From: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: macroevolution
Date: 31 Aug 92 23:09:41 GMT
Organization: animal -- coelomate -- deuterostome

In article <1992Aug31.154311.18213@cs.joensuu.fi> asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
>colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby) writes:

>>One famous biologist thinks most
>>speciation events are caused by changes in internal symbionts. Most
>>doubt this, however.

>	And no names. 

Her name is Lynn Margulis.

>>OBSERVED SPECIATIONS
>
>>It comes as a surprise to some to hear that speciation has been
>>observed. [...]
>>Here is how this speciation occured. The new species were formed
>>when one diploid species fertilized a different diploid species and
>>produced a tetraploid offspring. This tetraploid offspring could
>>not fertilize or be fertilized by either of it's two parent
>>species types. It is reproductively isolated, the definition of
>>a species. 

>	No, you must say: It is not observed. This has also happened with 
>	animals, but under certain conditions they can reproduce. 

How about providing a reference to this (specifically the formation
of tetraploids (or any higher ploidy) in animal hybridizations)? In
any case, what difference does it make? These new plant species
cannot cross with their progenitor species. They are new species.

>This is still micro. 

That's debatable. I'd say formation of a new species qualifies as
macro (although different (and conflicting) definitions abound. In
any case, big deal -- it's still speciation.

>>However, if wide ranges are searched, transitional forms 
>>that bridge the gap between the two species are sometime found in
>>small, localized areas.

>	Lie. 

Sorry Antti, you can close your eyes and hold your breath but the
rocks aren't going to go away. I thought it was especially neat
that you accused me of lying, then quoted the materal that
supported my point directly below your accusation. Here's a hint:
other people aren't blinded by your infantile religious dogma
and might notice that that really makes you look like an idiot. 

>>For example, in Jurassic brachiopods of the genus _Kutchithyris_,
>>_K. acutiplicata_ appears below another species, _K. euryptycha_.
>>In just one small locality an approximately 1.25m sedimentary
>>layer with these fossils is found. In the narrow (10 cm) layer that
>>separates the two species, both species are found along with 
>>transitional forms. In other localities there is a sharp transition.

>	What does it tell about their reproduction ? Sorry, find better 
>	evidence. 

What does it need to tell about their reproduction? Paleontologists
define species in terms of morphology because reproduction cannot
be directly tested. Even if all these forms were capable of inter-
breeding, it is still an example of modification with descent. In
this case, however, the two forms are different enough morphologi-
cally that it is almost certain they were good species. 

As for finding better evidence, why don't you? I have plenty of
it -- libraries full. Where is your theory Antti? Where is the
evidence for it?

>>mechanisms have been shown to work, there is still no consensus on
>>the relative contribution of each of the mechanisms to the overall
>>pattern of evolution within a lineage. Likewise, although new species

>	You could have a good career in "America's funniest people". Consider 
>	that. 

You could have an even better career on "World's most Pathetic, Deluded
Simpletons". I notice that you recently claimed (on t.r.m) that you were 
a better biologist than Darwin was. Funny, Darwin revolutionized bioliogy
and all you can do is whine because you don't like his theory. If 
Darwin didn't provide the dog(ma), there would be nothing for fleas like
yourself to parasitise.

>>Evolution is the unifying theory of biology.

>	Bullshit. 

>	I know many biologists on the net and they are against evolution-      
>	nonsense. 

Ooh, someone on the net is against evolution; I'm trembling. Where's
their theory and the evidence for it?

>Still you talk as if all biologists were for evolution. 

The overwhelming majority are -- to deny this is to be seriously
lacking in a grasp of biology.

O.K., let's take stock of Antti's criticisms -- shall we?

1.) I didn't mention Margulis by name.
2.) I can't count the plant examples because unspecified animal
crosses yeilded different results.
3.) Antti doesn't count speciation as macroevolution.
4.) Antti thinks I'm lying about the rocks (no support given for
this assertion).
5.) I can't be absolutely sure two species of brachiopods from
the Jurassic were not "good species" reproductive isolated.
6.) An irrelevant ad hominem attack.
7.) Some (unspecified) net biologists disagree with me.

All but number two and four are irrelevant. Number two indicates
Antti is incapable of rational thought. Number four indicates that
Antti would like to dismiss portions (as we have seen, _large_
portions) of reality that don't conform to his cartoonish view
of the world in which he is a prominent biologist (snicker) and
evolutionists (such as myself) are lying about data for some as
yet unspecified reason. Gee, I guess that about raps it up for
evolution, eh? ;-) Come on Antti, can't you better than that?

>		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint

Chris Colby 	---	 email: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu	---
"'My boy,' he said, 'you are descended from a long line of determined,
resourceful, microscopic tadpoles--champions every one.'"
 	--Kurt Vonnegut from "Galapagos"