Slight derail (or is it a re-rail? whatever)
I can see Sarah resigning because of this.
Moose song
Warning, song is probably NWS.
Edited, Jul 5th 2009 11:07pm by HeRunsWithScissors
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Moose.
Moose.Follow
Something Awful Apologizes for Making Sarah Palin Resign
Quote:
Whether she realizes it or not, Palin's insane departure from the governorship of Alaska now relegates her presidential aspirations to the scrapheap of history. Thankfully, we will only ever see Sarah Palin's Real America in nightmares and self-hating ************ fantasies.
Sarah Palin, I would like to personally take this opportunity to apologize for Something Awful's role in your decision to step down. Over the years we have produced millions of words of left-wing hatred for innocent teenage daughters and children with disabilities. We hired a hockey-playing ne'er do well claiming to be Trig's father to write articles in which he describes crossing the sex line with most of your family. I am so sorry for letting that monster have a column here.
I would also like to apologize for the dozens of Photoshopped pictures of you and Trig on our forums. I know that of all of our hate content, these upset you in particular. You aren't the first governor to resign because of a mean Photoshop and I am certain you will not be the the last. I hope you can find it in your Christian heart to forgive us for making light of Trig's disability. I completely agree with what you said in your speech today: The world needs more Trigs.
You hear that, pregnant women of the world? The bar is officially open.
Sarah Palin, I would like to personally take this opportunity to apologize for Something Awful's role in your decision to step down. Over the years we have produced millions of words of left-wing hatred for innocent teenage daughters and children with disabilities. We hired a hockey-playing ne'er do well claiming to be Trig's father to write articles in which he describes crossing the sex line with most of your family. I am so sorry for letting that monster have a column here.
I would also like to apologize for the dozens of Photoshopped pictures of you and Trig on our forums. I know that of all of our hate content, these upset you in particular. You aren't the first governor to resign because of a mean Photoshop and I am certain you will not be the the last. I hope you can find it in your Christian heart to forgive us for making light of Trig's disability. I completely agree with what you said in your speech today: The world needs more Trigs.
You hear that, pregnant women of the world? The bar is officially open.
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin
Look, I'm not saying that there's any scientific merit to creationism, I'm saying that students should be allowed to learn, from a professionally trained teacher, and preferrably one who can keep themself from allowing their own personal beliefs from interfering with the learning process, about as many different theories as to the origins of man.
As far as evolution goes, yes, there's a lot of scientific evidence and such, but it's still impossible to prove without a doubt, and hence it is a theory. Creationism is also a theory, sure there's no real scientific proof, but it's still a theory. By just teaching one theory, and calling it fact when it is not a proven fact, you're basically doing the same thing as those who believe that some god created man. You're basically saying, "This is how it is, it can't have happened any other way" and are more or less saying that everyone needs to believe the widely accepted theory because it's widely accepted and any other theory is just ******* crazy and leaning about them should not be encouraged.
As far as evolution goes, yes, there's a lot of scientific evidence and such, but it's still impossible to prove without a doubt, and hence it is a theory. Creationism is also a theory, sure there's no real scientific proof, but it's still a theory. By just teaching one theory, and calling it fact when it is not a proven fact, you're basically doing the same thing as those who believe that some god created man. You're basically saying, "This is how it is, it can't have happened any other way" and are more or less saying that everyone needs to believe the widely accepted theory because it's widely accepted and any other theory is just ******* crazy and leaning about them should not be encouraged.
10k before the site's inevitable death or bust
The World Is Not A Cold Dead Place.
The World Is Not A Cold Dead Place.
Alan Watts wrote:
I am omnipotent insofar as I am the Universe, but I am not an omnipotent in the role of Alan Watts, only cunning
Eske wrote:
I've always read Driftwood as the straight man in varus' double act. It helps if you read all of his posts in the voice of Droopy Dog.
Quote:
Besides, IMO, the Theory Of Evolution is just as much a crock of sh*t.
Did you know that there are different types of people in this world? Some of them are white, some are black, some have squinty eyes, some are hairy, some are not.
Can you explain why they're this way?
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin
Jophiel wrote:
Compare that to the woman whose supposed rationale for quitting her job is one shrill screed about the evil media and how mean it's been to her and how she can't possibly be governor because the media media MEDIA is SO MEAN!
and SO LIBERAL!
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
Grandfather Driftwood wrote:
Look, I'm not saying that there's any scientific merit to creationism
None.
Quote:
As far as evolution goes, yes, there's a lot of scientific evidence and such
Literally tons and tons.
A lot > none
As the saying goes, wish in one hand, jerk off with the other, see which one fills up first. Or something like that.
I don't understand Creationism at all. It makes literally no sense whatsoever. At least ID takes the history of the planet into account, instead of just dismissing it.
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
Quote:
By just teaching one theory, and calling it fact when it is not a proven fact, you're basically doing the same thing as those who believe that some god created man.
Who do you think is disagreeing with you exactly?
Is anyone participating in this thread actually asserting that evolution is unquestionable fact and (more importantly) could not be altered, abandoned, or refuted entirely if we learned some new stuff in 50 years?
Grandfather Driftwood wrote:
Oh, but by all means it SHOULD be taught as a serious alternative, but only if the student want to learn about it.
No, no it shouldn't. The purpose of public schools aren't to teach students what they want to learn or what their parents want to to learn. I bet you'd find a lot of students wanting to take a class on playing computer games. The purpose of public schools is to provide education for all children. Public schools shouldn't be teaching unmerited theories. It is a disservice to society to teach creationism in public schools.
Grandfather Driftwood wrote:
As far as evolution goes, yes, there's a lot of scientific evidence and such, but it's still impossible to prove without a doubt, and hence it is a theory.
This shows a gross misunderstanding of the scientific method and all basic reasoning.
All of science, all of everything we think we know, is a theory. There is nothing within science that isn't a theory; there is nothing we know "beyond a doubt." You have an impossible criterion to meet. Scientific "laws" are theories, with the same kind of evidence supporting them as evolution. Gravity and electromagnetism are no less of a theory than evolution; there could be invisible magic elves just pulling me towards the ground.
Evolution is proven to the degree that anything can be proven. To equate it to creationism as both being theories with one having slightly more evidence is to literally equate the theory of gravity to my theory of magic elves pull me down. That is exactly what you are doing.
Edited, Jul 6th 2009 1:08am by Allegory
Allegory wrote:
Evolution is proven to the degree that anything can be proven
However, a scientific theory of this nature isn't a guess or anything. In this sense, "theory" refers to a framework created from data and observation which explains a macrophenomenon. While we can't replicate how the current planet's worth of critters got here, we do know that genes mutate, that organisms can show mutations, that various traits of an organism can help or hinde rit in filling ecological niches, that shifts in the environment can bring out the beneficial or detrimental traits in an organism, that microorganisms (which we can study changes in due to their rapid reproduction) can mutate and change over time into versions better suited for their environment, and that we have a lengthy fossil record of organisms apparently slowly shifting into other organisms within the same family -- some successfully, some not.
So the theory of evolution is far, far from a guess but we'll never be able to observe the evolution of large organisms either due to the time spans involved.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Jophiel wrote:
Mainly because we are unable to replicate it due to the immense time spans it involves.
That depends on the degree of mutation one requires to constitute evolution. We have certainly observed organisms becoming new species. If you want to see a dolphin become a mermaid, then I suppose we haven't and will probably never observe such a drastic change.
That we have specifically observed what some consider to demonstrate evolution is the main reason for the coining of the terms macroevloution and microevolution--that God allows variation within a species but never beyond that.
Edited, Jul 6th 2009 2:29am by Allegory
There is also a problem in even labeling it as "theory" (or a law) at all. Most concepts considered scientific laws are universal absolutes concerning physics, chemistry, and such - and are typically rendered simply as mathematical equations. Evolution can be manipulated and as a result could never be called a law in that sense.
We also don't call every concept we teach that's not 100% certain a "theory." They don't title history textbook chapters "Theory of the Cause of the Civil War." Nobody is asking that "This Is Only A Theory" stickers be applied to thousands of other scientific concepts to which the word theory isn't typically appended. So don't even go down the theory/law road in the first place. Just call it evolution, period.
I think creationism should be "taught" in the sense that students should be made aware of it through their education system. In their theology classes, yeah. Not in their science classes. If they're made aware of it and allowed to contrast it with evolutionary theories, they're probably more likely to consider it nonsense.
Edited, Jul 6th 2009 9:35am by zepoodle
Edited, Jul 6th 2009 9:35am by zepoodle
Allegory wrote:
That depends on the degree of mutation one requires to constitute evolution. We have certainly observed organisms becoming new species.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Jophiel wrote:
Based on the stock definition(s) of "species", I'm almost certain this isn't true.
Speciation? Typing it into EBSCOhost brought up 23247 search results. One article that caught my attention, but I wasn't able to access the pdf, was "Instances of observed speciation" by Catherine A. Callaghan published in The American Biology Teacher. volume 49 (January 1987) p. 34-6. The article is supposed to include four examples of speciation.
I also googled a site that claims to list several published articles about observed speciation.
Castenholz, R. W. 1992. Species usage, concept, and evolution in the cyanobacteria (blue-green algae). Journal of Phycology 28:737-745.
Clausen, J., D. D. Keck and W. M. Hiesey. 1945. Experimental studies on the nature of species. II. Plant evolution through amphiploidy and autoploidy, with examples from the Madiinae. Carnegie Institute Washington Publication, 564:1-174.
Cracraft, J. 1989. Speciation and its ontology: the empirical consequences of alternative species concepts for understanding patterns and processes of differentiation. In Otte, E. and J. A. Endler [eds.] Speciation and its consequences. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA. pp. 28-59.
Craig, T. P., J. K. Itami, W. G. Abrahamson and J. D. Horner. 1993. Behavioral evidence for host-race fromation in Eurosta solidaginis. Evolution. 47:1696-1710.
Cronquist, A. 1978. Once again, what is a species? Biosystematics in agriculture. Beltsville Symposia in Agricultural Research 2:3-20.
Cronquist, A. 1988. The evolution and classification of flowering plants (2nd edition). The New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, NY.
Crossley, S. A. 1974. Changes in mating behavior produced by selection for ethological isolation between ebony and vestigial mutants of Drosophilia melanogaster. Evolution. 28:631-647.
de Oliveira, A. K. and A. R. Cordeiro. 1980. Adaptation of Drosophila willistoni experimental populations to extreme pH medium. II. Development of incipient reproductive isolation. Heredity. 44:123-130.
de Queiroz, K. and M. Donoghue. 1988. Phylogenetic systematics and the species problem. Cladistics. 4:317-338.
de Queiroz, K. and M. Donoghue. 1990. Phylogenetic systematics and species revisited. Cladistics. 6:83-90.
de Vries, H. 1905. Species and varieties, their origin by mutation.
de Wet, J. M. J. 1971. Polyploidy and evolution in plants. Taxon. 20:29-35.
del Solar, E. 1966. Sexual isolation caused by selection for positive and negative phototaxis and geotaxis in Drosophila pseudoobscura. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (US). 56:484-487.
Digby, L. 1912. The cytology of Primula kewensis and of other related Primula hybrids. Ann. Bot. 26:357-388.
Dobzhansky, T. 1937. Genetics and the origin of species. Columbia University Press, New York.
Dobzhansky, T. 1951. Genetics and the origin of species (3rd edition). Columbia University Press, New York.
Dobzhansky, T. and O. Pavlovsky. 1971. Experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila. Nature. 230:289-292.
Dobzhansky, T. 1972. Species of Drosophila: new excitement in an old field. Science. 177:664-669.
Dodd, D. M. B. 1989. Reproductive isolation as a consequence of adaptive divergence in Drosophila melanogaster. Evolution 43:1308-1311.
Dodd, D. M. B. and J. R. Powell. 1985. Founder-flush speciation: an update of experimental results with Drosophila. Evolution 39:1388-1392.
Donoghue, M. J. 1985. A critique of the biological species concept and recommendations for a phylogenetic alternative. Bryologist 88:172-181.
Du Rietz, G. E. 1930. The fundamental units of biological taxonomy. Svensk. Bot. Tidskr. 24:333-428.
Ehrman, E. 1971. Natural selection for the origin of reproductive isolation. The American Naturalist. 105:479-483.
Ehrman, E. 1973. More on natural selection for the origin of reproductive isolation. The American Naturalist. 107:318-319.
Feder, J. L., C. A. Chilcote and G. L. Bush. 1988. Genetic differentiation between sympatric host races of the apple maggot fly, Rhagoletis pomonella. Nature. 336:61-64.
Feder, J. L. and G. L. Bush. 1989. A field test of differential host-plant usage between two sibling species of Rhagoletis pomonella fruit flies (Diptera:Tephritidae) and its consequences for sympatric models of speciation. Evolution 43:1813-1819.
Frandsen, K. J. 1943. The experimental formation of Brassica juncea Czern. et Coss. Dansk. Bot. Arkiv., No. 4, 11:1-17.
Frandsen, K. J. 1947. The experimental formation of Brassica napus L. var. oleifera DC and Brassica carinata Braun. Dansk. Bot. Arkiv., No. 7, 12:1-16.
Galiana, A., A. Moya and F. J. Alaya. 1993. Founder-flush speciation in Drosophila pseudoobscura: a large scale experiment. Evolution. 47432-444.
Gottleib, L. D. 1973. Genetic differentiation, sympatric speciation, and the origin of a diploid species of Stephanomeira. American Journal of Botany. 60: 545-553.
Halliburton, R. and G. A. E. Gall. 1981. Disruptive selection and assortative mating in Tribolium castaneum. Evolution. 35:829-843.
Hurd, L. E., and R. M. Eisenberg. 1975. Divergent selection for geotactic response and evolution of reproductive isolation in sympatric and allopatric populations of houseflies. The American Naturalist. 109:353-358.
Karpchenko, G. D. 1927. Polyploid hybrids of Raphanus sativus L. X Brassica oleraceae L. Bull. Appl. Botany. 17:305-408.
Karpchenko, G. D. 1928. Polyploid hybrids of Raphanus sativus L. X Brassica oleraceae L. Z. Indukt. Abstami-a Verenbungsi. 48:1-85.
Kilias, G., S. N. Alahiotis and M. Delecanos. 1980. A multifactorial investigation of speciation theory using Drosophila melanogaster. Evolution. 34:730-737.
Knight, G. R., A. Robertson and C. H. Waddington. 1956. Selection for sexual isolation within a species. Evolution. 10:14-22.
Koopman, K. F. 1950. Natural selection for reproductive isolation between Drosophila pseudoobscura and Drosophila persimilis. Evolution. 4:135-148.
Lee, R. E. 1989. Phycology (2nd edition) Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK
Levin, D. A. 1979. The nature of plant species. Science 204:381-384.
Lokki, J. and A. Saura. 1980. Polyploidy in insect evolution. In: W. H. Lewis (ed.) Polyploidy: Biological Relevance. Plenum Press, New York.
Macnair, M. R. 1981. Tolerance of higher plants to toxic materials. In: J. A. Bishop and L. M. Cook (eds.). Genetic consequences of man made change. Pp.177-297. Academic Press, New York.
Macnair, M. R. and P. Christie. 1983. Reproductive isolation as a pleiotropic effect of copper tolerance in Mimulus guttatus. Heredity. 50:295-302.
Manhart, J. R. and R. M. McCourt. 1992. Molecular data and species concepts in the algae. Journal of Phycology. 28:730-737.
Mayr, E. 1942. Systematics and the origin of species from the viewpoint of a zoologist. Columbia University Press, New York.
Mayr, E. 1982. The growth of biological thought: diversity, evolution and inheritance. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. McCourt, R. M. and R. W. Hoshaw. 1990. Noncorrespondence of breeding groups, morphology and monophyletic groups in Spirogyra (Zygnemataceae; Chlorophyta) and the application of species concepts. Systematic Botany. 15:69-78.
McPheron, B. A., D. C. Smith and S. H. Berlocher. 1988. Genetic differentiation between host races of Rhagoletis pomonella. Nature. 336:64-66.
Meffert, L. M. and E. H. Bryant. 1991. Mating propensity and courtship behavior in serially bottlenecked lines of the housefly. Evolution 45:293-306.
Mishler, B. D. 1985. The morphological, developmental and phylogenetic basis of species concepts in the bryophytes. Bryologist. 88:207-214.
Mishler, B. D. and M. J. Donoghue. 1982. Species concepts: a case for pluralism. Systematic Zoology. 31:491-503.
Muntzing, A. 1932. Cytogenetic investigations on the synthetic Galeopsis tetrahit. Hereditas. 16:105-154.
Nelson, G. 1989. Cladistics and evolutionary models. Cladistics. 5:275-289.
Newton, W. C. F. and C. Pellew. 1929. Primula kewensis and its derivatives. J. Genetics. 20:405-467.
Otte, E. and J. A. Endler (eds.). 1989. Speciation and its consequences. Sinauer Associates. Sunderland, MA.
Owenby, M. 1950. Natural hybridization and amphiploidy in the genus Tragopogon. Am. J. Bot. 37:487-499.
Pasterniani, E. 1969. Selection for reproductive isolation between two populations of maize, Zea mays L. Evolution. 23:534-547.
Powell, J. R. 1978. The founder-flush speciation theory: an experimental approach. Evolution. 32:465-474.
Prokopy, R. J., S. R. Diehl, and S. H. Cooley. 1988. Oecologia. 76:138.
Rabe, E. W. and C. H. Haufler. 1992. Incipient polyploid speciation in the maidenhair fern (Adiantum pedatum, adiantaceae)? American Journal of Botany. 79:701-707.
Rice, W. R. 1985. Disruptive selection on habitat preference and the evolution of reproductive isolation: an exploratory experiment. Evolution. 39:645-646.
Rice, W. R. and E. E. Hostert. 1993. Laboratory experiments on speciation: What have we learned in forty years? Evolution. 47:1637-1653.
Rice, W. R. and G. W. Salt. 1988. Speciation via disruptive selection on habitat preference: experimental evidence. The American Naturalist. 131:911-917.
Rice, W. R. and G. W. Salt. 1990. The evolution of reproductive isolation as a correlated character under sympatric conditions: experimental evidence. Evolution. 44:1140-1152.
Ringo, J., D. Wood, R. Rockwell, and H. Dowse. 1989. An experiment testing two hypotheses of speciation. The American Naturalist. 126:642-661.
Schluter, D. and L. M. Nagel. 1995. Parallel speciation by natural selection. American Naturalist. 146:292-301.
Shikano, S., L. S. Luckinbill and Y. Kurihara. 1990. Changes of traits in a bacterial population associated with protozoal predation. Microbial Ecology. 20:75-84.
Smith, D. C. 1988. Heritable divergence of Rhagoletis pomonella host races by seasonal asynchrony. Nature. 336:66-67.
Soans, A. B., D. Pimentel and J. S. Soans. 1974. Evolution of reproductive isolation in allopatric and sympatric populations. The American Naturalist. 108:117-124.
Sokal, R. R. and T. J. Crovello. 1970. The biological species concept: a critical evaluation. The American Naturalist. 104:127-153.
Soltis, D. E. and P. S. Soltis. 1989. Allopolyploid speciation in Tragopogon: Insights from chloroplast DNA. American Journal of Botany. 76:1119-1124.
Stuessy, T. F. 1990. Plant taxonomy. Columbia University Press, New York.
Thoday, J. M. and J. B. Gibson. 1962. Isolation by disruptive selection. Nature. 193:1164-1166.
Thoday, J. M. and J. B. Gibson. 1970. The probability of isolation by disruptive selection. The American Naturalist. 104:219-230.
Thompson, J. N. 1987. Symbiont-induced speciation. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society. 32:385-393.
Vrijenhoek, R. C. 1994. Unisexual fish: Model systems for studying ecology and evolution. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics. 25:71-96.
Waring, G. L., W. G. Abrahamson and D. J. Howard. 1990. Genetic differentiation in the gall former Eurosta solidaginis (Diptera:Tephritidae) along host plant lines. Evolution. 44:1648-1655.
Weinberg, J. R., V. R. Starczak and P. Jora. 1992. Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory. Evolution. 46:1214-1220.
Wood, A. M. and T. Leatham. 1992. The species concept in phytoplankton ecology. Journal of Phycology. 28:723-729.
Yen, J. H. and A. R. Barr. 1971. New hypotheses of the cause of cytoplasmic incompatability in Culex pipiens L.
However, I will say that from the few articles I did look at the bulk of research on speciation is about how it occurs theoretically rather than reports of observation. There are observed examples, but biologists seem largely uninterested in reporting speciation.
Edited, Jul 6th 2009 8:03am by Allegory
Allegory wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Based on the stock definition(s) of "species", I'm almost certain this isn't true.
Edited, Jul 6th 2009 8:44am by Jophiel
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
There was an interested line of thought about "artificial speciation" in dogs - namely that some breeds of dogs are so isolated from being able to breed with each other that they might as well be considered separate species, and its only the legacy holdover of calling them all domesticated canines that prevents it from happening. Namely, a boy chihuahua is not going to be able to breed with a female mastiff without a ladder and some serious chutzpah.
The stock definition of species is just "isolated breeding groups that cannot produce viable offspring with other breeding groups." In the case of a male mastiff and a significantly smaller dog, the resulting offspring will 1. probably not live and 2. probably kill the mother dog in the process.
The stock definition of species is just "isolated breeding groups that cannot produce viable offspring with other breeding groups." In the case of a male mastiff and a significantly smaller dog, the resulting offspring will 1. probably not live and 2. probably kill the mother dog in the process.
Jophiel wrote:
Which is why I said stock definition. If you wanted to cite an example of speciation and then tell me which new species we're seen evolve based on that definition, go for it.
I suppose I'm not clear on what you mean by "stock definition." Are you asking me to set a criterion for what constitutes a new species and then show you an example of it? Or, if you have a definition in mind, would you please give it to me?
Edited, Jul 6th 2009 9:21am by Allegory
Some aspects of the mechanisms are in doubt, but we know that populations change over time and we know that if they change enough, they become reproductively isolated from their original species.
Here's one site I found.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
EDIT: site, not cite
Edited, Jul 6th 2009 10:23am by Ahkuraj
Here's one site I found.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
Quote:
We've seen it happen naturally without our tampering with the process. From the FAQ:
"Three species of wildflowers called goatsbeards were introduced to the United States from Europe shortly after the turn of the century. Within a few decades their populations expanded and began to encounter one another in the American West. Whenever mixed populations occurred, the specied interbred (hybridizing) producing sterile hybrid offspring. Suddenly, in the late forties two new species of goatsbeard appeared near Pullman, Washington. Although the new species were similar in appearance to the hybrids, they produced fertile offspring. The evolutionary process had created a separate species that could reproduce but not mate with the goatsbeard plants from which it had evolved."
The article is on page 22 of the February, 1989 issue of Scientific American. It's called "A Breed Apart." It tells about studies conducted on a fruit fly, Rhagoletis pomonella, that is a parasite of the hawthorn tree and its fruit, which is commonly called the thorn apple. About 150 years ago, some of these flies began infesting apple trees, as well. The flies feed and breed on either apples or thorn apples, but not both. There's enough evidence to convince the scientific investigators that they're witnessing speciation in action. Note that some of the investigators set out to prove that speciation was not happening; the evidence convinced them otherwise.
"Three species of wildflowers called goatsbeards were introduced to the United States from Europe shortly after the turn of the century. Within a few decades their populations expanded and began to encounter one another in the American West. Whenever mixed populations occurred, the specied interbred (hybridizing) producing sterile hybrid offspring. Suddenly, in the late forties two new species of goatsbeard appeared near Pullman, Washington. Although the new species were similar in appearance to the hybrids, they produced fertile offspring. The evolutionary process had created a separate species that could reproduce but not mate with the goatsbeard plants from which it had evolved."
The article is on page 22 of the February, 1989 issue of Scientific American. It's called "A Breed Apart." It tells about studies conducted on a fruit fly, Rhagoletis pomonella, that is a parasite of the hawthorn tree and its fruit, which is commonly called the thorn apple. About 150 years ago, some of these flies began infesting apple trees, as well. The flies feed and breed on either apples or thorn apples, but not both. There's enough evidence to convince the scientific investigators that they're witnessing speciation in action. Note that some of the investigators set out to prove that speciation was not happening; the evidence convinced them otherwise.
EDIT: site, not cite
Edited, Jul 6th 2009 10:23am by Ahkuraj
Allegory wrote:
Are you asking me to set a criterion for what constitutes a new species and then show you an example of it?
I'm all "yay! evolution!" so I'm not trying to fight you on that. I just haven't heard of any observed changes in species.
Ahkuraj seems to have given some examples though so no need for you to put yourself out. I'm happy to be wrong on the point, I just didn't think I was.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Jophiel wrote:
Ahkuraj seems to have given some examples though so no need for you to put yourself out.
If it's cool, I won't. I'm sure if you felt the desire you could locate citations proving my point far better than I could. I greatly respect your ability to consistently locate and use credible citations in your arguments.
catwho the Mundane wrote:
The stock definition of species is just "isolated breeding groups that cannot produce viable offspring with other breeding groups." In the case of a male mastiff and a significantly smaller dog, the resulting offspring will 1. probably not live and 2. probably kill the mother dog in the process.
Getting into inter-species breeding though, my favorite example is the Cama, a crazily adorable hybrid of the camel and llama. Besides its natural good looks, it's different from typical hybrids (lion/tiger, orca/dolphin, polar/grizzy bear, etc) in that you're taking the South American llama, an animal which lives in the Andéan moutains and breeding it with the dromedary camel, best known for roaming the deserts of northern Africa. Evolution explains this by pointing to common ancestors and tracing the path of the camelids through Asia, into North America, looking at the extinct camelops and eventually giving up the llamas and their immediate cousins.
Intelligent design suggests that an "intelligent designer" placed camels in Asia and llamas in S. America and decided for shits & giggles that they should be able to interbreed.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
zepoodle wrote:
I think creationism should be "taught" in the sense that students should be made aware of it through their education system. In their theology classes, yeah. Not in their science classes. If they're made aware of it and allowed to contrast it with evolutionary theories, they're probably more likely to consider it nonsense.
To be fair, I remember in history or social studies (these classes were combined in my schooling system) we were made aware of Flat-Earth and Geocentrism so Creationism can be put aside them as just another crackpot religious theory along with immaculate conception and resurrection.
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
I wish that Cabbits were real 
Recent Visitors: 217
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (217)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Moose.
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC