Vanilla 1.1.9 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

    •  
      CommentAuthoroak
    • CommentTimeApr 24th 2018
     
    Copied from "What's wrong with this picture" thread (March 17, 2018):


    Posted By: oak
    Posted By: AsterixIt must be spring.

    I just witnessed a flock of about a dozen turkey hens foraging and being trailed by a peacock displaying and calling.

    Poor thing.

    Which may reflect how, in the history of life on earth, most new species were in fact created (i.e. by hybridization). Contrary to the prevailing Neo-Darwinist view that new species arise by diverging from preexisting species through the gradual accumulation of distinctive traits.

    http://www.macroevolution.net/support-files/forms_of_life.pdf

    http://www.macroevolution.net/support-files/larb-article.pdf

    Which, if true, means among other things that various competing "trees of life" are simply wrong; the history of life on earth is a complex network, not a branching tree with progressive radiations from common ancestors.

    McCarthy (2008) builds a case that new species seldom arise from the standard population genetic processes of gradual divergence via mutation, drift, and selection in allopatry, but instead that novel life forms often originate via the genetic stabilization of recombinant lineages following hybridization events. . . . If this hypothesis is correct, the ramifications for many areas of evolutionary biology would be profound. [p. 284]
    . . .

    [P]hylogeneticists would have to admit that their dream of reconstructing a branched tree of life had been merely a pipedream. [p. 288]

    “Three Ambitious (and Rather Unorthodox) Assignments for the Field of Biodiversity Genetics,” Avise, J.C., S.P. Hubbell, and F.J. Ayala (eds.), 2008,In the Light of Evolution, Volume II. Biodiversity and Extinction.The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C.). )


    .

    Posted By: oak
    Posted By: alsetalokinYabbut how many turkey hens need to get fookd by a peacock before a fertile turkock chick hatches?

    5,000? Hard to know. But over the course of a century, say, we also don't see many new bird or mammal species pop up.
    •  
      CommentAuthoroak
    • CommentTimeApr 24th 2018 edited
     
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeApr 24th 2018
     
    Posted By: oakmost new species were in fact created (i.e. by hybridization). Contrary to the prevailing Neo-Darwinist view that new species arise by diverging from preexisting species through the gradual accumulation of distinctive traits.


    This sounds to me like a straw man. Since Lynn Margulies I think most people who agree with the New Darwinian Synthesis admit that hybridization and parasitism and gene exchange have had a huge impact. But when you say "most" new species, I have to wonder. For hybridisation to occur there have to be two distinct species to hybridise - where did they come from? You can't start with one species and hybridise a flock of new ones from it, to exaggerate a bit.
    •  
      CommentAuthorQuanten
    • CommentTimeApr 24th 2018
     
    Posted By: Angus
    Posted By: oakmost new species were in fact created (i.e. by hybridization). Contrary to the prevailing Neo-Darwinist view that new species arise by diverging from preexisting species through the gradual accumulation of distinctive traits.


    This sounds to me like a straw man. Since Lynn Margulies I think most people who agree with the New Darwinian Synthesis admit that hybridization and parasitism and gene exchange have had a huge impact. But when you say "most" new species, I have to wonder. For hybridisation to occur there have to be two distinct species to hybridise - where did they come from? You can't start with one species and hybridise a flock of new ones from it, to exaggerate a bit.


    The two initial species were made up by god ex nihilo in 6 days. That's more or less the creationist view.

    Also when I read "Darwinist" I know I have nothing good to expect. There is a reason science don't call it Darwinism or neo Darwinism , and I am betting the person writing that has no deep clue on the theory of evolution by natural selection or its modern scope. That remind me of the usage of "Allopathic medicine" by woo proponent. If you want to engage in conversation, try to use the proper terms.
    •  
      CommentAuthoroak
    • CommentTime5 days ago edited
     
    Posted By: Quanten . . .
    Also when I read "Darwinist" I know I have nothing good to expect. There is a reason science don't call it Darwinism or neo Darwinism , and I am betting the person writing that has no deep clue on the theory of evolution by natural selection or its modern scope. That remind me of the usage of "Allopathic medicine" by woo proponent. If you want to engage in conversation, try to use the proper terms.

    You are mistaken. Biologists themselves use the term "neo-Darwinism" when arguing about different possible mechanisms by which evolution might occur. See, e.g.,
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Darwinism
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3060581/
    https://tannerlectures.utah.edu/_documents/a-to-z/g/gould85.pdf
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saltation_(biology)

    In any case, here's a new paper on the subject of hybridization in evolution: a review of the current state of research in the field.
    https://www.dropbox.com/s/esdjzuhhdjz2x3g/Taylor_etc-.pdf

    I expect that in the next decade, research on hybrid speciation will intensify.