Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What i can't understand about evolution....
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 347 of 493 (493699)
01-10-2009 9:44 AM
Reply to: Message 332 by Peg
01-10-2009 6:28 AM


Re: how do we measure 'inferiority'?
Hi again Peg
im sorry but i dont understand what is meant by daughter population.
This is "evo-speak" for the result of speciation. Speciation is where a "parent population" (the group of organisms that share hereditary traits through reproduction) divides into two (or more) "daughter populations" that inhabit different ecologies and where gene flow between the two "daughter populations" is blocked when they are isolated by reproductive behavior or physical obstacles.
In the graphic of Pelycodus above the two branches are "daughter populations" while the trunk is the "parent population"
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 332 by Peg, posted 01-10-2009 6:28 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 356 by Peg, posted 01-11-2009 12:48 AM RAZD has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 348 of 493 (493701)
01-10-2009 10:08 AM
Reply to: Message 333 by Peg
01-10-2009 6:41 AM


Re: how do we measure 'inferiority'?
and hi again, Peg,
the earlier apes (gorillas/monkeys etc) are still here today, but the evolved species (hominoids/neanderthal ect) have become extinct
No, the "earlier apes" are NOT still here today. There are no fossils from the apes (gorillas/monkeys etc) that are still here today. Nor do any of the fossils from the times of evolved species (hominids/neanderthal etc), and that have become extinct million years ago, match modern apes. What is here today are species that have evolved from the same common ancestors.
This is one version of the human phylogeny:
This is another phylogeny
As noted, there is some disagreement between the two (and these are not the only ones), however the overall pattern is similar.
There is also genetic evidence for the pattern of spreading human populations:
quote:
Over the last decade, major debate on whether early humans evolved in Africa or elsewhere, when they began outward migration, where they went, and whether they interbred with or replaced archaic species has moved out of scientific journals and into the public consciousness.
...
"Genetic evidence tells us that Homo sapiens are of recent origin and arose in Africa," said S. Blair Hedges, a molecular biologist at Pennsylvania State University.
"African populations have the most ancient alleles [gene pairs that code for specific traits] and the greatest genetic diversity, which means they're the oldest," Hedges explained. "Our species probably had arisen by 150,000 years ago, with a population of perhaps 10,000 individuals."
...
By around 100,000 years ago, several species of hominids populated the Earth, including H. sapiens in Africa, H. erectus in Southeast Asia and China, and Neandertals in Europe.
By around 30,000 years ago, the only surviving hominid species was H. sapiens.
The earlier hominids that lived were eliminated by competition with the surviving hominids, Homo sapiens, while the remaining apes stayed in an ecosystem that did not have human competition, evolving over time, generation by generation, into the apes we see and know today.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : clrty

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 333 by Peg, posted 01-10-2009 6:41 AM Peg has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 350 of 493 (493722)
01-10-2009 11:38 AM
Reply to: Message 330 by Peg
01-10-2009 6:16 AM


Re: The theory of evolution contains no magic. That's the "other side's" theory.
Hey Peg,
it seems that evolution is working its way down, then it gets stuck in the mud when it comes to how the life that they are examining, actually came into existence in the first place.
That would be true if the only purpose of evolution were to explain the origin of life. It isn't. Evolution is about explaining the relationships between living organisms, the relationship extends into the past. We only need to go as far back as establishing a common ancestor between species "A" and species "B" to determine whether their relationship is due to descent from a common ancestor.
For humans and chimpanzees we do not need to know about the origin of life, only the common "parent" population for the two "daughter" populations.
When it comes to explaining the diversity of ALL life, then in practical terms we only need to get to the first floor - the first living species - to then determine whether all life actually is related to one common ancestor or not.
The fundamental difference between creation and evolution is that creation needs origins. Biology is concerned with the top floor - the life we know today. Evolution only needs to look at the development of changing hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation. Rarely does this get down to the first floor, instead it is concentrated on the top floor, with excursions into lower floors via the fossil record and genetic relationships.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 330 by Peg, posted 01-10-2009 6:16 AM Peg has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 357 of 493 (493830)
01-11-2009 12:57 AM
Reply to: Message 355 by Peg
01-11-2009 12:41 AM


Re: from hair to their?
hi Peg,
so this is based on an assumption, not evidence.
No, it is an assumption based on evidence. The evidence is that both chimps and man have similar types of hair when young, and that the hair covers the bodies of both in the same general density. Thus it is logical to assume that a common ancestor would have the same pattern rather than have each species evolve it independently.
Im wondering how many other aspects of evolution are based on conjecture, and how much really can be based on actual evidence?
It depends on whether you mean that science is all based on wild guesses with no evidence, or whether you mean that some educated guesses are engaged in as well as documentation of the facts.
What is not fossilized cannot be based on fact - it is missing. Fossils, however, are not conjectures. The ages of rocks and other items that can be dated by various means are not conjecture.
Obviously when an "artistic rendering" is used, it is conjecture, but it is informed conjecture - informed by knowledge of the way bodies work, muscles, skin etc.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 355 by Peg, posted 01-11-2009 12:41 AM Peg has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 359 of 493 (493832)
01-11-2009 1:04 AM
Reply to: Message 356 by Peg
01-11-2009 12:48 AM


Re: how do we measure 'hairiness'?
RADZ are there any current/living species where this is seen to occur?
Humans and apes. Otherwise I'm not sure what you mean.
There are several species of mammals that have lower levels of hairiness, whales, elephants, pigs, mole rats, for instance. Loss of a feature, where the loss does not inhibit survival and breeding (or where it enhances survival and breeding) is not a problem in evolution, there are many examples ... some we call vestigial.
Does that help?

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 356 by Peg, posted 01-11-2009 12:48 AM Peg has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 360 of 493 (493834)
01-11-2009 1:08 AM
Reply to: Message 358 by Peg
01-11-2009 12:58 AM


Re: how do we measure 'inferiority'?
hey Peg,
Does it mean that the crocodile is perfectly adapted to its environment
No, it means that their basic ecosystem has not changed significantly.
some creatures have not evolved such as crocodiles
They have not changed significantly, but they are different. So are sharks and coelacanths.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 358 by Peg, posted 01-11-2009 12:58 AM Peg has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 368 by Percy, posted 01-11-2009 7:01 AM RAZD has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 370 of 493 (493859)
01-11-2009 8:38 AM
Reply to: Message 368 by Percy
01-11-2009 7:01 AM


new species old orders
Just a quick check
Coelacanths:
Order: Coelacanthiformes
quote:
Fossil range: Devonian-Cretaceous (but extant)
Families See text.
Class Sarcopterygii
Subclass Coelacanthimorpha
* Order COELACANTHIFORMES
o Family Coelacanthidae (extinct)
+ Axelia (extinct)
+ Coelacanthus (extinct)
+ Ticinepomis (extinct)
+ Wimania (extinct)
o Family Diplocercidae (extinct)
+ Diplocercides (extinct)
o Family Hadronectoridae (extinct)
+ Allenypterus (extinct)
+ Hadronector (extinct)
+ Polyosteorhynchus (extinct)
o Family Mawsoniidae (extinct)
+ Alcoveria (extinct)
+ Axelrodichthys (extinct)
+ Chinlea (extinct)
+ Diplurus (extinct)
+ Mawsonia (extinct)
o Family Miguashaiidae (extinct)
+ Miguashaia (extinct)
o Family Latimeriidae
+ Holophagus (extinct)
+ Libys (extinct)
+ Macropoma (extinct)
+ Macropomoides (extinct)
+ Megacoelacanthus (extinct)
+ Latimeria (James Leonard Brierley Smith, 1939)
# L. chalumnae (Comorese coelacanth)
(James Leonard Brierley Smith, 1939)
# L. menadoensis (Indonesian coelacanth)
(Pouyaud, Wirjoatmodjo, Rachmatika,
Tjakrawidjaja, et al., 1999)
+ Undina (extinct)
o Family Laugiidae (extinct)
+ Coccoderma (extinct)
+ Laugia (extinct)
o Family Rhabdodermatidae (extinct)
+ Caridosuctor (extinct)
+ Rhabdoderma (extinct)
o Family Whiteiidae (extinct)
+ Whiteia (extinct)

One genus in one family has two living species, neither of which are represented in the fossil record. They disappeared from the fossil record at the end of the Cretaceous, and have only been found recently since then (no intermediates).
Also see http://www.dinofish.com/
esp DINOFISH.COM - Weird Bodies Frozen in Time
Sharks:
Superorder: Selachimorpha
quote:
Sharks (superorder Selachimorpha) are a type of fish with a full cartilaginous skeleton and a highly streamlined body. They respire with the use of five to seven gill slits. Sharks have a covering of dermal denticles that protect their skin from damage and parasites and improve fluid dynamics. They have several sets of replaceable teeth.[1]
Fossil range: Ordovician to recent
Orders
Carcharhiniformes
Heterodontiformes
Hexanchiformes
Lamniformes
Orectolobiformes
Pristiophoriformes
Squaliformes
Squatiniformes
” Symmoriida
” Cladoselachiformes
” Xenacanthida (Xenacantiformes)
” Iniopterygia
” Eugeneodontida
” Hybodontiformes
I believe that "”" marks extinct orders. They have no gaps in the fossil record from the Ordovician to the last fossils and to living specimens. I would have to look further to see how old the current living species are, but I don't think they extend to the fossil record.
Crocodiles
Family: Crocodylidae
quote:
A crocodile is any species belonging to the family Crocodylidae (sometimes classified instead as the subfamily Crocodylinae). The term can also be used more loosely to include all members of the order Crocodilia: i.e. the true crocodiles, the alligators and caimans (family Alligatoridae) and the gharials (family Gavialidae), or even the Crocodylomorpha which includes prehistoric crocodile relatives and ancestors.
Fossil range: Late Cretaceous - Recent
Genera
* Crocodylus
* Osteolaemus
See full taxonomy.
Most species are grouped into the genus Crocodylus. The other
extant genus, Osteolaemus, is monotypic (as is Mecistops, if
recognized).
* Family Crocodylidae
o Subfamily ”Mekosuchinae (extinct)
o Subfamily Crocodylinae
+ Genus Crocodylus
# Crocodylus acutus, American Crocodile
# Crocodylus cataphractus, Slender-snouted
Crocodile (studies in DNA and morphology
suggest that this species may be more basal
than Crocodylus, and therefore belongs in
its own genus, Mecistops)[17]
# Crocodylus intermedius, Orinoco Crocodile
# Crocodylus johnsoni, Freshwater Crocodile
# Crocodylus mindorensis, Philippine Crocodile
# Crocodylus moreletii, Morelet's Crocodile
or Mexican Crocodile
# Crocodylus niloticus, Nile Crocodile or
African Crocodile (the subspecies found in
Madagascar is sometimes called the Black
Crocodile)
# Crocodylus novaeguineae, New Guinea Crocodile
# Crocodylus palustris, Mugger Crocodile, Marsh
Crocodile, or Indian Crocodile
# Crocodylus porosus, Saltwater Crocodile or
Estuarine Crocodile
# Crocodylus rhombifer, Cuban Crocodile
# Crocodylus siamensis, Siamese Crocodile
+ Genus Osteolaemus
# Osteolaemus tetraspis, Dwarf Crocodile
(there has been controversy whether or not
this is actually two species; current
thinking is that there is one species with
2 subspecies: O. tetraspis tetraspis &
O. t. osborni)
+ Genus ”Euthecodon
+ Genus ”Rimasuchus (formerly Crocodylus lloydi)
+ Genus ”Asiatosuchus
Some of the extinct relatives of true crocodiles, members of the
larger group Crocodylomorpha, were herbivorous.
Crocodiles are among the more biologically complex reptiles despite their prehistoric look. Unlike other reptiles, they incorporate muscles used for aquatic locomotion into respiration (e.g. M. diaphragmaticus), giving them the functional equivalent of a diaphragm;[2] a cerebral cortex; and a four-chambered heart. Their external morphology on the other hand is a sign of their aquatic and predatory lifestyle.
The four chamber heart is unusual, and there is some evidence that crocs "devolved" from a warm-blooded ancestor, adapting the heart for diving and staying underwater while becoming coldblooded again (another example of the lack of direction in evolution).
See Adelaidean -- Crocodile evolution no heart-warmer
quote:
Their little hearts start out with the potential ability to separate blood flow to the lungs and body, but much later develop the curious features of the adult crocodile. Adult hearts are extremely complicated, as unlike birds and mammals which have one aorta, the crocodile has two, and they are twisted so that the left aorta attaches to the right ventricle and the right aorta attaches to the left ventricle. They also have a unique "cog-tooth" valve and a hole between the aortas.
"It turns out that all of these advanced cardiovascular features are valuable for today's crocodiles, enabling them to bypass the lungs and hold their breath for longer periods," Professor Seymour said. "Crocodiles typically remain hidden under water until their prey comes near, then they lunge and often drown their victims. Warm-bloodedness is not suited for this type of sit-and-wait hunting, because of a high metabolic rate and a need to breathe often.
"When I looked at the palaeontology of crocodiles, a consistent picture appeared-the earliest ancestors of crocodiles were definitely not sit-and-wait predators. Instead, many had long legs and some ran around on only two legs. These were obviously highly active, terrestrial predators which would have been well served by warm-bloodedness and a four chambered heart.
"Between 200 and 65 million years ago, the crocodilian lineage diversified into more than 150 genera in all kinds of habitats from land-based to fresh water and the ocean," he said.
"Only one relatively small group that were aquatic and sat and waited for food to come to them managed to survive until today. All the rest became extinct about 65 million years ago with the big extinction when most of the dinosaurs died out," he said. "The cold-bloodedness that this group evolved may have been a factor that saved it."
Again, I would have to look further to see how old the current living species are, but I don't think they extend to the fossil record.
Enjoy.
ps - this could be a good place to ask about sharks:
http://www.brighthub.com/science/medical/articles/7196.aspx
Edited by RAZD, : added ps

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 368 by Percy, posted 01-11-2009 7:01 AM Percy has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 373 of 493 (493863)
01-11-2009 8:56 AM
Reply to: Message 362 by Peg
01-11-2009 4:35 AM


Re: The theory of evolution contains no magic. That's the "other side's" theory.
Peg, Peg, Peg.
there have been many scientific frauds in the recent past that show that some will go to extraordinary lengths for evolution
No No No. There have been many frauds in the past by unscrupulous PEOPLE. ALL of them have been exposed by scientists looking for the truth. Stop reading those creationist sites that are frauds and hoaxes.
Not one fraud\hoax has been exposed by creationists. Not one.
Meanwhile many creationist sites continue to show stuff like man-dino footprints and other hogwash that are frauds\hoaxes, and they continue to do so after the fact they are FAKE has been demonstrated.
Do you want to go down the list?
Nebraska Man - all newspaper hype, the original scientist determined it was a pig.
Piltdown Man - hoax perpetuated ON science, exposed by science.
Glen Rose Man - fraud perpetuated by Carl Baugh, exposed by science. Baugh (a creationist) continues to present it in his "museum" perpetuating his hoax to gullible people.
China bird ancestor "fossils" - perpetuated by people looking to make money, exposed by science.
Not ONE of these is necessary in ANY WAY for evolution.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 362 by Peg, posted 01-11-2009 4:35 AM Peg has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 381 by fallacycop, posted 01-12-2009 2:12 AM RAZD has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 374 of 493 (493865)
01-11-2009 9:16 AM
Reply to: Message 369 by Percy
01-11-2009 7:13 AM


Scientific Frauds and Hoaxes
Tell you what, why don't you propose a thread to enumerate frauds, misrepresentations and significant mistakes for evolution versus those for creation, and we'll keep a count of each. In fact, if someone proposes such a thread I'll promote it as quickly as I can, I think it would be illuminating.
We'd have to list almost every existing YEC creationist website. (I say "almost" for scientific tentativity, as I am not aware of any that stick to the truth, but it is possible ...)
Certainly Carl Baugh (his degree is a hoax, it doesn't exist) and Kent Hovind (convicted of fraud, his degree is a fraud from a paper mill) and the "creation museum" (showing adam and eve and a vegetarian TRex)
Then there is Harun Yahah (a muslim creationist, who also happens to be a convicted extortionist and anal rapist of underage women) - he puts Hovind to shame.
Is this a good start?
Message 1
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : added new post link
Edited by RAZD, : .
Edited by AdminNosy, : update the link to the new topic

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 369 by Percy, posted 01-11-2009 7:13 AM Percy has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 377 of 493 (493898)
01-11-2009 2:30 PM
Reply to: Message 362 by Peg
01-11-2009 4:35 AM


scientific frauds
Hey Peg, back again,'
there have been many scientific frauds in the recent past that show that some will go to extraordinary lengths for evolution
Now is your chance to list all the ones you can find, and we will see who is hoaxing who eh?
Scientific vs Creationist Frauds and Hoaxes
So bring out the Haeckel, sound the alarm on Icons of Evolution, expose the sham of archeopteryx, and whatever else you feel qualifies as fraudulent behavior or hoaxes perpetuated on the public.
Be sure to list your sources.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 362 by Peg, posted 01-11-2009 4:35 AM Peg has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 383 of 493 (493977)
01-12-2009 8:25 AM
Reply to: Message 381 by fallacycop
01-12-2009 2:12 AM


Re: The theory of evolution contains no magic. That's the "other side's" theory.
yes. but perpetuated by creationist sites.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 381 by fallacycop, posted 01-12-2009 2:12 AM fallacycop has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 461 of 493 (494598)
01-17-2009 3:15 AM
Reply to: Message 435 by Peg
01-16-2009 8:51 PM


Darwin's FInches, Grant's work and Speciation
Hey Peg,
Except that in the years following the drought, finches with smaller beaks again began to dominate the population. In the science Journal Nature 1987 a Peter Grant and graduate student Lisle Gibbs wrote that they had seen “a reversal in the direction of selection.”
So it seems the finch's were not becoming a new species at all but rather the population was being affected by the climate changes.
Except that the Grants said that this kind of development could result in speciation if it continued for 200 years. The fact that it did not continue does not invalidate their conclusion.
This is, btw, an excellent example of the response of evolution to the environment, and directly shows that there is no "direction" to evolution other than to adapt to the ecology around the organism.
these finche's were studied in the 70's by Peter and Rosemary Grant who discovered that after a year of drought, finches that had slightly bigger beaks survived better than those with smaller beaks. these findings were assumed to be significant apparently because the size and shape of the beaks is a primary way of determining the 13 species of finches.
Not really. It is one of several morphological differences that field naturalists can use to distinguish between species, it doesn't cause speciation on it's own.
See Just a moment...
"Genetics and the origin of bird species," by Peter & Rosemary Grant
quote:
General Trends: Six Rules of Avian Speciation
As a means of summarizing the preceding discussion and survey of the literature we suggest there are six rules of speciation in birds:
1. Speciation is initiated in allopatry.
2. The sympatric phase of the speciation process is established after an allopatric period of ecological divergence.
3. Allopatric evolution of premating isolating mechanisms precedes the evolution of postmating mechanisms in allopatry or sympatry.
4. Premating mechanisms are governed mainly by additive effects of polygenes, postmating mechanisms are due mainly to nonadditive genetic effects (dominance and epistasis).
5. Premating mechanisms include effects of the cultural process of sexual imprinting.
6. Postzygotic incompatibilities arise first in females. This is Haldane’s rule applied to birds in which females are the heterogametic sex.
Note that they find the largest factor separating the different species is mating behavior, specifically song, not beak size.
Note that they also used genetic studies of the different populations to determine population separation and hybrid mixing.
For a review of the terms allopatric and sympatric see:
Allopatric speciation - Wikipedia
quote:
Allopatric speciation, also known as geographic speciation, is the phenomenon whereby biological populations are physically isolated by an extrinsic barrier and evolve intrinsic (genetic) reproductive isolation, such that if the barrier breaks down, individuals of the populations can no longer interbreed. Evolutionary biologists agree that allopatry is a common method by which new species arise. (The word is derived from the ancient Greek allos, "other" + Greek patr, "fatherland".) By contrast, the frequency of other types of speciation, such as sympatric speciation, parapatric speciation, and heteropatric speciation, is debated.
Sympatry - Wikipedia
quote:
Sympatric speciation is the genetic divergence of various populations (from a single parent species) inhabiting the same geographic region, such that those populations become different species. Etymologically, sympatry is derived from the roots sym- (meaning same, alike, similar, or fellow) and -patry (meaning homeland or fatherland).
So when they say that "The sympatric phase of the speciation process is established after an allopatric period of ecological divergence" they are talking about changes within the population/s after geographic separation has caused reproductive isolation, and behavioral pre-mating change, to then cause post-mating isolation.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : clrty
Edited by RAZD, : added

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 435 by Peg, posted 01-16-2009 8:51 PM Peg has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 470 of 493 (494683)
01-17-2009 7:12 PM
Reply to: Message 468 by Capt Stormfield
01-17-2009 7:05 PM


Re: Starting from the Root
Welcome to the fray Capt Stormfield,
The appearance of an imperfect replicator.
Subject to natural selection ...
(First post here, will review the quoting technique, etc. before saying much more.)
... as you are new here, some posting tips:
type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quotes are easy
or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:
quote:
quotes are easy
also check out (help) links on any formating questions when in the reply window.
For other formating tips see Posting Tips
If you use the message reply buttons (there's one at the bottom right of each message):

... your message is linked to the one you are replying to (adds clarity). You can also look at the way a post is formated with the "peek" button next to it.
Go to Proposed New Topics to post new topics.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 468 by Capt Stormfield, posted 01-17-2009 7:05 PM Capt Stormfield has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 472 of 493 (494702)
01-17-2009 10:14 PM
Reply to: Message 471 by Buzsaw
01-17-2009 9:50 PM


Re: Starting from the Root
It's simple, Buz
Would you mind elaborating on the difference in the imperfect replicator and the perfect replicator ...
A perfect replicator would not evolve, it would always be the same.
... relative to the abiogenesis of life, ...
The imperfect replicator make similar copies with variations, and the ones that are better at replicating become more prevalent.
Ones that are protected by a membrane are more likely to survive and keep reproducing.
There's a youtube video upthread that shows this process, from Message 268:
quote:
To help you come up with an answer to that question, here is a very simply 10 minute summary of their work:
Please let us know exactly why these people are not 'smart scientists'. There are more summaries at this site
... and relative to how the transition event from abiogenesis to biogenesis is observed?
When does a system of replicating molecules inside a membrane structure become life? What is the definition of life?
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 471 by Buzsaw, posted 01-17-2009 9:50 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 474 by Buzsaw, posted 01-17-2009 11:50 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 473 of 493 (494704)
01-17-2009 10:25 PM
Reply to: Message 362 by Peg
01-11-2009 4:35 AM


Peg - you're wanted on the "fraud\hoax" thread ...
Hi again Peg
there have been many scientific frauds in the recent past that show that some will go to extraordinary lengths for evolution
You're wanted on the Scientific vs Creationist Frauds and Hoaxes thread
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 362 by Peg, posted 01-11-2009 4:35 AM Peg has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024