evolution vs. creationism: evolution wins

Heh. I was going to ask you about that TL. Then I realized that as a blind, brainwashed follower of the Vast Worldwide Evilutionist Conspiracy (tm), I would be violating the terms of my dogmatic ideological servitude contract to question the actions of a designated authority figure. [This message has been erased and completely re-written on a new topic by Quetzal, 03-03-2004][This message has been edited by Quetzal, 03-03-2004]

I think I'll have to go with MF on this one crash, if s/he's remembering the conversation correctly. If either the textbook or the teacher claimed that human embryos have gills, then they're wrong, and MF was right (albeit a bit harsh with the "lie" thing) to point it out. You're correct that pharyngeal pouches are the structures that develop into gills in fish, but this was Haeckel's main error - they AREN'T gills - and trying to make them more "gill like" in his drawings was tantamount to fraud.Interestingly, I checked my #1 daughter's science textbook (Daniel, Ortleb, Biggs "Glencoe Life Science", McGraw-Hill 1997) to see if Haeckel's embryos were covered. On page 169, there's a comparison of the embryos of fish, lizard, chicken, and rabbit very similar to what he drew in the 19th Century. The accompanying text states:

quote:

---

In the early stages of development, the embryos of fish, reptiles, birds, and mammals have a tail and gills or gill slits. Fish keep their gills, but the other organisms lose them as their development continues.

---

MF has a point that the way it's presented could be misleading. The way it is written does seem to say human embryos etc have gills (although they do mention gill slits, which are a simple way of saying pharyngeal pouch). They aren't lying, just phrasing it badly. I don't know why they couldn't just have written something like: That way the textbook could use the drawings (which are striking), and remove the ambiguity and potential for misunderstanding.edited to fix quote tagsJust my 10 kopeks.[This message has been edited by Quetzal, 03-26-2004]

Hmm, don't get me wrong. I never said the drawings were misleading (I think I used the term "striking"). I said the accompanying text was badly written, but I consider it a pretty minor ambiguity. Remember that the text I quoted was in a very basic biology book designed for (US) 7th and 8th graders. The book overall does quite a good job of covering the basics of evolutionary theory, geared down for the level. I'm certainly not chuffed up enough or concerned enough to write the textbook editors and demand they re-write the section. After all, any ambiguity or misapprehension can be cleared up at a later, more advanced course. When my daughter got to that part, for instance, I made her read ppg 652-653 in Futuyma's "Evolutionary Biology" - which even has much better pictures , and which was designed for undergrad college students. That DOES have a good explanation. More advanced students get more detailed discussion, is all.Inre the hybridization thing - her book doesn't cover it at all, so I don't know what you are referencing. Natural hybrids are pretty common among closely related species (or those that recently diverged) - and the development of hybrid incompatibilities is one of the key indicators that a speciation event may be happening. I don't suppose you have the passage handy to quote?

Doesn't surprise me. To quote a friend of mine (a practicing evo biologist), "Textbook publishers are scum."

More than a little "off course".I suggest you break out the various topical areas and take each one to the appropriate forum.For example:1. Your complete and utter lack of understanding of human evolution and the evidence thereof would be better in the "Human Evolution" forum.2. Your complete and utter lack of understanding of radiometric dating would be better in the "Dates and Dating" forum.3. Your complete and utter lack of understanding of physics would be better in the, ummm, "Miscellaneous Topics (?)" forum.4. Your misunderstanding of evolution in general (contained in your first paragraph) is probably better addressed in the "Is It Science" forum.I'll be happy to eviscerate your cut-and-paste (err, I mean "explain your misunderstandings") in the appropriate forum. Feel free to jump into an existing topic or start a new one.

You're repeating yourself. See your message 104.

She's a one-trick pony, Nosy. She cluttered up your thread with not just one but TWO copies of the same post - back to back.

Well, if speciation is all you're asking for, how about Byrne K, Nichols RA 1999, "Culex pipiens in London Underground tunnels: differentiation between surface and subterranean populations", Heredity 82:7-15?

quote:

---

Genetic variation was quantified between surface-dwelling populations of Culex pipiens and the
so-called molestus form found in the London Underground (the Underground) railway system. The molestus form is a commercially important biting nuisance and in the southern part of its range is also a disease vector. The surface and subterranean populations were genetically distinct, with no evidence of gene flow between closely adjacent populations of the different forms, whereas there was little differentiation between the different populations of each form. The substantially reduced heterozygosity in the Underground populations and the allelic composition suggest that colonization of the Underground has occurred once or very few times. Breeding experiments show compatibility between the Underground populations but not with those breeding above ground. There is evidence of greater gene flow and a mixing of molestus and pipiens traits in the south of the species range. This paper considers the processes that may allow establishment of reproductive isolation in the north of the species range but not in the south.

---

A nice article outlining the genetic basis for speciation in two distinct mosquito populations. Recent, observed speciation based on

This is one I haven't heard before. Could you please indicate where I might find reference to this particular "oops"? Thanks.

Ummm, no, since PE deals with patterns in the fossil record over time. This particular example deals with macroevolution (unless you consider the latter to be more than speciation). It is a direct response to your request concerning speciation caused by change in environment (in this case, colonization by C. pipiens of a new habitat leading to reproductive isolation, and ultimately speciation). Not to my knowledge. However, the article does state that the two species overlap in the disease vectors they carry in one part of their range. This would be the classic hybrid zone between closely related species, and is expected - especially in newly separated species (another bit of evidence that this is a recent speciation). I'm not clear why you bring this point up? I beg your pardon? C. molestus is a NEW species. It never existed before. Its parent species is a day/evening flyer - the new species prefers darkness, etc. This is what you asked for. Next question.

Umm, thanks. I'm not sure what all that's supposed to be in aid of. However, we have a couple of pretty good, open threads on the Coelacanth that you might wish to peruse/join in/add your new evidence/twist. Unless the originator of this thread agrees, this particular "problem" is one that would be off-topic for this thread.(edited to add: well, maybe not the thread originator, since it appears to be a one-off). AdminNosy may be able to make the call as to whether this topic would be, well, off-topic here.This message has been edited by Quetzal, 01-18-2005 22:58 AM

Thanks for the website. Nothing new there, but a couple of great pictures and a nice synopsis (although a bit dated) of the morphology and especially the differences between this critter and most modern fish. Ugly brute, isn't it? Unfortunately the website you linked to doesn't support this statement. The only sentence that could even be remotely construed this way is the following:

quote:

---

(snipped discussion of the fin structure) This lobe has it’s own internal skeleton and muscles and the fin rays are restricted to a fan that attaches to the outer end of this lobe (see picture). The lobes give the fish a reptile like appearance and give the idea that the fish might actually be able to walk on its fins. These morphological features lead many scientists to believe the coelacanth lineage was the direct link to tetrapods, but recent molecular evidence suggests that lung fish might be more closely related to tetrapods. (emphasis added)

---

The author is not saying the fish walked on its fins. He quite clearly states that the idea the critter could "walk" was based on resemblance to critters that DO walk. Not that the Coelacanthidae DID walk. Quite a big difference, no? He even goes on to mention why the idea of coelacanths being ancestral tetrapods is incorrect.So, where is the big "oops" you promised?

I fully concur that Eoanthropus represents a black mark for science - an embarassment of the first water. However, your figure of "500 papers written by the scientific community" is incorrect. There may have been 500 essays, periodicals, pamphlets, articles, etc, but not in scientific journals as your statement suggests. In addition, you fail to mention that Piltdown probably did more damage to the early ideas of hominid evolution than any 50 creationist criticisms by both slowing down actual research and "confirming" erroneous ideas. However, the overall impact on our understanding of human evolution today is utterly nil.So what, pray tell, does a forgery exposed over 50 years ago have to do with anything we're discussing today in evolutionary biology or paleontology? As a "warning" to take revolutionary claims - especially those that seem to confirm our pet theories - with a grain of salt, I think Piltdown provides a salutory lesson. One, I submit, that has been taken to heart in the years since it was exposed.

Actually, I think that you'll find today most ANY new find is scrutinized thirteen ways from Sunday - unless it's so prosaic that nobody cares . This is especially true in the case of human evolution - just look at the in-fighting between Leakey and Johannson, for one. Every skull or bone fragment is examined and argued over, and every interpretation is questioned. You get a lot of the same thing in any of the controversial or leading edge scientific fields. Hell, even on the really technical details in some fields are fought over: in ecology they're still arguing over whether Wilson/MacArthur equilibrium is valid thirty years after it was published; in paleontology there's a huge on-going fight over the relative importance and implications of punctuated equilibrium 33 years after it was first published. As I said in my previous post, I think you'll find that the lessons of Eoanthropus and other mistakes/hoaxes of the late 19th and early 20th Centuries are taken to heart. Look how quickly the hoaxed Archeoraptor was debunked - three months or something? Remember the cold fusion and room-temperature superconductor claims that got creamed when other labs were unable to replicate the effects? Scientists DO make mistakes, and they CAN be fooled. It's the modern practice of science that insures these mistakes are caught.So yeah, take what scientists say with a grain of salt. But don't choke on it. They're right waaaaay more often than they're wrong.This message has been edited by Quetzal, 01-22-2005 00:16 AM