In episode <1123936958.168550.76370@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, Javriol
burst into the room and exclaimed:

In another thread, and many other topics, which would fall under the
content moderation filter of T.O.

What "content moderation filter?"

Javriol wrote:

All,

In another thread, and many other topics, which would fall under the
content moderation filter of T.O. but which have been discussed
decently in other forums, The question has arise abotu speciation from
and evoltuionist point of view, and life reproducing among it kind
without intervention. What is a Kind?

Real biologists don't use the word kind as a technical term, it has no
meaning in biology.

What is a kind in creationist circles?

where is the Manpanzee?

Humans and chimpanzees shared a common ancestor some five million years
ago, that has since become extinct.

Why do
certain species of tree frogs in Jersey don't interbreed even though
their physical appearenace is identical, but their genetic make up is
slightly off?

I don't know and can't be bothered to look it up. It could be that the
populations have become isolated quite recently - by a road perhaps. If
the two populations are seperated as you imply, then there is no
selective advantage in them developing distinctive markings, because
there is no danger of individuals of the two species trying to mate. In
that case the sole selction pressure would be predation; either
camouflage or if the frogs are poisonous, warning.

If you want a better answer, you'll have to give me more details, so I
can research it.

Here is a website on scientists trying to answer such questions:
are they right? you decide.

http://www.world-science.net/exclusives/050806_learnfrm.htm

comments?

I found the article quite interesting, I have read similar things in
New Scientist, including the cyclid fishes of Lake Victoria.

DNA studies of these fish show that the various species have a recent
common ancestor (I don't remember the figures), yet are widely
different in terms of coluration and feeding habits.

It's hard to imagine geographical seperation happening in a lake, so
it's a bit of a puzzle... for some anyway.

Personally, I never felt allopatric speciation was the complete answer
and have taken flak for it. Nature is extraordinarily subtle - a fact
which Darwin understood well - and it's easy to draw false
distinctions.

In answer to your subject line, yes evolutionary theory is evolving.
Science is not a fixed body of doctrine in the way you pretend your
religious beliefs are, it is an ongoing investigation of our world,
where the understanding grows ith time. This is why zealots'
representation of scientists as being doctrinal is so crass, you only
need to look at the reception to quantum, relativity and evolutionary
theories to see that science is progressive and not afraid of change,
like religion.

This is why I like to paraphrase Shakespeare in asking fundies why
should I on this fair mountain, leave to feed and batten on your moor?
I have understanding that enriches what I experience every moment of
the day.

Why would I want to join a group who would have me abandon that
understanding and why would I be happy that such narrow-minded people
have influence?

(-: Ian :-)

On 13 Aug 2005 05:42:38 -0700, in alt.atheism , "Javriol"

As you know humans are closer genetically to chimps than horses are to
donkeys. It may well be that we could produce some kind of viable
offspring. I would consider any such experiment immoral.

Why do
certain species of tree frogs in Jersey don't interbreed even though
their physical appearenace is identical, but their genetic make up is
slightly off?

Song is a likely candidate but time of day/year is another. Scent is
less likely since I think that frogs have a poor sense of smell.

Here is a website on scientists trying to answer such questions:
are they right? you decide.

http://www.world-science.net/exclusives/050806_learnfrm.htm

comments?

It is far less than the article implies. Speciation is not as
mysterious as the article suggests. In fact, we have many answers to
the question, the current issue is which method of speciation is more
common. It is also well know that behavior factors into species
recognition and species recognition is an important part of
speciation. If some of the behaviors are learned, then that can help
differentiate two populations. Those populations could then diverge.
The article points out that this is not yet observed, just proposed.

BTW, the site is very ugly and looks like an attempt to sensationalize
science. For example, an article on reading an EEG is presented as
mind reading. It looks like a site done by National Enquirer folks who
have to keep to the facts but stay with their old style.

--
Matt Silberstein