explaining common ancestry

Carico, So all those silly biologists have it wrong? You have just described most mammals, I think you need to narrow down your criteria, mate. And how many species of apes can a gorilla breed with? An orangutan? You see what a silly thing this was to say? Not being able to breed with more than one species of ape (your own) does not disqualify a species from membership, or there would be no such thing as apes, obviously.Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

Carico, No shit, Sherlock!!As has been explained by myself & others, does the fact that chimps don't mate with gorillas mean chimps & gorillas aren't apes either?THINK!You are not untypical of a creationist. You breeze in here all guns blazing when in truth you know fuck all about systematics & classification, or any other relevant science.Just stop for a moment & consider that the people talking to you know what they are talking about, & you appear very, very silly & ignorant. I guarantee that you haven't ever picked up a book pertaining to cladistics, systematics & classification. If you had you will understand that gorillas, chimps et al. are grouped together because the apomorphies they share warrant their placement within the same taxon. For exactly the same reason humans are placed in the same taxon. What's your beef? If you are happy to accept that chimps, gorillas & orangs go into the same group because of their apomorphies, what reason other than an insubstantial religious bias do you claim that humans are a special case & should be placed in a separate group despite the apomorphies shared with the rest of the great apes?This may come as a great surprise to you, but science already understands that humans are apes, in the same way they are also primates, mammals, tetrapods, craniates, chordates, & animals. It is you that are having problems, not science.
Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

Carico, Au contraire:Drosophila paulistorum Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky (1971) reported a speciation event that occurred in a laboratory culture of Drosophila paulistorum sometime between 1958 and 1963. The culture was descended from a single inseminated female that was captured in the Llanos of Colombia. In 1958 this strain produced fertile hybrids when crossed with conspecifics of different strains from Orinocan. From 1963 onward crosses with Orinocan strains produced only sterile males. Initially no assortative mating or behavioral isolation was seen between the Llanos strain and the Orinocan strains. Later on Dobzhansky produced assortative mating (Dobzhansky 1972).Sympatric Speciation in Drosophila melanogasterIn a series of papers (Rice 1985, Rice and Salt 1988 and Rice and Salt 1990) Rice and Salt presented experimental evidence for the possiblility of sympatric speciation. They started from the premise that whenever organisms sort themselves into the environment first and then mate locally, individuals with the same habitat preferences will necessarily mate assortatively. They established a stock population of D. melanogaster with flies collected in an orchard near Davis, California. Pupae from the culture were placed into a habitat maze. Newly emerged flies had to negotiate the maze to find food. The maze simulated several environmental gradients simultaneously. The flies had to make three choices of which way to go. The first was between light and dark (phototaxis). The second was between up and down (geotaxis). The last was between the scent of acetaldehyde and the scent of ethanol (chemotaxis). This divided the flies among eight habitats. The flies were further divided by the time of day of emergence. In total the flies were divided among 24 spatio-temporal habitats.They next cultured two strains of flies that had chosen opposite habitats. One strain emerged early, flew upward and was attracted to dark and acetaldehyde. The other emerged late, flew downward and was attracted to light and ethanol. Pupae from these two strains were placed together in the maze. They were allowed to mate at the food site and were collected. Eye color differences between the strains allowed Rice and Salt to distinguish between the two strains. A selective penalty was imposed on flies that switched habitats. Females that switched habitats were destroyed. None of their gametes passed into the next generation. Males that switched habitats received no penalty. After 25 generations of this mating tests showed reproductive isolation between the two strains. Habitat specialization was also produced.They next repeated the experiment without the penalty against habitat switching. The result was the same -- reproductive isolation was produced. They argued that a switching penalty is not necessary to produce reproductive isolation. Their results, they stated, show the possibility of sympatric speciation.Selection for Geotaxis with and without Gene FlowSoans, et. al. (1974) used houseflies to test Pimentel's model of speciation. This model posits that speciation requires two steps. The first is the formation of races in subpopulations. This is followed by the establishment of reproductive isolation. Houseflies were subjected to intense divergent selection on the basis of positive and negative geotaxis. In some treatments no gene flow was allowed, while in others there was 30% gene flow. Selection was imposed by placing 1000 flies into the center of a 108 cm vertical tube. The first 50 flies that reached the top and the first 50 flies that reached the bottom were used to found positively and negatively geotactic populations. Four populations were established:Pop A + geotaxis, no gene flow
Pop B - geotaxis, no gene flow
Pop C + geotaxis, 30% gene flow
Pop D - geotaxis, 30% gene flow.Selection was repeated within these populations each generations. After 38 generations the time to collect 50 flies had dropped from 6 hours to 2 hours in Pop A, from 4 hours to 4 minutes in Pop B, from 6 hours to 2 hours in Pop C and from 4 hours to 45 minutes in Pop D. Mate choice tests were performed. Positive assortative mating was found in all crosses. They concluded that reproductive isolation occurred under both allopatric and sympatric conditions when very strong selection was present.Hurd and Eisenberg (1975) performed a similar experiment on houseflies using 50% gene flow and got the same results. Au contraire once again mes amis!Barry Hall in 1982 removed the genes that produce the cleaving enzyme, control mechanism for the enzyme, & permease for lactose from a single bacteria, & all three reevolved. That's new genes AND characteristics. Yes, that's correct but DNA can be duplicated, become redundant & coopted by other functions. Hence new genes & function can arise from preexisting DNA. What a STUUUUUPID thing to say! You would do well to learn the subject before coming out with smart alec comments like this. The only one looking the fool is you.Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

Carico, Don't talk gibberish. Evolution never said cats turn into dogs. Strawman fallacy. I gave three examples where a new species evolved & was unable to breed with the parent species. Yet each population was able to breed with it's own population. Perhaps your idea of what speciation is, is skewed.Speciation occurs via the bifurcation of a single lineages to the point where one population can no longer breed with another. ie speciation has occurred. We've seen it happen.MarkThis message has been edited by mark24, 12-24-2005 12:08 PM

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

Carico, Speciation can occur in a single generation with polyploidy. Evolution does not claim speciation takes millions of years. Another strawman fallacy.Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

Carico, Why would they is the short answer. Just because speciation can occur rapidly doesn't mean it has to. There is no reason why speciation has to occur even in populations that are isolated from each other for geologically long periods of time. They aren't. We share homologous genes with the great apes (among others) because we got them from the same ancestor.What you mean by dog genes in a cat is less clear, but if I interpret your comment the same way, the answer is the same, they share homologous genes inherited from the same ancestor. In both cases the genes may perform the same function but generally differ slightly in amino acid & nucleotide sequences, with exceptions. Silly boy! I have provided three examples of speciation where one interbreeding population became two: speciation. What's your point?MarkThis message has been edited by mark24, 12-24-2005 06:56 PM

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

Carico,To avoid intruding on your great debate, I have reponded to your last mail to me in that thread here. Where did I say that humans couldn't breed with apes in order to contradict myself? What everybody has been saying is that humans breed with their own species of ape & no other.Humans ARE apes, they breed within their own species, therefore they breed with other apes. I am a male ape, my wife is a female ape. If we breed then we have both bred with another ape. What is so hard to understand? They are apes too. I never said humans could breed with every other species of ape. Neither did anyone else. So why are you acting like they did? What they, & I are saying is that since humans are apes, they breed with apes when they breed with other humans. I repeat:Humans are apes, therefore if a human male ape breeds with a female human ape, the two human apes have bred with their own species of ape. They bred with other apes of the same species. What they haven't done is outbreed with another species of ape. Yes I can, watch this & learn. A perfectly logical non-contradictory statement coming up:Humans, gorillas, orangutans, chimps etc. share both genetic, molecular, & morphological apomorphies that place them in the same taxonomic group. Fossils also exist possessing characters of an intermediate nature that phylogenetic analysis indicates a common ancestor with other great apes. Cladistic analysis of amino acid & nucleotide sequences support the conclusion of common descent divergence sequence. Increasing dissimilarity of pseudogenes follow the same general pattern of divergence. All of the above provide independent & mutually supporting evidence that humans share common ancestry with the other great apes.Where was the contradiction? You mean your inability to understand enough of the science involved to appreciate the context in which discussion is taking place? Again, I repeat:Humans are apes, therefore if a human male ape breeds with a female human ape, the two human apes have bred with their own species of ape. They bred with other apes of the same species. What they haven't done is outbreed with another species of ape. But then no-one claimed they did. Sadly, I have to drum this into you by rote....Again, I repeat:Humans are apes, therefore if a human male ape breeds with a female human ape, the two human apes have bred with their own species of ape. They bred with apes. In the same way a dog breeds with a canine when it breeds with another dog. They bred with other apes of the same species. What they haven't done is outbreed with another species of ape. But then no-one claimed they did.Has the penny dropped yet? It just isn't that hard. Good grief. Firstly no-one has contradicted themselves. Secondly, no-one has lied. A lie is a deliberate act of deception, show where I have perpetrated a deliberate act of deception or retract your accusation & apologise.MarkThis message has been edited by mark24, 12-27-2005 02:36 PM

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

Carico, You have accused me of lying, you have accused Nuggin of lying. Yes we did say humans breed with apes. Humans are apes, they breed with other humans, ergo they breed with apes. Humans don't breed with other species of ape, yet they still breed with apes. What don't you understand?There are two possibilities, you are just pug stupid, or you are ignorant. Given that this has been pointed out to you many, many times, the ignorant option has to be checked off.Now, you have accused me of lying, so I would like you to show where I deliberately wrote a falsehood, or apologise. Are all christians this nasty? You couldn't be further from convincing people that christianity is the right way to live your life. You refuse to read what people write, then accuse them of lying. Repeatedly.If this is the level of manners & intellectual honesty I can expect from your church, then: christianity, no thanks!Ever heard of leading by example?Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't