding, though genetically connected, "end" populations may co-exist in the same region thus closing a "ring".

Ring species provide important evidence of evolution in that they illustrate what happens over time as populations genetically diverge, and are special because they represent in living populations what normally happens over time between long deceased ancestor populations and living populations, in which the intermediates have become extinct. Richard Dawkins observes that ring species "are only showing us in the spatial dimension something that must always happen in the time dimension."[1]

Formally, the issue is that interfertile "able to interbreed" is not a transitive relation – if A can breed with B, and B can breed with C, it does not follow that A can breed with C – and thus does not define an equivalence relation. A ring species is a species that exhibits a counterexample to transitivity.[2]
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html

Ring species show the process of speciation in action. In ring species, the species is distributed more or less in a line, such as around the base of a mountain range. Each population is able to breed with its neighboring population, but the populations at the two ends are not able to interbreed. (In a true ring species, those two end populations are adjacent to each other, completing the ring.) Examples of ring species are

• the salamander Ensatina, with seven different subspecies on the west coast of the United States. They form a ring around California's central valley. At the south end, adjacent subspecies klauberi and eschscholtzi do not interbreed (Brown n.d.; Wake 1997).

• greenish warblers (Phylloscopus trochiloides), around the Himalayas. Their behavioral and genetic characteristics change gradually, starting from central Siberia, extending around the Himalayas, and back again, so two forms of the songbird coexist but do not interbreed in that part of their range (Irwin et al. 2001; Whitehouse 2001; Irwin et al. 2005).

• the deer mouse (Peromyces maniculatus), with over fifty subspecies in North America.

• many species of birds, including Parus major and P. minor, Halcyon chloris, Zosterops, Lalage, Pernis, the Larus argentatus group, and Phylloscopus trochiloides (Mayr 1942, 182-183).

• the American bee Hoplitis (Alcidamea) producta (Mayr 1963, 510).

• the subterranean mole rat, Spalax ehrenbergi (Nevo 1999).
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/devitt_01

If you've skimmed a high school biology textbook, you've probably seen the picture: multicolored salamanders meander around California, displaying subtle shifts in appearance as they circle its Central Valley. This is Ensatina eschscholtzii, and it's so well known because it is a living example of speciation in action. Adjacent populations of the salamander look similar and mate with one another — but where the two ends of the loop overlap in Southern California, the two populations look quite different and behave as distinct species. The idea is that this continuum of salamanders — called a ring species — represents the evolutionary history of the lineage as it split into two.

Ensatina has been recognized as a ring species since the 1940s, when biologist Robert C. Stebbins trooped up and down California to investigate its range. Since then, several generations of scientists in Stebbins' institution, the Museum of Vertebrate Zoology at UC Berkeley, have continued these studies, digging deeper into Ensatina's history and biology. At this point, one might think we'd know it all. What more could there be to learn after 60 years of research on a common salamander? "Lots!" says Tom Devitt, a graduate student at the museum. Tom studies Ensatina to flesh out its evolutionary history — but not just for Ensatina's sake. This classic example sheds light on the basic evolutionary processes that shape all life.

 
West Brooklyn ;4891554 said:
They're sterile because the two species are evolving away from each other. You didn't deconstruct anything. That's exactly what's supposed to happen. When one species becomes two, they aren't supposed to interbreed after that. Excerpt from the article here:

BBC NEWS;4890325 said:
However, the University of Arizona researchers believe the insects are in the early stages of diverging into separate species.

The emergence of a new species - speciation - occurs when distinct populations of a species stop reproducing with one another.

When the two groups can no longer interbreed, they cease exchanging genes and eventually go their own evolutionary ways becoming separate species.

Your theory given has still not been able to explain the universe as observed, in example the fossil record. Would you like to take a stab at it? Can you please explain in detail your intelligent design theory or are you going to continue to run from your own beliefs? Simply stating that you believe all creatures were created only to reproduce after their own kind does not explain the universe as we know it. The BBC News article alone shits all over your theory. Again, bambu, please explain how the universe was created and explain to me in full detail how creation plays a part in reality as we know it. PLEASE DO! All of the evidence I posted earlier needs to be refuted with your i.d. theory. Get to it, brother, please. I'm waiting to hear this wisdom.

BTW, You're calling me stupid because of your own insecurities. Try again.

LOL @ you herbs.....

The BBC article supports my theory......

ster·ile

adjective \ˈster-əl, chiefly British -ˌī(-ə)l\

1) a : failing to bear or incapable of producing fruit or spores

b : failing to produce or incapable of producing offspring

c : incapable of germinating

@ merriam-webster

Not just the reproducing within different populations of the organism, they cannot produce shit......

Except overblown articles that can be interpreted to "prove" the observation of new species.......

BBC News ;4891554 said:
In the wild, Drosophila mojavensis and Drosophila arizonae rarely, if ever, interbreed - even though their geographical ranges overlap.

In the lab, researchers can coax successful breeding but there are complications. *Einstein or Frankenstein*

Drosophila mojavensis mothers typically produce healthy offspring after mating with Drosophila arizonae males, but when Drosophila arizonae females mate with Drosphila mojavensis males, the resulting males are sterile.

All the shit that you are bringing up has already been crushed by myself and others like Juda and waterproof....

I already told you that I am not doing this to promote any particular creation theory.....

I have the singular focus of demolishing the theory of evolution for my culture....

I have already illustrated the ways that false truths associated with evolution theories are a threat to indigenous populations @ the global scale......

So you can keep jumping from topic to topic but none of that shit you posting is new or original and has already been explained by ID/creationism.....

HOTEP....

6bb61e3b7bce0931da574d19d1d82c88-1624.jpg


 
Last edited:
They're supposed to be sterile because they are two seperate species. When one species has become two, as in the case of Drosophila (mojavensis and arizonae), mating between the two species is not supposed to produce fertile offspring because they are seperate species. If they produced fertile offspring all of the time, it would support your theory but since mojavensis is a different species than arizonae, mating between the two will not be successful. Mojavensis and arizonae are basically evolving away from each other.
 
Last edited:
Indeed.....

However, the "new species" is not able to reproduce with its own kind either......

What do you call a "new species" that cannot reproduce????

b : failing to produce or incapable of producing offspring.....

@ merriam-webster

6bb61e3b7bce0931da574d19d1d82c88-1624.jpg


 
Last edited:
Nowhere in the article does it say that the species cant produce healthy offspring. It says that the sterile offspring is a result of interbreeding of the two seperate species mojavensis and arizonae
 
It does not say mojavensis cannot produce healthy offspring with mojavensis nor does it say the same for arizonae. Nor does the article say that the two species cannot surive without the aid of scientists. It says that in the wild, the two species rarely interbreed even though they share the same territory. That is because they are two seperate species and they are evolving away from each other; the resulting offspring would be sterile anyway because they are two seperate species. That is usually how we determine whether or not a species has split
 
Well then where is the new or evolved species???

Taking two sub-species, Drosophila mojavensis and Drosophila arizonae and modifying them to not reproduce does not illustrate a new species.......

It fits the provided definition in the article....

BBC NEWS;4890325 said:
The emergence of a new species - speciation - occurs when distinct populations of a species stop reproducing with one another.

However, it does not provide a new species that can be included in the biological records......

BBC NEWS;4890325 said:
Whether the two closely related fruit fly populations the scientists studied - Drosophila mojavensis and Drosophila arizonae - represent one species or two is still debated by biologists.

And therefore does not provide evidence or proof for the theory of evolution......

6bb61e3b7bce0931da574d19d1d82c88-1624.jpg


 


You should also take a look at this since you asked for it

West Brooklyn ;4891774 said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species

In biology, a ring species is a connected series of neighboring populations, each of which can interbreed with closely sited related populations, but for which there exist at least two "end" populations in the series, which are too distantly related to interbreed, though there is a potential gene flow between each "linked" species. Such non-breeding, though genetically connected, "end" populations may co-exist in the same region thus closing a "ring".

Ring species provide important evidence of evolution in that they illustrate what happens over time as populations genetically diverge, and are special because they represent in living populations what normally happens over time between long deceased ancestor populations and living populations, in which the intermediates have become extinct. Richard Dawkins observes that ring species "are only showing us in the spatial dimension something that must always happen in the time dimension."[1]

Formally, the issue is that interfertile "able to interbreed" is not a transitive relation – if A can breed with B, and B can breed with C, it does not follow that A can breed with C – and thus does not define an equivalence relation. A ring species is a species that exhibits a counterexample to transitivity.[2]
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html

Ring species show the process of speciation in action. In ring species, the species is distributed more or less in a line, such as around the base of a mountain range. Each population is able to breed with its neighboring population, but the populations at the two ends are not able to interbreed. (In a true ring species, those two end populations are adjacent to each other, completing the ring.) Examples of ring species are

• the salamander Ensatina, with seven different subspecies on the west coast of the United States. They form a ring around California's central valley. At the south end, adjacent subspecies klauberi and eschscholtzi do not interbreed (Brown n.d.; Wake 1997).

• greenish warblers (Phylloscopus trochiloides), around the Himalayas. Their behavioral and genetic characteristics change gradually, starting from central Siberia, extending around the Himalayas, and back again, so two forms of the songbird coexist but do not interbreed in that part of their range (Irwin et al. 2001; Whitehouse 2001; Irwin et al. 2005).

• the deer mouse (Peromyces maniculatus), with over fifty subspecies in North America.

• many species of birds, including Parus major and P. minor, Halcyon chloris, Zosterops, Lalage, Pernis, the Larus argentatus group, and Phylloscopus trochiloides (Mayr 1942, 182-183).

• the American bee Hoplitis (Alcidamea) producta (Mayr 1963, 510).

• the subterranean mole rat, Spalax ehrenbergi (Nevo 1999).
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/devitt_01

If you've skimmed a high school biology textbook, you've probably seen the picture: multicolored salamanders meander around California, displaying subtle shifts in appearance as they circle its Central Valley. This is Ensatina eschscholtzii, and it's so well known because it is a living example of speciation in action. Adjacent populations of the salamander look similar and mate with one another — but where the two ends of the loop overlap in Southern California, the two populations look quite different and behave as distinct species. The idea is that this continuum of salamanders — called a ring species — represents the evolutionary history of the lineage as it split into two.

Ensatina has been recognized as a ring species since the 1940s, when biologist Robert C. Stebbins trooped up and down California to investigate its range. Since then, several generations of scientists in Stebbins' institution, the Museum of Vertebrate Zoology at UC Berkeley, have continued these studies, digging deeper into Ensatina's history and biology. At this point, one might think we'd know it all. What more could there be to learn after 60 years of research on a common salamander? "Lots!" says Tom Devitt, a graduate student at the museum. Tom studies Ensatina to flesh out its evolutionary history — but not just for Ensatina's sake. This classic example sheds light on the basic evolutionary processes that shape all life.

 
Biologists are debating whether or not they can be classified as such in the bio records now because they are still in the early stages of diverging as the article clearly says. Still, it shows evolution in action because they are, in fact, becoming seperate species
 
West Brooklyn ;4894571 said:
Biologists are debating whether or not they can be classified as such in the bio records now because they are still in the early stages of diverging as the article clearly says. Still, it shows evolution in action because they are, in fact, becoming seperate species

Really???

We are not talking about "becoming separate species"....

You were supposed to be providing the evidence of the observation of the origins of species.....

bambu;4894408 said:
Well then where is the new or evolved species???

Taking two sub-species, Drosophila mojavensis and Drosophila arizonae and modifying them to not reproduce does not illustrate a new species.......

It fits the provided definition in the article....

BBC NEWS;4890325 said:
The emergence of a new species - speciation - occurs when distinct populations of a species stop reproducing with one another.

However, it does not provide a new species that can be included in the biological records......

BBC NEWS;4890325 said:
Whether the two closely related fruit fly populations the scientists studied - Drosophila mojavensis and Drosophila arizonae - represent one species or two is still debated by biologists.

And therefore does not provide evidence or proof for the theory of evolution......

6bb61e3b7bce0931da574d19d1d82c88-1624.jpg

West Brooklyn ;4894589 said:
Also, the article does not say the species was modified. Stop making shit up.

BBC News;4894589 said:
In the lab, researchers can coax successful breeding but there are complications.

Coax, modify....... Semantics

6bb61e3b7bce0931da574d19d1d82c88-1624.jpg


 
Last edited:
If we're talking about the origin of a species, we're in the right place. When ONE species becomes TWO; the origin of the second species is in the split of the first.

BBC NEWS;4894654 said:
Scientists at the University of Arizona may have witnessed the birth of a new species.

Biologists Laura Reed and Prof Therese Markow made the discovery by observing breeding patterns of fruit flies that live on rotting cacti in deserts.

The work could help scientists identify the genetic changes that lead one species to evolve into two species.

However, the University of Arizona researchers believe the insects are in the early stages of diverging into separate species.

The emergence of a new species - speciation - occurs when distinct populations of a species stop reproducing with one another.

When the two groups can no longer interbreed, they cease exchanging genes and eventually go their own evolutionary ways becoming separate species.

You said modify as if the Mojavensis or Arionzae were created by scientists but they weren't. This is something that happened naturally. Nothing was modified. Just as the article says, researches can COAX (or persuade; influence, NOT MODIFY) breeding but there are complications. Why are there complications? Because Mojavensis and Arizonae are evolving away from each other.

btw, coax and modify are not synonyms

mod·i·fy

verb \ˈmä-də-ˌfī\

mod·i·fiedmod·i·fy·ing

Definition of MODIFY

transitive verb

1

: to make less extreme : moderate

2

a: to limit or restrict the meaning of especially in a grammatical construction

b: to change (a vowel) by umlaut

3

a: to make minor changes in

b: to make basic or fundamental changes in often to give a new orientation to or to serve a new end

1coax

transitive verb \ˈkōks\

Definition of COAX

1

obsolete: fondle, pet

2

: to influence or gently urge by caressing or flattering : wheedle

3

: to draw, gain, or persuade by means of gentle urging or flattery

4

: to manipulate with great perseverance and usually with considerable effort toward a desired state or activity
 
Last edited:


West Brooklyn ;4895596 said:
If we're talking about the origin of a species, we're in the right place. When ONE species becomes TWO; the origin of the second species is in the split of the first.

You said modify as if the Mojavensis or Arionzae were created by scientists but they weren't. This is something that happened naturally. Nothing was modified. Just as the article says, researches can COAX (or persuade; influence, NOT MODIFY) breeding but there are complications. Why are there complications? Because Mojavensis and Arizonae are evolving away from each other.

btw, coax and modify are not synonyms

LOL.....

Ok, Name the ONE species that evolved into TWO.....

You cannot......

The experiment began with two sub-species, Drosophila mojavensis and Drosophila arizonae.......

The experiment ended with Drosophila mojavensis and Drosophila arizonae.......

West Brooklyn ;4895602 said:
It can't be this difficult to comprehend a single news article can it?

btw, if a behavior or attribute has been coaxed into doing something that it would not do naturally.....

It would be safe to say that it has been changed or modified........

6bb61e3b7bce0931da574d19d1d82c88-1624.jpg


 
BBC NEWS;4895706 said:
The emergence of a new species - speciation - occurs when distinct populations of a species stop reproducing with one another.

The domestic dog is a subspecies of the gray wolf. If two particular domestic dogs, like the great dane and the chihuahua, stopped reproducing or could not reproduce with one another, they would become seperate species. This is the case of mojavensis and arizonae.

 
Last edited:
ol copying is a form of flattery ass nigga, biting @bambu style with the gif's after he son's you in this whole thread then step in your house with muddy boots and start doing the George Jefferson on your carpet.....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Trending content

Thread statistics

Created
-,
Last reply from
-,
Replies
874
Views
0
Back
Top
Menu
Your profile
Post thread…