A blow to evolution - Gene Regulation

reply to post by daskakik


Exactly, they don't prove anything, thats exactly what I was saying. Thanks for agreeing with me.

reply to post by itsthetooth

I'm not agreeing because you keep saying that this proves something. Like you did in this post:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

The topic is evolution and not inter-species procreation.

reply to post by daskakik


It has to do with allopathic speciation.

reply to post by itsthetooth

What is "allopathic" speciation? Allopathic is defined as "of, relating to, or used in allopathy". Allopathy is defined as "a method of treating disease with remedies that produce effects different from those caused by the disease itself". So what would "allopathic" speciation be?

Originally posted by iterationzero
reply to post by itsthetooth

 

What is "allopathic" speciation? Allopathic is defined as "of, relating to, or used in allopathy". Allopathy is defined as "a method of treating disease with remedies that produce effects different from those caused by the disease itself". So what would "allopathic" speciation be?

Despite being told a few times including a link he gets it wrong every time, he was even gifted the correct word and definition. Just like everything he posts in fact.

reply to post by itsthetooth

I don't see where you are making that link.

All this shows is that allopatric speciation does not always result in a reproductive barrier between species of the same genus. It neither proves nor disproves evolution.

reply to post by daskakik


Allopathic speciation is suppose to support the idea of evolution but the problem is that we have both same species and non same species that are able to breed, thus not allowing it to be proof of a species changing.

reply to post by iterationzero


Ah yes, I spelled it wrong.

AllopatricMain article: allopatric speciation
During allopatric (from the ancient Greek allos, "other" + Greek patrā, "fatherland") speciation, a population splits into two geographically isolated populations (for example, by habitat fragmentation due to geographical change such as mountain building). The isolated populations then undergo genotypic and/or phenotypic divergence as: (a) they become subjected to dissimilar selective pressures; (b) they independently undergo genetic drift; (c) different mutations arise in the two populations. When the populations come back into contact, they have evolved such that they are reproductively isolated and are no longer capable of exchanging genes.

Observed instances
Island genetics, the tendency of small, isolated genetic pools to produce unusual traits, has been observed in many circumstances, including insular dwarfism and the radical changes among certain famous island chains, for example on Komodo. The Galápagos islands are particularly famous for their influence on Charles Darwin. During his five weeks there he heard that Galápagos tortoises could be identified by island, and noticed that Finches differed from one island to another, but it was only nine months later that he reflected that such facts could show that species were changeable. When he returned to England, his speculation on evolution deepened after experts informed him that these were separate species, not just varieties, and famously that other differing Galápagos birds were all species of finches. Though the finches were less important for Darwin, more recent research has shown the birds now known as Darwin's finches to be a classic case of adaptive evolutionary radiation.

allopatric

reply to post by daskakik

I don't see where you are making that link.

All this shows is that allopatric speciation does not always result in a reproductive barrier between species of the same genus. It neither proves nor disproves evolution.

When the populations come back into contact, they have evolved such that they are reproductively isolated and are no longer capable of exchanging genes.

Allopatric

As you can see, the false claim is made that evolution has occured based on the fact that the species are now reproductively isolated.

We currently have both same species and different species that are and aren't able to breed, proving that it can be a trusted marker for determining evolution.

reply to post by itsthetooth


From your wiki link:

There are four geographic modes of speciation in nature, based on the extent to which speciating populations are isolated from one another: allopatric, peripatric, parapatric, and sympatric.

also:

Reinforcement, also called the Wallace effect, is the process by which natural selection increases reproductive isolation.[17] It may occur after two populations of the same species are separated and then come back into contact. If their reproductive isolation was complete, then they will have already developed into two separate incompatible species. If their reproductive isolation is incomplete, then further mating between the populations will produce hybrids, which may or may not be fertile. If the hybrids are infertile, or fertile but less fit than their ancestors, then there will be further reproductive isolation and speciation has essentially occurred (e.g., as in horses and donkeys.)

So it isn't the only thing going on which leaves room for other things to take place. So yeah, maybe 99.9% of the time, being generous, it ends up in different species which can't reproduce and there are rare instances when they can.

Like I said, this doesn't prove evolution or disprove it.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
Just because others tried to indicate that cabbits weren't real doesn't mean I'm just going to instantly believe them

Ladies and gentlemen, we are debating biolgoy with somebody who has seriously considered the possibility that cat-rabbit hybrids exist.

I hereby retire from the argument—on compassionate grounds.

reply to post by daskakik


Well sure it does. The false claim is made that reproductive isolation is proof that a species has evolved. But how can that be when we have non matching species that are able to mate, as well as matching species that are unable to produce offspring.

Let me put it to you this way so that it makes more sense. My neighbor down the way is unable to produce children. Now her and her husband already have children so we know they should be functioning as normal. Doctors check out both the husband and wife and are unable to come up with any reason as to why they are no longer able to produce children. He has a viable sperm count and she is in order as well.

Doctors NEVER give her the excuse that she has evolved, which has caused her to no longer be able to produce children with her husband.

reply to post by Astyanax


Ya and I'm the first to fall for it right, I mean after all I'm even the person that coined the term cabbit.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Maybe that is the case and maybe the doctors should. That does what for your argument? Nothing.

Sorry, but all I see is someone clinging on to whatever they can.

reply to post by daskakik


What do you mean clinging on to whatever I can? Allopatric speciation is a joke.

There has never been a doctor in the history of life that has ever even though that speciation has caused someone to not be able to produce offspring.

It sounds more like YOUR the one that is hanging on to anything you can, meanwhile we have the evidence all over the world that no doctor has even suggested that evolution is the cause for them not being able to produce offspring.

Whats your next story? All types of speciation happen in humans, just not Allopatric?



Maybe the doctors should LOL, not if they are REAL doctors LOL. Who in thier right mind would suggest such a thing let alone imagine it? There is a reason why doctors have never suggest it as an excuse, they would be called a quack.

reply to post by itsthetooth

That is your opinion. I would have no problem changing mine if you could provide a valid argument but even the sources you provide contradict you.

It isn't my story. I'm just pointing out how you are not seeing the forest for the trees. No point in carrying this on any further.

reply to post by itsthetooth

What do you mean clinging on to whatever I can? Allopatric speciation is a joke.

Your version of it is but hey what’s new.

There has never been a doctor in the history of life that has ever even though that speciation has caused someone to not be able to produce offspring.

Quite right and if they did they should be struck off. You on the other hand demonstrate you still have no idea what you are talking about

It sounds more like YOUR the one that is hanging on to anything you can, meanwhile we have the evidence all over the world that no doctor has even suggested that evolution is the cause for them not being able to produce offspring.

Just a repeat of the same stupid statement from you and gets the same answer. You demonstrate you still have no idea what you are talking about.

Whats your next story? All types of speciation happen in humans, just not Allopatric?

You tell us. So far you have made nothing but false statements that you attribute to others when in fact they are yours.

Maybe the doctors should LOL, not if they are REAL doctors LOL. Who in thier right mind would suggest such a thing let alone imagine it?

Well you for a start, but as for not being in the right mind I'll keep my opinion of you to myself as you demonstrate what my opinion is wonderfully

There is a reason why doctors have never suggest it as an excuse, they would be called a quack.

Rightly so and not a quack from a crocoduck either

Something’s never change, tooth buy a book for god’s sake.

reply to post by colin42

What do you mean clinging on to whatever I can? Allopatric speciation is a joke.

Your version of it is but hey what’s new.

I can see that people are clinging onto evolution with every last thread of sanity. Like the last comment that was made, its clear that he wants to believe in evolution even if there isn't any proof. A doctor doesn't ever tell a patient that evolution has caused relationship isolation with them because IT CANT.

Any doctor making such a claim would be called a quack.

Of course this poses a serious question, why don't we have this happening if evolution is real? Because it's not real thats why.

There has never been a doctor in the history of life that has ever even though that speciation has caused someone to not be able to produce offspring.

Quite right and if they did they should be struck off. You on the other hand demonstrate you still have no idea what you are talking about

So now whats your excuse why Allopatric speciation doesn't apply to humans I have to see this.

It sounds more like YOUR the one that is hanging on to anything you can, meanwhile we have the evidence all over the world that no doctor has even suggested that evolution is the cause for them not being able to produce offspring.

Just a repeat of the same stupid statement from you and gets the same answer. You demonstrate you still have no idea what you are talking about.

And for the second time now you have avoided explaining why Allopatric speciation doesn't apply to humans, or wait, is it because you don't have a reason

Whats your next story? All types of speciation happen in humans, just not Allopatric?

You tell us. So far you have made nothing but false statements that you attribute to others when in fact they are yours.

There is nothing false about the statement, NO doctor has ever made the claim that allopatric speciation is the reason why they can't produce offspring.

Maybe the doctors should LOL, not if they are REAL doctors LOL. Who in thier right mind would suggest such a thing let alone imagine it?

Well you for a start, but as for not being in the right mind I'll keep my opinion of you to myself as you demonstrate what my opinion is wonderfully

Your opinion is greatly appreciated, it just doesn't prove anything.

There is a reason why doctors have never suggest it as an excuse, they would be called a quack.

Rightly so and not a quack from a crocoduck either

Something’s never change, tooth buy a book for god’s sake.

Allopatric speciation is dead, or it at least died when it comes to humans. There is simply to much proof that says its false.

Notice my signature MULES two species able to breed, so how is Allopatric speciation going to claim evolution has occured when its obviously proven false.

reply to post by daskakik

That is your opinion. I would have no problem changing mine if you could provide a valid argument but even the sources you provide contradict you.

It isn't my story. I'm just pointing out how you are not seeing the forest for the trees. No point in carrying this on any further.

Doctors never telling a patient that they have speciated, is not an opinion, its a fact. I have provided a valid argument based on the fact that there are species able to breed in and both out of species, proves that relationship isolation is false. To support this fact I even gave the example of how no doctor has ever used it as an excuse, with good reason too.

There is no forrest, and no trees, this is not a thick conversation that is to difficult for you to understand, Allopatric speciation is obviously false.

reply to post by rockymcgilicutty

The fallacy claims that the probability that a protein molecule could achieve a functional sequence of amino acids is too low to be realised by chance alone.

you're forgetting that not only does a specific chain of amino acids have to form to become a protein, but even if this could happen on it's own (it has never been shown that it can), you would have the equivalent of a brick, and bricks cannot build themselves into a house.