Who'd have ever cared about Johannes Lerle if Dembski hadn't defended him?

"Have we found any missing links yet, other than viral genomes? Do we have any evidence of one genome from anything higher than a virus or bacteria, evolving into a completely new genome?

On the side of evolution, I do know of a human mutation (apparently a mutation) that made this man have an IQ of over 200."

IF YOU HAVE DATA THAT DISPUTES MY OPINION, I WELCOME IT. I ALSO APPRECIATE IT - AND WILL NOT SCOFF AT IT.

First we have the EVOLUTIONISTS. They say evolution is the only way to go because some viruses, bacteria etc. have been found to mutate into changing their number of chromosomes, i.e. become ANOTHER SPECIES entirely, by our chromosomal spe-cial definition. They say, if the viruses can mutate into another species, then so can everything.

Sadly, Chris, as you've so aptly demonstrated, the "mutation" you speak of works in reverse. . . .

Google Translate gives this english translation of the German text Carsten posted (post 185239):
"With imprisonment up to five years or with fine one punishes, which committed an action designated of the kind under the rule of the national socialism in § 6 exp. 1 of the people penal code in a way, which is suitable, of disturbing the public peace publicly or in a meeting approves of, denies or plays down."

Chris torvik belched: What's wrong Science Avenger? Does simplicity scare you?

As Edison was quoted, "The highest intelligence is formatted in it's simplist form." Ha, No Edison did't really say that!! HAHAHA BUT HE SHOULD HAVE.

IM NOT HERE TO COMPETE - JUST TO FIND TRUTH.

Chris Torvik wrote:

"First we have the EVOLUTIONISTS. They say evolution is the only way to go because some viruses, bacteria etc. have been found to mutate into changing their number of chromosomes, i.e. become ANOTHER SPECIES entirely, by our chromosomal spe-cial definition.
They say, if the viruses can mutate into another species, then so can everything."

Well I don't know who has been feeding you this load of crap, (although I have my suspicions), but this bears no resemblance to any evolutionary theory I have ever heard of. In fact, I am unaware of any variation in chromoisome number in any virus or bacteria, nor would it necessarily make them a new species if it were to occur. What I do know is that speciation has been observed in nature and in the laboratory in many organisms, for example:

Apple Maggots Nature 336:61-64 (1988)

Anopheles Mosquitoes Science 289:115-117 (2002)

Fruit Flies Nature 230:289-292 (1971)

Maidenhair Ferns Am. J. Botany 79:701-707 (1992)

Goatsbeard Am. J. Botany 76:1119-1124 (1989)

We also have literally thousands of examples of sibling species, speciation in progress and incipient species. We also know of many examples in eukaryotes where changes in chromosome number through polyploidy, aneulpoidy, chromosomal fusion, etc. is at least partially responsible for producing new species.

In addition, we have very good evidence for common descent through speciation, including phylogenetic evidence for relationships at the species level and for most levels above the species level, including at the Domain level. There is a tree of life which is derived form evidence in many fields, including genetics, developmental biology, palentology, etc. and it demonstrates the relatedness of all living things.

Oh and by the way, many evolutioary biologists are deeply religious so your dichotomy is false as well.

One of the best examples of speciation as we watch is mice undergoing adaptive radiation on Madeira. From an old post of mine on Dispatches from the culture wars blog.

PS: I think Torvik's problem is not so much lack of education as misplacing his medication. Not worth trying to get through such a daunting obstacle.
*************************************************

Not so! Under the right conditions, speciation can occur very quickly. It's adaptation that takes a long time.
http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2006/11/island-mice-may-evolve-faster-from-one.html

In this case, a small population, benign environment and physical separation from other breeding groups are the magic formula.
:-)
Posted by: Salim Fadhley

From the link: Island Mice May Evolve Faster: From One Species To Six In 500 Years
SOURCE: Genome News Network
AUTHOR: Bijal P. Trivedi
COMMENTARY: Allen MacNeill

An alert Evolution List reader has already pointed me to an article that first appeared on April 28, 2000, concerning the unusually rapid speciation of common European mice on the island of Madeira. Apparently, these mice were brought to the island on sailing ships, most likely from Portugal. Since such ships were very small, the total size of the founding populations would have been extremely small; probably less than a dozen individuals (and certainly less than a hundred).

This would certainly qualify as precisely the kind of founder population that I described in the previous post concerning a possible mechanism for chromosomal speciation. In particular, it is extremely interesting that the mice in question have apparently speciated in less than 500 years, and that the mechanism underlying this speciation has involved multiple chromosomal fusions.

Here's the full article describing the research (commentary follows):

Interesting paper. This would be an extreme case, as they note. It would also qualify as a "natural" experiment. It also shows why biologists have difficulty designing experiments to demonstrate speciation. Who is going to start an experiment and let it run for 500 years? Maybe if Louis put down his creo deck of 3X5 cards and read some real research, he would learn something.

Posted by: raven | June 11, 2007 12:47 PM

Friday, November 24, 2006 Island Mice May Evolve Faster: From One Species To Six In 500 Years SOURCE: Genome News Network AUTHOR: Bijal P. Trivedi COMMENTARY: Allen MacNeill An alert Evolution List reader has already pointed me to an article that first appeared on April 28, 2000, concerning the unusually rapid speciation of common European mice on the island of Madeira. Apparently, these mice were brought to the island on sailing ships, most likely from Portugal. Since such ships were very small, the total size of the founding populations would have been extremely small; probably less than a dozen individuals (and certainly less than a hundred). This would certainly qualify as precisely the kind of founder population that I described in the previous post concerning a possible mechanism for chromosomal speciation. In particular, it is extremely interesting that the mice in question have apparently speciated in less than 500 years, and that the mechanism underlying this speciation has involved multiple chromosomal fusions. Here's the full article describing the research (commentary follows): Janice Britton-Davidian spent several weeks in 1999 placing hundreds of mousetraps all over the semi-tropical island of Madeira and discovered what may be an example of "rapid evolution." She caught hundreds of small brown mice that look pretty much alike but that are genetically distinct---a very unusual thing for such a small, geographically contained place. It normally takes thousands to millions of years for one species of animal to diverge to become two. On Madeira, one species may have evolved into six in the space of just 500 years. Britton-Davidian, an evolutionary biologist at Université Montpellier II in Montpellier, France, showed that populations of Maderian mice have between 22 and 30 chromosomes, even though their ancestors, who first arrived with the Portuguese in the 15th century, had 40. Madeira is a rugged volcanic island with sharp black cliffs that block all but a few isolated rocky shores. Only a few small villages decorate the strip of coast. The Portuguese were first to inhabit the island, bringing with them the mice that Britton-Davidian so avidly seeks. As the Portuguese founded small settlements around the island, they inadvertently deposited small groups of mice at each stop. And, for the last five centuries, mountainous barriers have prevented these coastal colonies of rodents from commingling. Britton-Davidian collected hundreds of mice from about 40 locations around the island and found six distinct populations. The common brown house mouse of Europe, presumably the ancestor of the Madeira mice, has 40 chromosomes, but the six families of Madeiran mice have between 22 and 30. The current families of Madeiran mice are not short of genetic material. They have not lost any DNA. What happened is this: over time, some of the chromosomes fused together, packing more DNA into some chromosomes. Each of the six unique populations of mice on Madeira has its own special assembly of fused chromosomes. Each group of mice may now be its own species. The diversity of fused chromosomes seems to have occurred in just 500 years, or between 1,500-2,000 generations of mice, says Britton-Davidian. Furthermore, the huge diversity in chromosomes has evolved solely from geographic isolation rather than adaptations to different environments. "What is surprising is how fast this has taken place," says Scott Edwards, an evolutionary biologist from the University of Washington, in Seattle. Based on fossil records of sea urchins and invertebrates, evolution of different species is thought to take thousands to millions of years. "But this is an interesting case because it may prove to be an extreme case of rapid speciation," says Edwards. Britton-Davidian wants to know whether these populations of mice have evolved into different species or whether they are on the cusp of speciation. A species is defined as a group of organisms that can mate and produce fertile offspring. One of Britton-Davidian's most surprising findings is that she and her colleagues found no mice that are hybrids among any of the six groups. "This might be because the hybrids are infertile or they may be less fit than the parents and unable to survive," says Britton-Davidian. Other explanations could be that the groups have been geographically isolated and have not had the chance to mate, or that the mice "recognize each other as different and choose not to mate." Britton-Davidian has taken some mice from Madeira back to her lab in France and will try interbreeding the six populations to confirm whether the hybrid mice are infertile, which, if they are, would imply that the different groups were in the process of speciation. Her team will also observe the mice to see whether they show behavioral or physical differences. REFERENCES CITED: Britton-Davidian, J. et al. Rapid chromosomal evolution in island mice. Nature 403, 158 (January 13, 2000).

Raven,

Thanks, I'll add it to the list.

Er, no... it's not a "thoughtcrime" that's punishable. 
It's the outright lying that's punishable. Just as crying "fire" in a full movie theatre is punishable (if there is no fire or any reasonable cause to assume there's a fire)

— Ronald from Leuven

It isn't a thoughtcrime when someone has it up on a website. It is a hate crime.

— Raven

You don't mention your restrictions on free speech, like libel and slander. As I understand it, truth is the best defense in such cases, and untruth can be the deciding factor in forbidding certain expressions of speech.

Another factor in libel or slander (don't hang me on the terms, IANAL!) seems to be whether actual harm is inflicted on the party being slandered.

In at least some countries on this side of the pond the overwhelming opinion is that the lies about what happened here in WW II are indeed very damaging to those few that survived the death camps and labor camps, and their relatives, and many others.

Laws forbidding holocaust denial are nothing more than a specific law implementation of said specific libel/slander, making it easier to prosecute than when each and every single case would have to be judged separately about it being damaging or untrue. Of course each case is still judged about other factors that might come into play, if any.

Another factor that might be worth considering is that in some constitutions the right for equal rights comes first, that is, protection against discrimination on race, sex, religion, etc. Freedom of speech is just about as high on the list, as long as it adheres to the 'higher' article.

When did laughter become an indication of fear?

First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win.

Are we to assume that if a religious loon hates Jews and considers abortion and birth control to be anti-Christian conspiracies that will allow the hordes of Islam to overrun the country, he must also be a fellow traveler with the Intelligent Design creationists?

I don't see Ronald's distinction between thoughtcrime and lying-as-crime

One of the best examples of speciation as we watch is mice undergoing adaptive radiation on Madeira.

Britton-Davidian wants to know whether these populations of mice have evolved into different species or whether they are on the cusp of speciation. A species is defined as a group of organisms that can mate and produce fertile offspring.

Britton-Davidian has taken some mice from Madeira back to her lab in France and will try interbreeding the six populations to confirm whether the hybrid mice are infertile, which, if they are, would imply that the different groups were in the process of speciation.

P.S.

I'm aware of Chomsky's views, especially regarding holocaust denier Faurisson, and agree with them. But that one's personal view is that a distinction doesn't warrant the treatment that it receives is no justification for ignoring the distinction, which is what you did and I commented on. Holmes' villainy was invoking a justifiable cause for restraint, shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, in service of an unjustified restraint on legitimate speech. His villainy does not attach to Ronald from Leuven who, unlike Holmes, used the example in good faith. Whether there are any speech acts that are so injurious to the public welfare that they should be criminalized is a matter about which people of good faith can sincerely disagree, without those who think they are being told that they are theocrats or totalitarians or that their acceptance of such restrictions will lead to theocracy or dictatorship; such slippery slope arguments are fallacious.

as far as I know the reaction at that time was more or less immediate and overwhelmingly positive

At the time, however, they were not noticed by most physicists as being important, and many of those who did notice them rejected them outright. Some of this work---such as the theory of light quanta---would remain controversial for years.

I think you imagine it rather than know it. From Wikipedia: ...

Chunkdz,

You make a good point. However, at the risk of wandering even more off topic in this thread, I would like to point out a few things myself.

The problem of speciation is a difficult one to study because reproductive isolation usually leads to very slow genetic divergence. Since no one human life span is usually sufficient to follow the entire process, the charge of "were you there" can always be raised. And of course, if the species are already distinct before the study begins, then the charge is that the speciation was not really observed.

What is required for more direct observation of the process is a special case where reproductive isolation is very rapid and probably preceeds genetic divergence. The island mice story is such a case. There is a known time of colonization with very little genetic diversity originally. Then there were documented change in chromosome structure that occurred in a short time span. That is why this study is important.

As to whether these represent new species or not, it may be hard to say at this point. If the chromosome number does indeed vary from 22 to 30 and if the changes were primarily caused by chromosomal fusions, then we are undoubtedly observing speciation in action by a process that has been known to produce new species in the past. Even in the absence of any other significant genetic dievergence, it seems highly unlikely that there would not be at least some pair-wise combinations of karyotypes that would not be capable of producing fertile hybrids. If this is indeed the case, then by definition new species would have been produded. Of course, it might take some time in order to make this determination, so perhaps we should not be too quick to jump to conclusions.

At the same time, we also don't want to fall into the trap of thinking that this evidence does not support the concept of rapid speciation. Observations of speciation in progress do count as evidence. If changes that occur before new species arise do not count and changes that occur after new species arise do not count, then we must observe exactly the important changes at the exact time and in the exact individuals in which they occur in order for anything to count. That is an unreasonable burden of proof. That is why studies such as these are so important.

One of the best examples of speciation as we watch is mice undergoing adaptive radiation on Madeira. From an old post of mine on Dispatches from the culture wars blog. [omitted]

— raven

Syntax Error: mismatched tag 'kwickxml'

— christorvik

One of the best examples of speciation as we watch is mice undergoing adaptive radiation on Madeira. This is not speciation. From the article: Britton-Davidian wants to know whether these populations of mice have evolved into different species or whether they are on the cusp of speciation. A species is defined as a group of organisms that can mate and produce fertile offspring. The author of the study is unsure of whether the populations are new species or not. Yet Raven is quick to claim it as evidence for speciation in mammals.

Britton-Davidian, an evolutionary biologist at Université Montpellier II in Montpellier, France, showed that populations of Maderian mice have between 22 and 30 chromosomes, even though their ancestors, who first arrived with the Portuguese in the 15th century, had 40.

The strong reduction in fertility measured in these hybrids represents a reproductive isolating mechanism effectively reducing gene flow between the all-acrocentric and 22Rb mice populations of Tunisia.

Analysis of the testicular histology of F1 and backcross males showed in some cases a breakdown of spermatogenesis.

In addition to the habitat partition, allozyme and mitochondrial DNA analyses showed that the 22Rb populations were genetically differentiated from the 40Std ones. This differentiation mostly stemmed from an important decrease in genetic variability in the 22Rb populations from the Sahel towns. The extent of morphological, ecological and genetical divergence observed between these chromosomal races in Tunisia is in agreement with the predictions of the chromosomal speciation model of White which advocates that karyotypic differentiation between taxa can lead to their reproductive isolation and independent evolution.

I hate to do it, but I feel that I have to reassure some of the "freedom of expression" trolls.

For the record, much as I despise anti-Semitism (whether directed against Jewish people in isolation, or against other people who have Semitic language, history, or cultural traits, such as self-identified "Arabs"), and much as I love seeing the a$$holes who spew it getting into trouble, I actually have some issues about whether or not it should be illegal. (But I'm not German, so it's not really my business how they do things in the autonomous nation of Germany, where they make their own laws.)

Of course, where actual physical or economic harm to other people is clearly a deliberate result, other laws clearly apply.

Furthermore, most anti-Semitist expressions make false claims about the actions and intentions of the people they victimize, and thus constitute libel or slander.

However, I do believe that there can be isolated instances of "pure" bigoted expression, free from considerations of in which the $hithead who does the spewing merely expresses his own unreasonable hatred for some group of human beings, on the basis of some arbitrary characteristic which has no impact on them, without going far enough to actually incite violence or make libelous statements. In the case of some types of ethnic bigotry, this is common, although in the case of anti-Semitism, historically, nutjobs have been driven by frenzy to go beyond this level. "Harmless" statements of vile bigotry are probably protected in the US, and the best response to them is probably disdain.

One final post, firstly to apologize for the many typos in my post immediately above.

Secondly, to point out what did NOT happen on this thread.

I opened the thread by saying, in essence, "Yes, of course, we all understand that an anti-semitic wingnut a$$hole is going to be a supporter of ID, and vice versa".

One thing that did NOT happen, was any creationist rebuttal, or even modification, of that statement.

Creationists posted, and a fascinating discussion of speciation insued.

But creationists, once again, stared at their shuffling feet in silence when I called them out on the fact that it's largely about right wing politics in the end.

Don't you want to contradict me, Cheezy Chunk? Don't you want to jump up and say that you're a liberal, but your "belief" in ID is solely because of the "evidence"?

It's worth remembering this because it gives us insight into the complexities of reality. We're not dealing with Ned Flanders.

If IDers won't accept speciation as a process occurring through small changes over a long time, would they accept speciation as a result of small changes over a long distance? The ring species that starts as a lesser-black backed gull in the UK ends up back in the UK as a herring gull.
IDists can only say that speciation has not occurred by claiming either that the changes are not microscopic or that the 2 birds are not different species, both of which statements can be scientifically determined (I would have thought - I'm no expert).

Perhaps this has been said above, but I notice that the title of Dembski's rant is "Teaching ID = A Crime Against Humanity." But the DI's position for the last ~5 years has been not to advocate teaching ID, but teaching "the controversy" (i.e. just misrepresenting evolution and letting students fill in the blanks with their favorite fairy tales). So the DI advocates "censoring" the teaching of ID (& classic creationism) just as much as their "Darwinist" critics. Even more so, because the "teach the controversy" scam insulates ID and creationism from any critical analysis.

What we can do to help dr Lerle get out of prison?

What we can do to help dr Lerle get out of prison?

You could move to Germany, become a citizen, and vote for politicians who will repeal the holocaust denial law. That wouldn't help Lerle, but it would give him and others future latitude to tell deeply hurtful lies about one of history's most despicable crimes, if that would cheer you up.

As for Dr Lerle, he knew he was breaking the law when he broke it, and seems to be a contemptible, fanatic, racist scumbag in general, so even though I have my misgivings about the law per se, I'm happy to see him rot.

Why haven't dogs formed into other species yet, then? For almost as long as man has known, we have bred dogs into different sizes, and to perform specialty tasks inherent to their breed. Yes, dogs of different sizes usually don't breed because of their sizes, but they will sure try, and a sucessful coupling of the egg and sperm will creating a viable living creature that will be able to procreate itself. Through our efforts we have inbred special qualities into canines that are beneficial to ourselves in some ways. However, the isolation and inbred effects have lead to purebred breeds that have more structural problems (like hip displasia), breeds that don't live as long on the average, and breeds that might win medals at shows; however, in Darwin's "survival of the fittest" category their blue ribbons would turn into last place losers. Their inbreeding has lead to many more harmful mutations, as far as surviv-ability goes. But I digress; with the selective breeding that has gone on so long, and that has become so specialized in purebred cases, why hasn't even one of the breeds at least changed in chromosomal number, even a little??

"With all the inbreeding of dogs, why haven't they morphed into another species by now?

And all canines are still canines, so far. They have not turned into other species, so please, do not try to use that argument."

"Why haven't dogs formed into other species yet, then? For almost as long as man has known, we have bred dogs into different sizes, and to perform specialty tasks inherent to their breed.

Yes, dogs of different sizes usually don't breed because of their sizes, but they will sure try, and a sucessful coupling of the egg and sperm will creating a viable living creature that will be able to procreate itself.

Through our efforts we have inbred special qualities into canines that are beneficial to ourselves in some ways. However, the isolation and inbred effects have lead to purebred breeds that have more structural problems (like hip displasia), breeds that don't live as long on the average, and breeds that might win medals at shows; however, in Darwin's "survival of the fittest" category their blue ribbons would turn into last place losers. Their inbreeding has lead to many more harmful mutations, as far as surviv-ability goes.

But I digress; with the selective breeding that has gone on so long, and that has become so specialized in purebred cases, why hasn't even one of the breeds at least changed in chromosomal number, even a little."

Why would anybody think that breeding would cause a change in chromosome number? Breeding only picks which combinations reproduce; it can't cause spreading of a mutation that hasn't occurred.

Henry

Gary Jones/ctunie: Do the quote marks around your posts mean that you're typing stuff you read elsewhere but don't understand? It seems that way.

"With all the inbreeding of dogs" -- wait, don't forget the interbreeding too. Duh.

"However, the isolation and inbred effects have lead to purebred breeds that have more structural problems (like hip displasia), breeds that don't live as long on the average, and breeds that might win medals at shows; however, in Darwin's "survival of the fittest" category their blue ribbons would turn into last place losers."

Uh, fitness is equated to winning medals at dog shows?

"Their inbreeding has lead to many more harmful mutations, as far as surviv-ability goes."

Uh, you just said "that don't live as long on the average". Sounds rather Darwinian, so what the heck is your point?

why hasn't even one of the breeds at least changed in chromosomal number, even a little?

Uh, like from 38 to 38.000001?

I can understand why you resist getting an education, because it might lead you to realize just how incredibly foolish you sound.

Actually it is the unsavory, unpopular, and marginal opinions that most need protection. That's because most people are sheep and will take the easy, safe path.

Simply speaking against the universal relgion of the holocaust has become an act of courage - an act that increasingly is bringing esteem on the speaker.

This is as it should be.